Re: (1/2 OT) Reasons to begin with .Net

Tech Tip: Click here to run a free scan for Windows Errors and optimize PC performance

Hi Wolfgang,

"Wolfgang Enzinger" <weusenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:ope8g4dnc1nrerdsc5a7avpkmq5580k4hn@xxxxxxxxxx

Hmmmm ... I honestly never heard this version before, and I'm not sure
if I can believe it. I'm sorry to say that but a certain part of your
posts here in the last months didn't exactly feed your credibility,
IMHO. OTOH, I admit that I'm not too deeply involved into internals
here, so at the moment I'm willing to assume it's true.


Well I suggest you research the facts. Use Google, look at the conversations that occurred. The facts, which I've already stated are there to be verified. I'm not sure you will find proof that the concept of integrating VB6 into VS IDE was mine, nor my role in the classic petition, but I think if you ask Karl or anyone who was privy to that they will verify that. My article on VSM that I posted a link to does verify my pubic stated position at the time.
You can also research and find various Microsoft responses in actions at that time as well as disucssions in blgos and elsewhere. As a response Microsoft did extend support for VB6. They also included statements for depreciation rules in the VB 7 (and later) language specifications.
And you can also see at that time Microsoft was, as some put it, betting the company on .NET. At that time they were still talking about Vista being mainly a managed OS, and .NET was getting branded on everything. right or wrong, that was clearly the company direction at that time. It doesn't take a genius to see that any move they made that could be seen as back tracking on that direction would meet with strong opposition inside Microsoft. The two different approaches: "bring VB6 forward to work more closely with .NET" versus "continue VB6 because we don't want .NET" were diametrically opposed as far as Microsoft was concerned.




That said, I think that there were (and are) probably mistakes on both
sides, but one thing is sure: MS made the first one.

And ? Two wrongs never make a right. Attacking them or .NET is and did just distant them from discussions.



Sadly others, after the first wave of signatories, then went about
adding a FAQ which criticized .NET and campaigns that were targeted against
.NET, not, as it should have been, at bringing VB6 forward. Sadly I really
think some people can't see how those two things are a world apart.

Again, MS started this.


And ? When people make mistakes you solve that by working together not by going to war.


They were the ones who tried to make everyone
believe that VB.NET is simply an upgrade to VB6. The lie strikes back.



Acutally I think they were very honest that it wasnt' a simple upgrade. They made it clear from the outset that it coudl take a lot of work to port a VB6 app to .NET



Today, it's unlikely to see VB6 being integrated
into the VS IDE, those original teams long gone for the VB6 IDE.

Yeah, for a *very* long time. To be exact, that happened long *before*,
as you say, MS was willing to listen. Again, it's no wonder that under
these circumstances one is not willing to trust them too much.

I for one still haven't given up hope completely, though.


I doubt very much they would resurrect VB6 now. Now I would say the last glimmer of hope in that direction would be for them to open source all or part of VB6. And I don't hold much hopes there as the only times I have seen Microsoft open source stuff is with communities interested in moving forward and working with Microsoft's current and future directions. 64 bits and higher, parallel computing and all those types of needs they can probably solve easier as part of an overall legacy management program using virtualization








.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: (1/2 OT) Reasons to begin with .Net
    ... because Microsoft did listen, engaged and tried to respond, but the message ... When I approached Karl and original discussed the concept of VB6 in the VS ... into the VS IDE, those original teams long gone for the VB6 IDE. ... You clearly have no idea as to the facts, and you clearly are fixated on personal attacks and attacks against .NET as you chosen persona of "dot nyet" illustrates. ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)
  • Re: (1/2 OT) Reasons to begin with .Net
    ... because Microsoft did listen, engaged and tried to respond, but the message ... When I approached Karl and original discussed the concept of VB6 in the VS ... into the VS IDE, those original teams long gone for the VB6 IDE. ... that - slimy and sleazy. ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)
  • Re: Microsoft not content with "dissing" just the Classic VB Developer Army....
    ... I've read the petition and I can't ... Microsoft can satisfy the "issues" in the petition (which pretty much boil ... Nothing but adding unmanaged VB6 into the VS.NET IDE ... COM interop support, a poor code conversion wizard, the ending of mainstream ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb)
  • Re: EXE Erstellen
    ... Denn dass die MSDN-Versionen von VB6, ob auf CD/DVD oder per Subscription b/gezogen, unter eine persönliche Lizenz fallen, ist ja auch nicht neu. ... M.E. wird da ein Popanz aufgezogen - und es wird wieder einmal versucht, die Nachbesserung unternehmerischer Fehler Microsoft unterzuschieben. ... Software ist von beiden Phänomenen nicht betroffen. ... Im Falle des Rechtsstreits um die Einbindung von Objekten wären wahrscheinlich zahlreiche andere Hersteller ebenfalls betroffen. ...
    (microsoft.public.de.german.entwickler.dotnet.vb)
  • Re: Why to use VBA?
    ... Please don call me selfish for not counting VB; YES MS did lose some VB developers that were unwilling to port to new platform BUT the number of office customers is not comparable to VB 6! ... The fact is that VB.NET is sufficiently incompatible with the previous version of VB (VB6, from which VBA is derived) that for all practical purposes an upgrade wasn't possible, you had to rewrite the code more or less from scratch. ... The automated code converters provided by Microsoft were next to useless, and the fact that Microsoft went and changed lots of names of objects and properties meant that late-binding code wouldn't work without rewrite because it couldn't be automatically converted at all. ...
    (microsoft.public.word.vba.general)