| Groups | Blog | Home |
visual studio .net general : VB.NET is the "New Coke" of the computing world.
Coke of the computing world. Unfortunately, one cannot just stock up on Coca Cola, one must get a new language. Ruby. It is a descendant of Algol 60 as is VB. Why switch to .NET when Microsoft is not even using it for its applications? This sort of reminds me of MFC too, MFC was good enough for other people's programs but never Microsoft's own. But unlike MFC's C++, VB doesn't even get the respect of having a classic version included in VS.NET. C++ programmers get to have their cake and eat it too with Managed C++ and regular C++ being supported under VS.NET. MFC is still there too along with ATL 7. VB developers are getting the short end of the stick. There was no VB classic support in .NET. The C++ users got everything they wanted, and VB users got nothing. Goes to show what MS thinks of 60% of their developer base, which coincidentally are VB programmers and NOT C++ programmers. Elitism? Yes, I suspect so. Where are the Raymond Chens? What is happening to backward and forward compatiblity? If MS won't guarentee backward and forward compatibility, then what's the point? My VB program users may as well use Linux if that is the case! There was a time, when the old guard was still there, that a program written in 1991 would run in 2001. Windows Forms are already slated for obsolescence with Avalon coming up in Longhorn. I can't name one brand name MS product that is built using the ..NET framework. Is .NET not good enough for Microsoft products? When I was a MFC developer I always wondered why MS didn't use it for their products. This being the case, I cannot see why VB users would trust MS to learn VB.NET when MS can just dump them again when its whim changes. That is why I propose that fellow VB users just upgrade to Ruby. No, I won't drink the "New Coke", I liked the old one much better.
Have you visited and signed the petition?
http://classicvb.org/Petition/ HTH, Bryan ____________________________________________________________ New Vision Software "When the going gets weird," Bryan Stafford "the weird turn pro." alpine_don'tsendspam@mvps.org Hunter S. Thompson - Microsoft MVP-Visual Basic Fear and Loathing in LasVegas On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 18:59:25 -0800, "Mike Cox" [quoted text, click to view] <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Remember when Coca Cola came out with "New Coke"? I think VB.NET is the New >Coke of the computing world. Unfortunately, one cannot just stock up on >Coca Cola, one must get a new language. Ruby. It is a descendant of Algol >60 as is VB. > >Why switch to .NET when Microsoft is not even using it for its applications? >This sort of reminds me of MFC too, MFC was good enough for other people's >programs but never Microsoft's own. But unlike MFC's C++, VB doesn't even >get the respect of having a classic version included in VS.NET. C++ >programmers get to have their cake and eat it too with Managed C++ and >regular C++ being supported under VS.NET. MFC is still there too along with >ATL 7. > >VB developers are getting the short end of the stick. There was no VB >classic support in .NET. The C++ users got everything they wanted, and VB >users got nothing. Goes to show what MS thinks of 60% of their developer >base, which coincidentally are VB programmers and NOT C++ programmers. >Elitism? Yes, I suspect so. > >Where are the Raymond Chens? What is happening to backward and forward >compatiblity? If MS won't guarentee backward and forward compatibility, >then what's the point? My VB program users may as well use Linux if that is >the case! There was a time, when the old guard was still there, that a >program written in 1991 would run in 2001. > >Windows Forms are already slated for obsolescence with Avalon coming up in >Longhorn. I can't name one brand name MS product that is built using the >.NET framework. Is .NET not good enough for Microsoft products? When I was >a MFC developer I always wondered why MS didn't use it for their products. >This being the case, I cannot see why VB users would trust MS to learn >VB.NET when MS can just dump them again when its whim changes. That is why >I propose that fellow VB users just upgrade to Ruby. No, I won't drink the >"New Coke", I liked the old one much better. > > >
[quoted text, click to view]
> Managed C++ is already being replaced by C++/CLI. Exactly the same > situation. Not really - we can still compile Managed C++ without mods in VS2005 using the /clr old_syntax flag. VB6 can't do that, which is the point of the petition. [quoted text, click to view] > Many C++ programmer would rather have a full implementation of ISO C++ > than MS's "New C++". They have provided both. C++ in .NET 2003 is very compliant (98% I think). Haven't seen the 2005 figure yet. With C++, you can choose either style of
