Re: VBclassic petition
- From: "Martin" <amsterdmr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 10:18:17 +0800
"Dan Barclay" <Dan@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%23gFnVl4ZFHA.3356@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Martin" <amsterdmr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:u4yQLL0ZFHA.3320@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >I have found in the 20+ years that I have been programming, that using
> > Microsoft languages/tools is a sure thing to protect your investment.
> > Until
> > now they have always provided a path to easily upgrade to the next
> > version.
>
> I used to believe that as well. However, things changed with VB in the
mid
> versions. They replaced the long time team members with little crossover.
> Starting with VB, they decided Basic was not a "real" programming
language.
> They started implementing serious breaking changes with VB4.
And then to think that Microsoft owes its very existance to Basic (and its
developers of course).
>
> > Mind you, I have today in my VB6 apps still (little bits of) code that
was
> > originally written in MS Basic Professional 6.0 (Some may remember this
> > DOS
> > and OS/2 product).
>
> Yes, I started with CP/M versions of Microsoft Basic. Some code fragments
> (less line numbers) still exist in my code.
Hehehe I tried in those days, but compiled MS-Basic code resulted in such
huge run time files that those little floppies we used to have at that time
were simply insufficient.
>
> > Sometimes companies balancing on the verge of bankrupcy have very
> > innovative
> > ideas but they usually lack the funds/resources to convert those ideas
> > into
> > something solid and lasting. Borland (i think they are called like that
> > again) and Data Access Corp. (Visual Dataflex) are fine examples.
> > Their products are (barely) kept alive by people who are (oh so
> > fashionable)
> > against everything that Microsoft produces.
>
> Barely kept alive? You clearly haven't seen Delphi in the last few years.
> BTW, where do you think the arcitecture for .Net had its genesis?
Delphi.
>
> > Now, for the last 2 years, I'm planning and researching how to make the
> > transition from VB6 to VB.net and the more I learn about it, the more
> > depressed I get. Not only do I need to learn an entirely new language,
but
> > also I need to rewrite my apps. I have tried that upgrade tool, but that
> > is
> > a joke.
>
> Yes, that's a real problem in the short term. The *core* problem, however
> is far more serious. MS does *not* consider VB to be a real developer
> language. The dev team still considers "improvement" to the language that
> will break your code to be acceptable.
>
> I'm not going to repeat myself at length here, but if you want more of my
> thoughts on the subject:
>
> http://vb.mvps.org/tips/stability.asp
>
> That was written in 2001. Absolutely *nothing* has changed with regard to
> MS's attitude or approach to our VB code. I strongly suggest you consider
> other alternatives. Many of us have worked quietly and loudly with MS
since
> that time. Visit here, sign the petition, if you haven't already (
> http://www.classicvb.org/ ).
>
Interesting article Dan. Of course I have signed the petition. I started
this thread because I wondered if there had been any reply from Microsoft.
Would be nice to put a page on the petition site "Responses from Microsoft".
Even if it would be an empty page, that would still tell a lot ;-)
> > I feel seriously let down by Microsoft. For the first time in 20 years
or
> > so
> > they abrubtly discontinued a development platform to replace it with
> > something else which happens to have some similarities, but is a totally
> > new
> > product never the less.
>
> Yup.
>
> > My company is just a small one. The whole year we're working on
expanding
> > and improving our main app for next years' version. We cannot interrupt
> > that
> > a whole year to make a tranition to a new platform.
>
> Yup, you can't stop the world for this kind of nonsense. One approach
we're
> taking is to move code incrementally. We are able to start "at the
bottom"
> of our library and convert functions to Delphi, then call those from VB.
> Doing that we can maintain a single code base and still make enhancements.
>
> What's more, we can still deploy in native (Win32) versions and move the
> same code to .Net. In addition, we can include components within the main
> exe so we don't have to worry so much about dll hell.
>
> > Where are the good old days that I was happy and excited when MS came
with
> > a
> > new version of (Visual) Basic?
>
> I remember those well. The developer group at MS is entirely different
now.
> That excitement has died and gone to Borland I think.
>
> > Oh well, these were my 2 cents...
>
> Well worth saying. It's unfortunate that MS doesn't care what we think.
>
> Dan
>
>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: VBclassic petition
- From: Dan Barclay
- Re: VBclassic petition
- References:
- Re: VBclassic petition
- From: J French
- Re: VBclassic petition
- From: Dan Barclay
- Re: VBclassic petition
- From: Martin
- Re: VBclassic petition
- From: Dan Barclay
- Re: VBclassic petition
- Prev by Date: Re: Runtime error after deployment
- Next by Date: Re: HTTP request
- Previous by thread: Re: VBclassic petition
- Next by thread: Re: VBclassic petition
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
