Re: Microsoft MVPs Say They Want Old VB Back
- From: Doug Taylor <Doug.TaylorNTP@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:40:35 +0100
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 13:54:39 -0500, "Mitchell S. Honnert"
<news@honnert~R~E~M~O~V~E~.com> wrote:
>>Delphi is a good example though of how a designed language can develop
>>without the catostrophic break that occured with VB6 to vb.net.
>The key to what you are saying, I think, is "designed". As I'm sure you
>know, Delphi was designed from the ground up to be an OO language. It
>conformed to the Pascal standards, but this was far and away less of a
>burden than having to accommodate the "language stability" of previous
>versions. I'm guessing you would agree, but I would theorize that Delphi
>hasn't required a major overhaul like VB had between VB6 and VB.NET because
>Delphi's birth itself was a major overhaul on the current programming
>methods of the day.
Anders and Neil also made some very simplistic but in hindsight ground
breaking decisions, when OO was added to BP5.5 they decided to treat
OO as just an extention to the Pascal Record type, thus objects gained
the With construct and the record dereferencing operator ".", this I
found much easier to get to grips with than the C++ operators, which
to me seemed unatural.
It also meant that you could just conceive an object as a super
record, i.e. a record with methods.
I also agree that conforming to Wirth's minimilistic standards was
trivial, but then key to his languages has always been the concept of
building complexity from the available simple types. In many ways the
only plus factor for VB was having optional parameters in procedure
declarations.
>
>Slightly off topic: one of my favorite quips at the time was "The only
>problem with Delphi is that it's Borland Delphi and not Microsoft Delphi."
>It had most everything a programmer wanted in a language, but (because of
>VB's deathgrip on language stability, ironically enough), it was more
>difficult to find Delphi work.
>
> - Mitchell S. Honnert
>
>
>"Doug Taylor" <Doug.TaylorNTP@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:tbnl4112f50iit9fudu8kgds0csjenatdn@xxxxxxxxxx
>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 10:18:28 -0500, "Mitchell S. Honnert"
>> <news@honnert~R~E~M~O~V~E~.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> People that use VB in their jobs. (Ranges from 3,000,000 to 6,000,000
>>>> depending on where you get your numbers.)
>>>>From this wording, someone would be included in this number if they did
>>>the
>>>majority of their day-to-day work in VB.NET and, when a bug cropped up or
>>>some minor change was necessary, did some work in the VB6 IDE. Your point
>>>about hard data is well taken. It could be applied to this stat as well.
>>>A
>>>much better hard number would not be people who just "use" VB6, but do the
>>>majority of their work in VB6.
>>>
>>>>> There were a hell of a lot of COBOL programmers leading up to Y2K; it
>>>>> didn't mean they *liked* COBOL, just that the money was good.
>>>> And?
>>>The Y2K COBOL programmers are an example of the danger is measuring a
>>>languages "popularity" by how many people are using it. So, just because
>>>there are 3,000,000 to 6,000,000 people who spend more than zero hours a
>>>year working with VB6, it doesn't necessarily follow that those people are
>>>in lockstep agreement that MS should have created VB7 instead of VB.NET.
>>>Yes, it is conjecture, but it is based on my experience. One can make a
>>>very good argument that, from a company's standpoint, it makes sense to
>>>keep
>>>using VB6 or even that a VB.COM would increase a VB6 programmers
>>>productivity, but in my experience people don't like using VB6 any more.
>>>The programmers themselves want to move to VB.NET, even if their bosses
>>>don't want them to. This type of programmer isn't exactly the best
>>>"poster
>>>child" for your argument.
>>>
>>>> Do you have hard facts as to the rise or sale of Delphi? I admit that I
>>>> am ignorant concerning the popularity of Delphi.
>>>Sorry, Jim. I know you won't like this, but all of my evidence is
>>>anecdotal. I can only tell you what I've experienced.
>>>
>> Delphi is a good example though of how a designed language can develop
>> without the catostrophic break that occured with VB6 to vb.net.