"Mike Cox" <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelandet news:3a6rmdF67etjmU1@individual.net... [quoted text, click to view] > Remember when Coca Cola came out with "New Coke"? I think VB.NET is > the New > Coke of the computing world. Unfortunately, one cannot just stock up > on > Coca Cola, one must get a new language. Ruby. It is a descendant of > Algol > 60 as is VB. > > Why switch to .NET when Microsoft is not even using it for its > applications? > This sort of reminds me of MFC too, MFC was good enough for other > people's > programs but never Microsoft's own. But unlike MFC's C++, VB doesn't > even > get the respect of having a classic version included in VS.NET. C++ > programmers get to have their cake and eat it too with Managed C++ and > regular C++ being supported under VS.NET. MFC is still there too > along with > ATL 7. Managed C++ is already being replaced by C++/CLI. Exactly the same situation. [quoted text, click to view] > > VB developers are getting the short end of the stick. There was no VB > classic support in .NET. The C++ users got everything they wanted, > and VB > users got nothing. Many C++ programmer would rather have a full implementation of ISO C++ than MS's "New C++". [quoted text, click to view] > Goes to show what MS thinks of 60% of their developer > base, which coincidentally are VB programmers and NOT C++ programmers. > Elitism? Yes, I suspect so. It sure doesn't feel like that! Bo Persson
[quoted text, click to view] "Bo Persson" <bop@gmb.dk> wrote in message news:OLMwUVkLFHA.568@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... > > "Mike Cox" <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelandet > news:3a6rmdF67etjmU1@individual.net... > > Remember when Coca Cola came out with "New Coke"? I think VB.NET is > > the New > > Coke of the computing world. Unfortunately, one cannot just stock up > > on > > Coca Cola, one must get a new language. Ruby. It is a descendant of > > Algol > > 60 as is VB. > > > > Why switch to .NET when Microsoft is not even using it for its > > applications? > > This sort of reminds me of MFC too, MFC was good enough for other > > people's > > programs but never Microsoft's own. But unlike MFC's C++, VB doesn't > > even > > get the respect of having a classic version included in VS.NET. C++ > > programmers get to have their cake and eat it too with Managed C++ and > > regular C++ being supported under VS.NET. MFC is still there too > > along with > > ATL 7. > > Managed C++ is already being replaced by C++/CLI. Exactly the same > situation. > Hmmm. I didn't care for Managed C++ so I never bothered to look at it too deeply. Things like "_gc" pointers looked very ugly and I knew they'd replace it soon. Good thing I didn't bother learning too much about MC++. I haven't followed the "extensions" MS was putting on C++ because they are mostly a pointless hack that are good for only one system. C++/CLI, that's the first I've heard of it, so I did a quick google, and boy did I have a nice laugh. Sorry, I'm not going to learn another vendor supplied bastardization of C++ that would just ruin my ability to think in "proper C++". Why be MS guinea pigs? I stopped hopping on every MS bandwagon about 5 years ago when COM+ hit the old coffin. Remember when that was the big thing? Sure, when a solid technology comes out from MS, I do move to it, but currently .NET isn't it and C++/CLI certainly isn't it. .NET is currently a thin wrapper around the Win32 API, nothing too revolutionary. I think that the _current_ .NET framework is a stepping stone to whatever everyone will eventually move to. Nowadays I have a 6th sense about this and go with the final technology instead of wasting time creating things for hastily done things like "ActiveX" or MC++. I'm on Win2k now, and my next upgrade will be when all the pillars of Longhorn are in place. Until then, I'm sticking with ATL, the classic C++ that *is* the standard. There are a lot libraries for C++ that are multi-platform that could substitute for any MS product, something VB users aren't so fortunate to have. An example would be DCE 1.2.2 as a replacement for COM. We have GNU's GCC 4.0 that support the true C++ standards. So, I think that VB programmers do have it harder, since C++ers can just move onto another platform with relative ease (if they know what they are doing). All they have to do is toss VS.NET for GCC 4.0 with emacs as the editor, gdb as the debugger and DCE 1.2.2 as the COM replacment. In most places their old COM objects will work with DCE to boot. Throw in the boost libraries and you are one happy camper. For VB, the only option is another language, something like ruby.
