Re: Was going to.........

Yes.

"Scott M." <s-mar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Ok703u5PKHA.1512@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"mayayana" <mayaXXyana@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eIhdl03PKHA.4656@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Interesting post, but not what was being
discussed or asked. The question
was about MS Office, not Windows itself.

You claimed VB.Net was vastly superior to VB.
Olaf challenged that claim, saying that if it
were true then MS should be writing their software
in .Net. His logic was that MS software is generally
C++/COM, and VB is COM-centric while measuring
up favorably to C++. So if VB.Net is so much better
than VB it follows that it would also be far superior
to C++. You implicitly accepted that point, saying
that MS wasn't writing software in .Net simply because
it would be too much work -- the software was already
in C++ and a rewrite wouldn't be practical.

Do you follow that so far? ...

No, I don't. I didn't implicity accept that point at all. You did. I
don't think any serious developer out there would have ever said that VB 6
measures up favorable against C++ from a performance stand point. That's
not up for debate, it's a fact.

I'm saying that when you have a product line that is based on a certain
architecture and you've already invested literally BILLIONS of dollars
into the MILLIONS of lines of resulting code and that code is working for
you, you don't just change over to something else that would involve a
complete rewrite.

This view is followed every single day out in the real world, where
companies follow the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it (and spend the man
hours and money)" paradigm.

So I pointed out
that MS actually already tried replacing C++ with .Net,
attempting to code all of Windows in .Net, and the
project failed, holding up Vista.

That's not what the article says. It doesn't say anything about failure.
It says that the decision was made not to proceed down that line of
development. And, the reason is because of what I just stated above.

[ And why wouldn't it, of course? .Net is a Java clone.
An OS is generally a low-level interface that provides
a *platform* on top of the hardware, for software to
use. High-level software like Java/.Net is at the other
extreme. It's software built on top of software. ]

I can't spell it out any more clearly. You'll just
have to extrapolate the connection for yourself.

And, for what it's worth, your
spin on the "managed code" quote can be
interpreted in different ways.


Spin? That was a quote from the article. It wasn't
my statement. If you read the article you'll get the
context of the quote.

I don't think you'd run into so much disagreement
about .Net if you didn't take such extreme positions.
How did you get yourself into this corner where you're
vehemently defending and "evangelizing" a simple
tool with religious fervor? Trolling other groups to tell
people they're lost until they switch to your tool of
choice? Does that really make sense? Why does it
matter to you that others prefer to use other tools?
Why should it even matter that some people may
dislike your tool of choice, so long as it works for you?
Do you really have to get everyone's approval before you
can proceed on your own course?

I haven't evangelized anything. And, I haven't said anything extreme. I
haven't trolled, nor have I slung insults, so I really can't speak to any
of that.

What I can say and have simply said is that VB 6 has been superceded with
another programming paradigm that is vastly superior to VB 6. Benchmark
testing over the last 8 years proves this. This is not an opinion up for
feverent debate by those who still like and use VB 6. No one is taking
your VB 6 away from you (other than MS, who no longer supports it). If
you *like* it, fine. But there is a difference between what you *like*
and performance benchmarks. Am I going to say that absolutely EVERY task
you could ever want to do will perform better in .NET vs. VB 6? No,
because any sensible person knows never to say never. But the jury is
certainly in when it comes to the overall productivity gains and
performance gains, not to mention the new capabilities available to a
developer that just weren't there in VB 6.

You can reply and explain you opinion 'till the cows come home, but the
facts are what they are.

It seems to me that some of the regular posters here just want to be
resentful of others who actually have experience in both VB 6 and .NET and
want to share that here. It's hard to take advice from someone about
.NET, when they are mis-informed and inexperienced with it.

-Scott


From what I hear there seem to be a lot ot people
who are very pleased with .Net. Probably the same
is true for Java. The difference is that Java people
are not going around claiming that Java is the next
generation of programming, that it's the best tool for
everything, and that all non-Java users are Luddites
who resist "upgrading to newer technologies".


Because MS Office is made up of literally millions of lines of code
and
to
migrate it to .NET just because isn't worth the effort.

Actually it's the other way around. Microsoft *was*
working on rewriting Windows itself in .Net, until
they finally gave up because .Net was so stunningly
slow and bloated that it wasn't feasible.

Quote: "But managed code was going to require machines
that weren't going to be available for five years or more"


http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/developer/the_dirty_little_secret_abo
ut_longhorn.html

Why they ever thought Windows.Net was a good idea
in the first place is hard to imagine. Why put wrappers
around the platform itself? I don't know. Maybe there was
some kind of reasonable logic. But it didn't fly, in any case.










.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Was going to.........
    ... was about MS Office, not Windows itself. ... You claimed VB.Net was vastly superior to VB. ... Olaf challenged that claim, saying that if it ... That was a quote from the article. ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)
  • Re: Was going to.........
    ... was about MS Office, not Windows itself. ... Olaf challenged that claim, saying that if it ... .Net is a Java clone. ... That was a quote from the article. ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)
  • Re: 16-bit screen coordinates
    ... So are you saying that 95, ... To quote from one of the articles you site: "Windows 95, ...
    (microsoft.public.vc.mfc)
  • Re: Microsoft Update failures
    ... >>> last time I posted a message with this error, I received a reply saying that ... >>> the Cryptographic Service must be running but there is no Cryptographic ... > Service does not show as a service under Windows 2000. ... Care to quote something from it that makes you think that? ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsupdate)
  • Re: Connecting to the Internet
    ... > APIs was a lot easier than learning Registry APIs.) ... be installed in all versions of Windows that you choose to support. ... I hope you don't mind me saying you have "missed the boat". ... Vague questions such as that are often ignored in Microsoft newsgroups ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.winapi)
Loading