Re: Why the VB6 versus VB.NET contest is baloney



Tom Shelton wrote:
On Dec 4, 12:08 pm, dpb <n...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Tom Shelton wrote:
On Dec 3, 2:26 pm, "Michael C" <nos...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"dpb" <n...@xxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:fj1qp9$ujh$1@xxxxxxxxxxx
The conclusion of this is that whatever development environment/language
you select, imo it should be a language that has a recognized Standard and
has compilers from more than one vendor. You then have a core language
with possible vendor-specific and/or OS-specific extensions, but you're
not tied into a single vendor with no real recourse.
Great idea but is that possible for a high level language?
Michael
C#, the CTS, and the core of the .NET framework are ISO standards.
There are currently 3 C# compilers - Microsoft's C# compiler, Novell's
Mono compiler, and the dotGNU compiler. The Mono project also has a
VB.NET compiler as well.
So, yes it's possible.
Doggone, Tom, ya' go and give away the secret... :)

Seriously, I kept providing the [insert your favorite Standard language]
template thinking Michael was trying to sandbag but apparently not.
That's a sad commentary imo on the state of awareness in general of even
the existence of, what more adherence to, standards in the software
development community. It's not, unfortunately, unique at all, however.
It is still endemic that even in Fortran where the F77 Standard has
now been in existence for 30 _years_(!) that most seem to think the
"standard" is whatever their particular compiler of choice accepts.


I'm surprised that he didn't mention C# as well. It's another factor
in my decision to use C#.

I don't know the full status of C# w/ respect to the proprietary parts
that are outside the scope of the Standard as to how crippled that
leaves the environment or how aggressive MS has been and intends to be
on trying to remain the 900-lb gorilla on the standards committee and in
protecting their competitive advantage.


Well, the core is pretty functional - and is FULLY implemented in
Mono. As for the proprietary parts - ASP.NET, ADO.NET, and WinForms,
being the biggest - well, in the current version they are something
like 99% implemented. The nice thing about Mono is that it runs on
Linux, Mac OS X, FreeBSD, and several other OS's. And it's binary
compatible - so that an application compiled with visual studio
(provided it doesn't use any references not available to mono), can be
xcopied to my linux boxen and run. It works the other way as well - I
can create an app in monodevelop, copy it over to my winders box, and
it works just fine on the ms runtime. It's still not as cross
platform as Java - but, it's pretty close.


The biggest question going forward imo is whether it will "grow legs" so
to speak, independent of MS so that it becomes self-perpetuating going
forward or whether the next great idea from Redmond leaves it as a niche
backwater product despite its status of having an ISO Standard in effect.


Well, it's being used for several popular apps on the Linux desktop.
Tomboy, Banshee, FSpot, and Beagle come to mind. Now there is
controversy in the free software community about whether Mono should
be used or not - but, I would say it is catching on despite the free
software extremists.


That sounds promising, certainly. It would likely be high on my candidate list if were to get involved in something going forward that had needs in that direction. There's always that "controversy" in the free software extremist...I think they exist for the furor only for the most part. :(

--
.