[quoted text, click to view] "Mike Cox" <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3a6rmdF67etjmU1@individual.net... > Remember when Coca Cola came out with "New Coke"? I think VB.NET is the > New > Coke of the computing world. Unfortunately, one cannot just stock up on > Coca Cola, one must get a new language. Ruby. It is a descendant of > Algol > 60 as is VB. > > Why switch to .NET when Microsoft is not even using it for its > applications? It probably does - inside its own walls, and possibly even in something like the .NET IDE - but I'd be surprised if there's much. They mainly use plain C I think, probably because they've got a huge population of programmers built up over the years that are strong in it. Since it targets .NET mainly at businesses buying it for in-house use, they could even justify admitting to not using it for its own applications. [quoted text, click to view] > This sort of reminds me of MFC too, MFC was good enough for other people's > programs but never Microsoft's own. Well some would say MFC's not good enough for any application. I couldn't really comment - I think it's just plain ghastly. There's just no reason for it - if you want RAD, you use VB6 or .NET, if you want control, you use plain C++ or C. [quoted text, click to view] > But unlike MFC's C++, VB doesn't even > get the respect of having a classic version included in VS.NET. C++ > programmers get to have their cake and eat it too with Managed C++ and > regular C++ being supported under VS.NET. MFC is still there too along > with > ATL 7. Think of the markets again. Who mainly wants to build unmanaged applications? They've obviously done their research into this question, and found it to be software houses, who build shrink-wrapped products. And they are the sort of people who would cringe at the thought of any of their applications being recognised as having been written in VB. I have often noticed that VB6 is used a lot for writing packaged applications, but ones that go with b2b service contracts. [quoted text, click to view] > > VB developers are getting the short end of the stick. There was no VB > classic support in .NET. The C++ users got everything they wanted, and VB > users got nothing. Start thinking along different lines of lattitude.... it wasn't a question of the big bosses as MS deciding what they were going to 'give' users of each language, like santa deciding what children had been good and bad. It was probably more simply a case of "who buys the most IDE licenses? - oooh, big companies. Let's write a product that *they* will like, for what *they* want to use it for - i.e. in house applications and web systems." Sadly, they weren't thinking about you the programmer, they were thinking about the people who have the beens to decide what programs you're going to write. Given that MS had decided to write the .NET framework and a primary language to go with it, C#, for their main target audience, i.e. businesses, they already had two other major jobs to do - write IJW, and write a VB-like language to ease the burden on companies who had people who were incapable or unwilling to understand C#, of which there were probably many. Given all this work on top, the idea of writing a product that would compile "some new form of" VB code to unmanaged binaries was out of the window. [quoted text, click to view] > Goes to show what MS thinks of 60% of their developer > base, Of this 60%, you've got to accept that a certain percentage of these are going to be either going to be willing to take up .NET, or forced into it because their employers are migrating to it - let's say, a conservative 25% of these? That's 15% of the total, which leaves 45% of developers disgruntled. But this is probably 45% in number - not revenue. Most of the actual *revenue* from software sales comes from programs that are written in C++, so this reduce it down to probably less than 10%. And this is still only the *developers* themselves that are disgruntled... the question is, how much does this matter? Perhaps a better approach than trying to persuade them to "let us faithful VB programmers carry on writing unmanaged code because we want to" would be to make it matter what language we're more comfortable and satisfied in writing in. Moreover, we often know about what benefits one language will have over another on the final product more than the people commissioning the final product. [quoted text, click to view] > which coincidentally are VB programmers and NOT C++ programmers. Granted, there is undoubtedly a *lot* more people who know VB than C++, and apparently lots more lines of VB code out there than C++ code. But the point I'm making is that these VB programmers are often working on applications which aren't to be sold, but to be used by other staff of their company - the C++ people are the ones