Re: If a job needs doing
- From: "Bonj" <a@xxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 19:36:29 +0100
Cheers both for the good points, ... both pretty much seem to be suggesting
the same thing - that it's not the virtue of having the tool that's the
goal, but to have a supported product.
My only issue with that is, 'support' means because you've paid for the
product you have the right to expect someone else (i.e. Microsoft) to fix
bugs that are found by releasing service packs; and while I agree that
(especially since you pay for VB6) the fulfillment of this expectation is an
important thing, I question whether it is actually better than the open
source model where bugs are fixed by the community, and yes - ok, you don't
get the *guarantee* that a specific problem will be fixed as may be
necessary for your product's release or project undertaking or whatever,
what you've got to consider aswell as the guarentee is the average
probability of bugs being fixed. If you consider how c++ has fared,
considering gcc vs. msvc compilers, one has people who get paid to fix bugs
and will get fired if they don't because they have people who have actually
paid for the product, the other has no such remittance to maintenance
programmers but no sales revenue either, but it has a wide range of people
who are proactively interested in fixing bugs themselves and they have the
inclination to do so because they know it's possible. While unfortunately
the former is in a lot of cases considered to be more suited to a
"business-critical" project, when you take a high-level comparison of
technical capabilities, I think they are somewhat similar, with gcc slightly
ahead in conformance, optimization, etc. but msvc ahead in terms of extra
features, but in any case they compete in a lot of the same ballparks - IOW,
if you consider (and engineer) your own product line at such a high level
aswell, enabling you to take advantages of the relative peaks and troughs of
individual ability patterns and bug-fixing trends, you don't suffer from the
lack of a 'support guarantee', and therefore what do you *actually* gain by
choosing to pay for a product rather than getting a free one?
"Bonj" <a@xxxxx> wrote in message
news:ucQbYe1SFHA.2432@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>I gather there's a petition going round to try to persuade Microsoft to
>produce "VB.COM" - or some new version of VB that's backwards compatible,
>out of the backlash from them not providing migration paths from VB6 to
>VB.NET / VB2005.
> Could we not discuss, why this can only be done by Microsoft. This sort of
> thing would be easy for gcc. It could at least be possible to *attempt* an
> open-source project that produces MSIL from VB6 code. While I'm not
> suggesting there aren't specific reasons why it couldn't succeed - at
> least to me, these certainly could do with being made clear, as it's
> perfectly legal to produce (and even sell) tools that make use of other
> Microsoft technologies so why not the .NET framework.... someone could
> simply split the job horizontally (in terms of parser, lexer, optimizer,
> translator, etc) and vertically (in terms of disk access, network
> functions, kernel API, etc) and then split each square into a pyramid and
> fill in each brick with a specification of interfaces and then assign it
> to a particular programmer. In true chicken and egg style the program
> could be written in VB6.
>
>
>
>
.
- References:
- If a job needs doing
- From: Bonj
- If a job needs doing
- Prev by Date: RE: subscript out of range
- Next by Date: Re: Select Case Help
- Previous by thread: Re: If a job needs doing
- Next by thread: Re: FormA.ControlBox=TRUE (where is code?)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
