Re: VB6, VB2005, or Something Else?

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 10:05:45 -0500, Michael B. Johnson <mjohnson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


¤ >¤ I suppose because "what we have known for several years now", became know
¤ >¤ after we had hundreds of thousands of lines of code in place already. If we
¤ >¤ had been well informed well before writing all of that code I believe it
¤ >¤ would be a different case. At any rate, even code with no GoSubs does not
¤ >¤ easily convert to .net, so I don't really see your point.
¤ >
¤ >Point is that you've had several years now to decide what to do. If you think that continuing to
¤ >complain about it for the next five years is going to help then I have some bad news. That may sound
¤ >harsh and it may be unfortunate but that's the reality of it.
¤
¤ The point should also be made that Microsoft didn't actually /have/ to break our
¤ code. That may sound harsh, but unfortunately, that's the reality of it -
¤ they've broken our existing code and disregard our intellectual property
¤ investment. Advertising that Microsoft is dropping support for VB Classic is an
¤ attempt to smother the VB Classic community's source of oxygen. It may be harsh,
¤ but it has a certain efficient effectiveness - if you're ruthlessly hard-hearted
¤ enough to carry through - sort of like Auschwitz.
¤

No I'm sure Microsoft didn't have to do a lot things that broke code. Of course that would have
placed some significant limitations on the product since adopting certain architectures would have
conflicted with those in .NET, and probably would have taken another year or two before it was
released. They didn't even get all the planned features back into the initial version of Visual
Basic.NET. That's the reality you're ignoring.

¤ >¤ Ignorance is bliss. As if the only problem were the GoSubs, how about the
¤ >¤ control arrays? How about all of the other hundreds of things that make it
¤ >¤ impossible to port the code?
¤ >¤
¤ >
¤ >I'm the one who is apparently ignorant. Why ask me?
¤
¤ We're NOT /asking/ you, senseless one, we're striving in vain to make you see
¤ the truth - but you don't /want/ to see it, so our efforts are useless.
¤

I've already accepted the "truth", but it appears to be an obstacle you're unwilling or unable to
overcome.

¤ >
¤ >I wasn't completely happy with learning new object models either. Especially the data access
¤ >libraries that seem to change every three to five years. Those changes require almost *complete*
¤ >code rewrites.
¤
¤ So, the new object models just couldn't have been bolted onto VB Classic,
¤ leaving existing code the way it was? Hmmm....ADO comes to mind.
¤

Eh no. You can't just seamlessly bolt new technologies on to old technologies, especially when there
are conflicts or incompatibilities. The OO implementation comes to mind.

In any event, generalizing won't solve anything. The specific issues have been discussed ad
infinitum in the past.

¤ >But guess what? I decided to move forward because the alternative is obsolescence.
¤
¤ But things didn't /have/ to be that way, had Microsoft chosen otherwise.
¤ Microsoft has been governed for a long time mainly by the precept of backwards
¤ compatibility. Now that precept has been violated and they feign surprise that
¤ it would have any impact on their customers.
¤

They chose wisely. Any other choice would have saddled them with a second class language for .NET.

¤ >¤ The basis for the survival of our company is taking our code into the
¤ >¤ future. That seems to be at the bottom of Microsoft's agenda.
¤ >
¤ >You have me convinced that it's at the bottom of yours as well.
¤
¤ No, he doesn't have to convince you. He is testifying of his position, something
¤ he is uniquely in a position to know. You ought to take any man's testimony at
¤ face value unless you have reason to believe otherwise - and apply common sense
¤ tests to it. The fact that you ~refuse~ to do so, reveals your hopelessly
¤ closed-minded bias.
¤

Since I continue to work with and support both environments, how does that make me close minded?
That would appear to be the shoe into which you have stepped.

¤ How many different people must answer you before you *get a clue*? Check the
¤ headers and look at our different posting histories - we are not the same person
¤ posting with different personas, we are distinct individuals with radically
¤ different histories and perspectives that somehow have come to a common
¤ conclusion - based on an apparently obvious truth. You may choose to refuse to
¤ discern the truth, but even a blind man knows that the rocks at the bottom of
¤ the cliff won't feel any better for having refused to acknowledge or perceive
¤ them.

You speak much of truth. Woe is you in that it would appear to be your bane.


Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Another Vista Problem(Index.dat)
    ... To quote a popular fantasy author, "the truth you hear may not be the truth ... remunerated in some other fashion) by Microsoft, ... ¤>¤ spread your defeatist attitude? ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)
  • Re: VB6, VB2005, or Something Else?
    ... By the way, the preformance of Gosub in PCode was quite good, it ... ¤ ... I'm not complaining about the necessary changes, ... that Microsoft intentionally and unnecessarily made it more difficult. ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)
  • Re: Rolling the dice on vb6
    ... Stefan Berglund wrote: ... ¤ Yep, long gone. ... Let us say that Microsoft could write a real VB6 -> Fred ... MS could have had their business, could have had my business, and they ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)
  • Re: VB6, VB2005, or Something Else?
    ... It seems to me that you are a proponent for the .net framework, ... Relating to the above 4 items: A small company selling software such as us ... Relating to the above 4 items: Can't Microsoft: ... ¤>we are. ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)
  • Re: VB6, VB2005, or Something Else?
    ... ¤ Duh! ... Microsoft MVP ... GoSub is a bit dated - but no reason to kill it. ... possibly understand how a compiler or platform might work. ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)