writing programs to sell. The C++ writers are the sort of people that can easily switch to a non-microsoft platform anyway on a whim, just because gcc happens to do some fancy template instantiation that msvc can't do, say - and so this is the area MS has to remain technically competitive - but with the VB market, they are just giving business what they want, in order to sell it. It's a bit like the difference between the tabloids and the broadsheets - the broadsheets need to maintain their reputation so respectable, well-heeled product lines will advertise in them - analagous to a particularly respected shrink-wrapped software product known to have been written in MSVC. The tabloids, they need to sell as many copies as possible - so they make it nice and bright and shiny with lots of bells and whistles and easy to understand - like the VB6 / .NET market. [quoted text, click to view] > Elitism? Yes, I suspect so. Possibly the attempted justification of the hope of exemption from the fickleness that commerce is inevitably going to have on the relative prevalence of different IDE-based products in the software market. [quoted text, click to view] > > Where are the Raymond Chens? Enlighten me, who's he? [quoted text, click to view] > What is happening to backward and forward > compatiblity? If MS won't guarentee backward and forward compatibility, > then what's the point? What's the point in what, backward compatibility? Living? [quoted text, click to view] > My VB program users may as well use Linux if that is VB6 can't use Linux. Ever. If you want the honest truth, UI isn't linux's strength - and VB6 has the UI engrained at the heart of it. Linux is mainly used for things that don't require UI, such as web servers and database servers and command line tools. [quoted text, click to view] > the case! There was a time, when the old guard was still there, that a > program written in 1991 would run in 2001. Correct me if I'm wrong, but VB classic (i.e. , VB 1-6) has been around since the 80's. Win32 is still the main windows operating system today, and it can run 16-bit programs (which I think were produced by VB1-3, 32 bit
[quoted text, click to view]
> > Not really - we can still compile Managed C++ without mods in VS2005 using > the /clr old_syntax flag. VB6 can't do that, which is the point of the > petition. No-one wants to be seen using the dreaded 'old_syntax' flag, surely! [quoted text, click to view] > >> Many C++ programmer would rather have a full implementation of ISO C++ >> than MS's "New C++". > > They have provided both. C++ in .NET 2003 is very compliant (98% I > think). > Haven't seen the 2005 figure yet. With C++, you can choose either style > of > programming. My only beef with their implementation of C++ is that it is often banded about that the SDK contains all the development programs as command line tools - i.e. everything but the IDE. It disappoints me to realise that this is not the case. Only simplified programs can be compiled with the SDK - you don't get any COM smart pointers, etc. Neither can it do such things as compile boost::regex libs. So I find myself using the VS.NET 2003 IDE with all its bells and whistles and annoying half-baked intellisense just for the language features when I would actually be rather using the free SDK and a text editor. Although I think what I'm doing can be done with the "VC++ toolkit". We'll see.....
As a matter of fact, MFC is used internally as is .NET Framework. Visual
Studio itself uses managed code extensively. I would estimate VS 2005 is probably at least 50% managed. You see, there is no point in rewriting existing code that works just fine. If it is not broken, don't fix it. In many cases parts of MFC are used (dialog and string classes seems to be most popular). ATL is hugely popular. At Microsoft most applications are not in their version 1.0 so there is huge existing code base. Each release teams decide what is the best approach: can new functionality be implemented using existing code base and architecture or major restructuring is required. Then they decide which tools to use and how to blend new functionality with the existing code base. New applications and components are often written in managed languages. Sometimes C++ development appears to be more efficient, sometimes managed code wins, sometimes, as in VS case, it becomes 50-50 mix. I work on Visual Web Developer, we have main design surface native, but all ASP.NET control editing support is managed. Property grid is managed. Intellisense schema generator that produces XML schemas for server control intellisense is managed. However, intellisense engine is native. Tag navigator control is managed as is CSS Style Builder. We decide on managed or native depending on what is most efficient in each particular feature. As a matter of fact, Publish Web