>> Delphi 7 is internally numbered as version 15 and though I haven't
>> tried it I bet a program written for version 1 would run on it with
>> little or no modification. But then Pascal, like C, C++ have ISO
>> standards, so compilers have to be written to cope with at least the
>> base standard. In addition Kompass and then Borland had a policy of
>> writing the next compiler using the existing version, this ensured
>> code compatibilty. Unfortunately, Basic has never been constrained by
>> any standards, so it grew, yet still had to support ideas that were
>> good at the time, but later seemed stupid. You could write GOSUB
>> xxxxx in VB6, but how many VB6 programs actually used that feature.
>>
>> It was this and many other arcane constructs that led to MS wanting to
>> have a clean break, I like many others agree that a far better job
>> could have been made of the upgrade tool, but I for one have had very
>> few problems running my code through it.
>>
>> I agree with Mitchell, I feel that a petition focused on providing a
>> better migration tool would be more likely to succeed, even three
>> years after the release of .Net
>>>> This is simply a company that knows that they can do anything they damn
>>>> well please and are not shy about cramming what THEY want down the
>>>> throats
>>>> of their customers.
>>>Again, I apologize for not having the time to research any hard data for
>>>you, but I can relate my experience. I made this same point with
>>>Herfried,
>>>but everyone I knew viewed the coming of VS.NET as a long overdue answer
>>>to
>>>the prayer of a major overhaul to the Visual Basic language. So, in
>>>effect,
>>>we had the exact opposite viewpoint as you, namely that MS was finally
>>>giving us something we'd been asking for for a long time instead of
>>>something that was being forced on us without any kind of prompt. And
>>>when
>>>it comes down to it, I guess this difference in viewpoint is at the heard
>>>of
>>>all of the other details we've been "discussing".
>>>
>>> - Mitchell S. Honnert
>>>
>>>
>>>"Jim Hubbard" <reply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>news:X7KdnZTo_YHE29ffRVn-2A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>
>>>> "Mitchell S. Honnert" <news@honnert~R~E~M~O~V~E~.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:%23PttVKLNFHA.3076@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> "Jim Hubbard" <reply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>> news:LKadnXgrQJkONtTfRVn-tg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Mitchell S. Honnert" <news@honnert~R~E~M~O~V~E~.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:ONy%23d5INFHA.1096@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>> This could have been done with VB.Net. Microsoft saw fit to allow C
>>>>>>>> and C++ code to be able to be compiled within the Visual Studio IDE,
>>>>>>>> but not Visual Basic. Why not?
>>>>>>> Maybe it was because C++ wasn't screwed up like VB6 was.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IYHO? Religous zeal is best relegated to religion.
>>>>> "Religious zeal"? I mention in the post that I don't know C++, so why
>>>>> would I be a C++ zealot? Notice the word "maybe" there. I really did
>>>>> mean maybe.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Maybe MS didn't want the taint of VB6 at all associated with their
>>>>>>>next-generation application development tool.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What "taint"? The opinions of programming language zealots? I, and
>>>>>> 4,000,000+ others, respectfully disagree.
>>>>> I'm not doubting the veracity of your data, but I do have an honest
>>>>> question here: what is the "4,000,000+"? Is it people who use VB6?
>>>>> Use
>>>>> VB6 exclusively?
>>>>
>>>> People that use VB in their jobs. (Ranges from 3,000,000 to 6,000,000
>>>> depending on where you get your numbers.) I don't know of any
>>>> programmers
>>>> that use any language exclusively.
>>>>
>>>>>In any case, you apparently presume that all of the those programmers
>>>>>4,000,000 actually *like* programming in VB6. I put it to you that a
>>>>>significant portion of those programmers, if not the majority, would
>>>>>give
>>>>>their eye teeth to be able to never see VB6 code again in their life.
>>>>
>>>> Here you go again with suppositions instead of facts. I will only
>>>> discuss
>>>> facts about this thread as all other arguments are futile.
>>>>
>>>>> There were a hell of a lot of COBOL programmers leading up to Y2K; it
>>>>> didn't mean they *liked* COBOL, just that the money was good.
>>>>
>>>> And?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>I've stated before that VB6 was a great tool for the time, but by
>>>>>>>today's standards it's crap. I don't know C++, but my assumption was
>>>>>>>that it was OK the way it was, whereas VB was long overdue for a major
>>>>>>>overhaul.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> According to whom?
