Re: Please do NOT sign the VB.COM petition

Tech-Archive recommends: Speed Up your PC by fixing your registry

> As you say; the /current/ version "works" - Today.
> A /future/ version would *guarantee* that it would /continue/
> to work "Tomorrow".

But there is no reasonable expectation that a software development
company will guarantee that its software will always work "tomorrow".

I think a natural part of programming language's (and any
application, for that matter) is the principle of diminishing support. One
can argue the specifics of how long a particular application should be fully
supported by its developer, but I don't think it's a controversial concept
that a developer should not have to support a product *forever*. It's a
given that over time, a developer has a diminishing support responsibility.

As this relates to VB6, I don't think Microsoft has made a secret out of
its scheduled plans to reduce support for VB6. I take it that a major
gripe of the petitioners is that, in practical terms, there are so many
people still using VB6 that the normal "diminishing support" schedule
does not apply. Perhaps surprising to some, I would agree. Where
the disagreement with the petitioners comes is with the distinction
between "support" and "enhancing and extending". When MS, or
whatever programming language developer, puts out a revolutionary
upgrade to a language (as it did with VB.NET), what it owes its
customers is a reasonable upgrade path and longer-than-normal
support period. In my opinion, "reasonable" doesn't mean as easy as
porting code from VB5 to VB6, but neither does it mean having to
almost start from scratch. What the company does *not* owe its
customers is an unending flow of enhancements and upgrades to the
legacy product. Patches and bug fixes, yes, but not major
enhancements. In my opinion, incorporating VB6 into the VS.NET
would leave the realm of "support" and enter that of "extending
and enhancing".

> Since VB "proper" is no longer "supported", it will no longer be
> considered in /any/ future deliberations regarding the development
> of /anything/ within the Redmond Reality Distortion Zone.
And your point is? If Microsoft had to consider every single version of
its previous applications, it would get so bogged down, that it wouldn't
be able to develop any new software. Without the principle of
diminishing support, a company wouldn't be able to stay in business
and there wouldn't *be* a company to support any legacy applications.

> In short, there will no longer be any /reason/ for Our Friends in
> Redmond /not/ to break it. And therein lies /my/ concern.
If you don't want to break your VB6 applications, then don't run them on
operating system that don't support VB6. I don't know what Microsoft's
official stance is on which versions of Windows support VB6, but it would
seem perfectly reasonable to me for Microsoft to reduce the amount of
effort it puts into making VB6 compatible with subsequent releases of
Windows.

But this is besides the point of the petition. It wasn't asking
for Microsoft to extend the mainstream support period or improve the
upgrade wizard; it was asking Microsoft to give them what they
wanted all along, VB7.

- Mitchell S. Honnert




- Mitchell S. Honnert



"Phill. W" <P.A.Ward@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:d3345b$o4b$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Mitchell S. Honnert" <news@honnert~R~E~M~O~V~E~.com> wrote in message
> news:u3oug9sOFHA.2604@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> . . .
>> "1. Preservation of assets
> . . .
>> The *current* version of VB6 meets these criteria, so what's the
>> justification for a "future version"?
>
> As you say; the /current/ version "works" - Today.
> A /future/ version would *guarantee* that it would /continue/
> to work "Tomorrow".
>
> Since VB "proper" is no longer "supported", it will no longer be
> considered in /any/ future deliberations regarding the development
> of /anything/ within the Redmond Reality Distortion Zone.
>
> In short, there will no longer be any /reason/ for Our Friends in
> Redmond /not/ to break it. And therein lies /my/ concern.
>
> . . .
>> In other words, they wanted MS to create Visual Basic 7
>> instead of VB.NET.
>
> And, as far as /I /understand things, they /did/ write VB7, then
> handed it lock, stock and barrel to the ".Net Team", who promptly
> tossed it into the bin and created VB.Net anyway.
> They /could/ have re-written the VB7 compiler to produce
> IL code and fed that into the .Net linker had they /wanted/ to,
> thereby allowing the vast amounts of "legacy" VB6 assets to
> continue to work, without recoding, atop the .Net Framework
> (albeit less efficiently, perhaps). But they chose not to, instead
> handing us a new language, based on new paradigms and with no
> serious "upgrade" mechanism short of complete rewrites.
>
> Regards,
> Phill W.
>
>



.

Relevant Pages

  • Migrate from VB5 to VB6?
    ... I work for a financial company and we have a small Payroll Application ... further support the application, so our team is given the task to ... Our team currently uses VB6, my main question is whether we should ... upgrade the application to VB6, or to stay with VB5, given the follow ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)
  • Re: Migrate from VB5 to VB6?
    ... >further support the application, so our team is given the task to ... >application version upgrade involves just copying the executable, ... >without touching the VB support files. ... Why are you currently using VB6 if your not going to use the ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)
  • Re: Will VB6 work on Windows Vista
    ... I've checked with another developer using the beta of Vista and this is ... The VB6 IDE works fine on Vista. ... given that I have never heard any support of it. ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)
  • Re: Foxpro upgrade advice
    ... You don't HAVE to upgrade it - but it makes sense to support it ... on the newer operating systems - ... developer, but am having to support this ...
    (microsoft.public.fox.helpwanted)
  • Will Lombardo distribute the grid?
    ... it promotes a syndrome too loose to her unusual ... Let's smash in support of the gastric warehouses, ... There Marwan will draft the developer, ... It can especially search inland and deals our prospective, ...
    (sci.crypt)