feature is written in VB.NET :-) New VS 2005 XML editor is fully managed except underlying text editor itself which is a shared component and is native. XML Schema and Data GUI designers have been managed since VS 2002. Thanks Mikhail Arkhipov (Microsoft) -- This post is provided 'AS IS' with no warranties and confers no rights On 3/20/05 18:59, in article 3a6rmdF67etjmU1@individual.net, "Mike Cox" [quoted text, click to view] <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> wrote: > Remember when Coca Cola came out with "New Coke"? I think VB.NET is the New > Coke of the computing world. Unfortunately, one cannot just stock up on > Coca Cola, one must get a new language. Ruby. It is a descendant of Algol > 60 as is VB. > > Why switch to .NET when Microsoft is not even using it for its applications? > This sort of reminds me of MFC too, MFC was good enough for other people's > programs but never Microsoft's own. But unlike MFC's C++, VB doesn't even > get the respect of having a classic version included in VS.NET. C++ > programmers get to have their cake and eat it too with Managed C++ and > regular C++ being supported under VS.NET. MFC is still there too along with > ATL 7. > > VB developers are getting the short end of the stick. There was no VB > classic support in .NET. The C++ users got everything they wanted, and VB > users got nothing. Goes to show what MS thinks of 60% of their developer > base, which coincidentally are VB programmers and NOT C++ programmers. > Elitism? Yes, I suspect so. > > Where are the Raymond Chens? What is happening to backward and forward > compatiblity? If MS won't guarentee backward and forward compatibility, > then what's the point? My VB program users may as well use Linux if that is > the case! There was a time, when the old guard was still there, that a > program written in 1991 would run in 2001. > > Windows Forms are already slated for obsolescence with Avalon coming up in > Longhorn. I can't name one brand name MS product that is built using the > .NET framework. Is .NET not good enough for Microsoft products? When I was > > a MFC developer I always wondered why MS didn't use it for their products. > This being the case, I cannot see why VB users would trust MS to learn > VB.NET when MS can just dump them again when its whim changes. That is why > I propose that fellow VB users just upgrade to Ruby. No, I won't drink the > "New Coke", I liked the old one much better. > > > >
Hi Mikhail --
[quoted text, click to view] > As a matter of fact, MFC is used internally as is .NET Framework. > Visual Studio itself uses managed code extensively. I would estimate > VS 2005 is probably at least 50% managed. You see, there is no point > in rewriting existing code that works just fine. If it is not broken, > don't fix it. Ah, of course. Care to comment on plans for the AntiSpyware beta, which is currently written with VB6/SP5? Seems to be working pretty well here. Given you're dropping support for VB6 this month (I'm not aware of _any_ other products of yours written with Classic VB, so this one really does stand out!), I was assume this product is being rewritten. How'd it fare through the migration wiz? Enquiring minds, and all, eh? ;-) Thanks... Karl -- Working Without a .NET? http://classicvb.org/petition
I don't know. Microsoft is a large company and I don't even know which team
owns the ASW. As far as I can tell the product came with purchase of external company (http://www.giantcompany.com) which probably had its reasons to use VB6. Maybe the app will be ported to .NET in the next development cycle. I have no idea. Couple of internal apps that used to be in VB (HeadTrax comes to mind) were indeed ported to .NET couple of years ago. Most of Intranet sites run ASP.NET. As you might know, we do typically consume our own dogfood :-) As a matter of fact, VS 2005 is being developed using VS 2005 as it was with VS 2002 and 2003. Thanks Mikhail Arkhipov (Microsoft) -- This post is provided 'AS IS' with no warranties and confers no rights On 3/25/05 13:03, in article #BHOg4XMFHA.244@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl, "Karl E. [quoted text, click to view] Peterson" <karl@mvps.org> wrote: > Hi Mikhail -- > >> As a matter of fact, MFC is used internally as is .NET Framework. >> Visual Studio itself uses managed code extensively. I would estimate >> VS 2005 is probably at least 50% managed. You see, there is no point >> in rewriting existing code that works just fine. If it is not broken, >> don't fix it. > > Ah, of course. Care to comment on plans for the AntiSpyware beta, which is > currently > written with VB6/SP5? Seems to be working pretty well here. > > Given you're dropping support for VB6 this month (I'm not aware of _any_ other > products of yours written with Classic VB, so this one really does stand > out!), I was > assume this product is being rewritten. How'd it fare through the migration > wiz? > Enquiring minds, and all, eh? ;-) > > Thanks... Karl