>>>>> Me. I've used special care in this thread not to speak for anyone else
>>>>> but me. All opinions in my posts are mine.
>>>>
>>>> Good enough.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure there were some issues, but never was there a call by the classic
>>>>>> Visual Basic community for a completely new language. This
>>>>>> hallucination is uniquely Microsoft's.
>>>>> In another post, I mention how the runaway popularity of Delphi
>>>>> signaled
>>>>> to MS the inherent demand for a better RAD tool than VB6.
>>>>
>>>> Do you have hard facts as to the rise or sale of Delphi? I admit that I
>>>> am ignorant concerning the popularity of Delphi.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't think so. If I understand things correctly, VB.COM would be
>>>>>>>> an IDE that integrated both VB6 and VB.Net features while fixing
>>>>>>>> known
>>>>>>>> VB6 issues. in other words, something that should have been a part
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> VB.Net.
>>>>>>> I think your statement above is evidence of the mixed signals in the
>>>>>>> petition. The petition is calling for a major upgrade to VB6 and yet
>>>>>>> you say that "we'd" be happy with just a better upgrade tool.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I said we'd all be happy to move on. Moving on is (if made possible
>>>>>> by
>>>>>> an upgrade too that actually worked for larger projects) preferable to
>>>>>> rewriting our existing codebase.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (I don't think you are using the royal "we", so I'm assuming you are
>>>>>>> speaking on behalf of the petitioners.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not all of them. As you will notice, I am only a supporter of the
>>>>>> petition.....not an author.
>>>>> OK. Point taken. I do still happen to believe that a solution of a
>>>>> better upgrade tool is far more in line with the problems stated in the
>>>>> petition.
>>>>
>>>> Since we have neither solution, either would be an improvement.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The conclusion I draw from this is that petitioners don't really want
>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>address the problems stated in the petition itself, but the unstated
>>>>>>>"problem" that they think VB.NET should never have been developed in
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>first place.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't draw that conclusion at all. I haven't seen anyhting in the
>>>>>> petition that says that Microsoft should not have produced a new
>>>>>> programming language. It deals mainly with backwards compatibility
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> continued use of the HUGE VB6 codebase in use.
>>>>> The fact that there is no mention of this in the petition is exactly my
>>>>> point. In this thread, I've noticed that the strongest supporters of
>>>>> the
>>>>> petition are the very same people that believe that MS should have
>>>>> developed VB7 instead of VB.NET. So, the reason (IMHO) that the
>>>>> petitioners want VB.COM is not to address the problems listed in the
>>>>> petition, but to get what they wanted all along, VB7.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't agree.
>>>>>>> Which part of what I said don't you agree with? That a better
>>>>>>> upgrade
>>>>>>> tool wouldn't solve the problems stated in the petition? That VB.COM
>>>>>>> would be a major undertaking?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To your statement....."that the proposed solution is overkill." It is
>>>>>> no less than the C/C++ programmers recieved.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What they are asking for in VB.COM is exactly what the C/C++
>>>>>>>> programmers got in Visual Studio .Net.
>>>>>>> I've heard this argument used several times and I have the same
>>>>>>> response every time. Just because VS.NET's support of C/C++ is in
>>>>>>> principle the same as a theoretical support for VB6 in VS.NET it
>>>>>>> doesn't mean that it makes economic sense to invest in this
>>>>>>> development. To use an analogy I've used before, if I already have a
>>>>>>> mortgage, the principle of getting a loan to buy a house is the same,
>>>>>>> but that doesn't mean I can buy *another* house. So, just because
>>>>>>> Microsoft felt it was a good investment to incorporate C/C++ into
>>>>>>> VS.NET doesn't mean that (especially so far after the fact) it would
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>> a good investment (from their perspective) to do it for VB6.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know the financial situation, costs or revenues gained from
>>>>>> Visual Basic or C++. Niether do you. This is pure speculation on
>>>>>> your
>>>>>> part. I could just as easily argue that Visual Basic 6 was more
>>>>>> financially feasable because of the enormous 3rd party component
>>>>>> market
>>>>>> that supports it. But, without hard data, that would be just as
>>>>>> speculative as your argument.