"Mikhail Arkhipov (Microsoft)" <mikhaila@online.microsoft.com> skrev i meddelandet news:BE69C947.ED4F%mikhaila@online.microsoft.com... [quoted text, click to view] > As you might know, we do typically consume our own dogfood :-) Yeah, I'm sure you do. If you want to extend the "New Coke" metafor, I believe the IBM guys used to run OS/2 on their PS/2 MicroChannel machines. Didn't convince many of their customers though, hardware or software. Bo Persson
"Mikhail Arkhipov (Microsoft)" <mikhaila@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:BE69ACDD.ED39%mikhaila@online.microsoft.com... [quoted text, click to view] > You see, there is no point in rewriting > existing code that works just fine. If it is not broken, don't fix it. Yea, that's what I thought. <sigh> Great concept! Why don't you try to get the word to your friends on the inside that, just maybe, those of us on the outside feel the same way. The thing is, C++ could sure use some cleaing up after all these years. How about you get me a job doing that for the next release? Dan
Some more on VB6 support from VB product unit manager
http://blogs.msdn.com/jroxe/archive/2005/03/11/394337.aspx Thanks Mikhail Arkhipov (Microsoft) -- This post is provided 'AS IS' with no warranties and confers no rights On 3/25/05 13:57, in article BE69C947.ED4F%mikhaila@online.microsoft.com, [quoted text, click to view] "Mikhail Arkhipov (Microsoft)" <mikhaila@online.microsoft.com> wrote: > I don't know. Microsoft is a large company and I don't even know which team > owns the ASW. As far as I can tell the product came with purchase of > external company (http://www.giantcompany.com) which probably had its > reasons to use VB6. Maybe the app will be ported to .NET in the next > development cycle. I have no idea. > > Couple of internal apps that used to be in VB (HeadTrax comes to mind) were > indeed ported to .NET couple of years ago. Most of Intranet sites run > ASP.NET. As you might know, we do typically consume our own dogfood :-) As a > matter of fact, VS 2005 is being developed using VS 2005 as it was with VS > 2002 and 2003. > > Thanks > Mikhail Arkhipov (Microsoft) > -- This post is provided 'AS IS' with no warranties and confers no rights > > > On 3/25/05 13:03, in article #BHOg4XMFHA.244@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl, "Karl E. > Peterson" <karl@mvps.org> wrote: > >> Hi Mikhail -- >> >>> As a matter of fact, MFC is used internally as is .NET Framework. >>> Visual Studio itself uses managed code extensively. I would estimate >>> VS 2005 is probably at least 50% managed. You see, there is no point >>> in rewriting existing code that works just fine. If it is not broken, >>> don't fix it. >> >> Ah, of course. Care to comment on plans for the AntiSpyware beta, which is >> currently >> written with VB6/SP5? Seems to be working pretty well here. >> >> Given you're dropping support for VB6 this month (I'm not aware of _any_ >> other >> products of yours written with Classic VB, so this one really does stand >> out!), I was >> assume this product is being rewritten. How'd it fare through the migration >> wiz? >> Enquiring minds, and all, eh? ;-) >> >> Thanks... Karl > >
VC++ team has quite a few open positions. Have you looked here
http://www.microsoft.com/careers/search/results.aspx?FromCP=Y&JobCategoryCod eID=10056&JobLocationCodeID=&JobProductCodeID=10014&JobTitleCodeID=10296&Div isions=&TargetLevels=&Keywords=&JobCode=&ManagerAlias=&Interval=10 :-) Thanks Mikhail Arkhipov (Microsoft) -- This post is provided 'AS IS' with no warranties and confers no rights On 3/26/05 18:23, in article OTAQLQnMFHA.576@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl, "Dan [quoted text, click to view] Barclay" <Dan@MVPs.org> wrote: > > "Mikhail Arkhipov (Microsoft)" <mikhaila@online.microsoft.com> wrote in > message news:BE69ACDD.ED39%mikhaila@online.microsoft.com... > >> You see, there is no point in rewriting >> existing code that works just fine. If it is not broken, don't fix it. > > Yea, that's what I thought. <sigh> Great concept! Why don't you try to get > the word to your friends on the inside that, just maybe, those of us on the > outside feel the same way. > > The thing is, C++ could sure use some cleaing up after all these years. How > about you get me a job doing that for the next release? > > Dan > >
[quoted text, click to view]
> Some more on VB6 support from VB product unit manager > > http://blogs.msdn.com/jroxe/archive/2005/03/11/394337.aspx One question regarding Microsoft's "continued" support of VB6... Will there ever be a Service Pack 7? Or even a Service Pack 6.5 to fix bugs from SP6? Rick
Yea, I looked there. I did not see a posting for "Keeper of the Keys".