>>>>> Agreed. We're both speculating. But in speculating, we uncover each
>>>>> other's attitudes and presumptions about the issues. And I rather
>>>>> enjoy
>>>>> the conversation. Else I wouldn't be keeping a thread going that is
>>>>> already 15 levels deep. :-)
>>>>
>>>> I rarely start threads.....but when I do.......
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> (In all fairness, a great deal of this thread has been reduced to pure
>>>>>> speculation - including my speculation on the reasons for Microsoft's
>>>>>> abandonment of the largest programming group on history. Perhaps we
>>>>>> should stick to what can be tested and proven?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I happen to think one of the biggest reasons that C/C++ was supported
>>>>>>> in VS.NET and not VB6 is related to Doug's original point about
>>>>>>> VB.COM
>>>>>>> being a "dead-end project". In practical terms, VB6 wasn't
>>>>>>> incorporated into the original version of VS.NET (nor will it be with
>>>>>>> VB.COM) for the simple reason that MS programmers themselves use
>>>>>>> C/C++
>>>>>>> more than VB.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Finally we agree on something.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Too many programmers would have viewed being assigned to the
>>>>>>> "VB6.NET"
>>>>>>> as a one-way ticket to professional oblivion. "Oh, so you worked on
>>>>>>> the VB6.NET project, eh? That's nice. Next!"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the development was continued (as requested in the petition, and
>>>>>> has
>>>>>> been Microsoft's track record with Visual Basic since it's inception)
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> wouldn't be a one-way ticket. In fact, those programmers would have a
>>>>>> greater number of companies desiring their services - just as they did
>>>>>> with the most popular programming language in the world - VB 6.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The old, tired argument that you are insinuating that these
>>>>>> professional
>>>>>> developers at Microsoft buy into (that classic Visual Basic is a "toy
>>>>>> language") is only put forth by those ignorant of the business needs
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the businesses that have adopted Visual Basic 6 as their premier RAD
>>>>>> tool.
>>>>> I think you are confusing *my* attitude with the attitude that I
>>>>> speculate is prominant in MS.
>>>>
>>>> No. I understand that you are projecting your suppositions on the
>>>> Microsoft team. And, I agree with you. That very well may have been an
>>>> issue for them, but it shouldn't have been.
>>>>
>>>>>I consider myself to be a big supporter of Visual Basic as a whole,
>>>>>railing against the stereotype that VB isn't for "real programmers".
>>>>>Besides, I believe that MS employees would consider being assigned to
>>>>>VB.COM a dead-end job not because it's *Visual Basic*, but because it's
>>>>>a
>>>>>dead *version* (from MS's standpoint) of Visual Basic. So, while MS
>>>>>employees may have a false and unjustified stereotype of the person who
>>>>>programs in Visual Basic, the reason (IMHO) that they wouldn't want to
>>>>>work on the project is they'd rather work for a project that was
>>>>>enhancing
>>>>>a product for the future rather than extending the life-time of an aged
>>>>>product.
>>>>
>>>> You're right. It is s dead version. But it is only so because
>>>> Microsoft
>>>> decided to abandon it. There are no technical issues that would
>>>> preclude
>>>> Microsoft's implementation of a serious upgrade tool, the inclusion of
>>>> classic Visual Basic in the current Visual Studio .Net IDE or that would
>>>> preclude the enhancement of the language.
>>>>
>>>> This is simply a company that knows that they can do anything they damn
>>>> well please and are not shy about cramming what THEY want down the
>>>> throats
>>>> of their customers.
>>>>
>>>> Jim Hubbard
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
.
- References:
- Re: Microsoft MVPs Say They Want Old VB Back
- From: Doug Taylor
- Re: Microsoft MVPs Say They Want Old VB Back
- From: Mitchell S. Honnert
- Re: Microsoft MVPs Say They Want Old VB Back
- Prev by Date: Re: activeX doesn't dispose
- Next by Date: How to set up a COM so a C++ app can access my VB .Net data
- Previous by thread: Re: Microsoft MVPs Say They Want Old VB Back
- Next by thread: Re: Microsoft MVPs Say They Want Old VB Back
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