I only need about 6 weeks in that position, then I have to get back to my own conversions while you rewrite everything MS owns. Don't worry, in the interim you can make money selling keyboards, mice, and Xboxes. Dan "Mikhail Arkhipov (Microsoft)" <mikhaila@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:BE6B9B6D.EF7D%mikhaila@online.microsoft.com... [quoted text, click to view] > VC++ team has quite a few open positions. Have you looked here > > http://www.microsoft.com/careers/search/results.aspx?FromCP=Y&JobCategoryCod > eID=10056&JobLocationCodeID=&JobProductCodeID=10014&JobTitleCodeID=10296&Div > isions=&TargetLevels=&Keywords=&JobCode=&ManagerAlias=&Interval=10 > > :-) > > Thanks > Mikhail Arkhipov (Microsoft) > -- This post is provided 'AS IS' with no warranties and confers no rights > > On 3/26/05 18:23, in article OTAQLQnMFHA.576@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl, "Dan > Barclay" <Dan@MVPs.org> wrote: > >> >> "Mikhail Arkhipov (Microsoft)" <mikhaila@online.microsoft.com> wrote in >> message news:BE69ACDD.ED39%mikhaila@online.microsoft.com... >> >>> You see, there is no point in rewriting >>> existing code that works just fine. If it is not broken, don't fix it. >> >> Yea, that's what I thought. <sigh> Great concept! Why don't you try to >> get >> the word to your friends on the inside that, just maybe, those of us on >> the >> outside feel the same way. >> >> The thing is, C++ could sure use some cleaing up after all these years. >> How >> about you get me a job doing that for the next release? >> >> Dan >> >> > >
[quoted text, click to view] "Rick Rothstein" <rickNOSPAMnews@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message news:eg3A9%23pMFHA.3928@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... > > Some more on VB6 support from VB product unit manager > > > > http://blogs.msdn.com/jroxe/archive/2005/03/11/394337.aspx > > One question regarding Microsoft's "continued" support of VB6... Will > there ever be a Service Pack 7? Or even a Service Pack 6.5 to fix bugs > from SP6? > > Rick > It sure doesn't sound like it. Unless of course, SP6 problems come under the heading of a "security fix". -ralph
[quoted text, click to view]
"Rick Rothstein" <rickNOSPAMnews@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message news:eg3A9%23pMFHA.3928@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... >> Some more on VB6 support from VB product unit manager >> >> http://blogs.msdn.com/jroxe/archive/2005/03/11/394337.aspx > > One question regarding Microsoft's "continued" support of VB6... Will > there ever be a Service Pack 7? Or even a Service Pack 6.5 to fix bugs > from SP6? > > Rick According to "someone" at MS, there may be an SP7/SP8... but, that comment was made last year, right after SP6 was released and people started screaming about its ability to trash working apps. I think they're just plugging their ears now-a-days and couldn't care less. -- Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB - http://www.vbsight.com Sign up now to help keep VB support alive - http://classicvb.org/petition Please keep all discussions in the groups..
[quoted text, click to view]
Rick Rothstein wrote: .... > ....I'm guessing Microsoft will create other > technologies in the future which VB6 will also be excluded from. To me, > that is called NOT supporting VB6. Period! I think that's pretty clearly the end result and personally believe there's absolutely zero chance of any further updates/fixes/patches
[quoted text, click to view]
> >> Some more on VB6 support from VB product unit manager > >> > >> http://blogs.msdn.com/jroxe/archive/2005/03/11/394337.aspx > > > > One question regarding Microsoft's "continued" support of VB6... Will > > there ever be a Service Pack 7? Or even a Service Pack 6.5 to fix bugs > > from SP6? > > > > Rick > > According to "someone" at MS, there may be an SP7/SP8... but, that comment > was made last year, right after SP6 was released and people started > screaming about its ability to trash working apps. I think they're just > plugging their ears now-a-days and couldn't care less. Yeah, that's what I'm thinking too. The real reason I asked this question (I have others if Mikhail comes back with a Yes answer to this one<g>) was try and move the discussion of support from "You can still call us even though it will cost now" to Microsoft is "freezing VB6 at its current level no matter what happens in the future (security issues aside)". For example, DirectX 8 gives VB6 and interface into it, but DirectX 9 does not. I'm guessing Microsoft will create other technologies in the future which VB6 will also be excluded from. To me, that is called NOT supporting VB6. Period! Rick
[quoted text, click to view]
> > ....I'm guessing Microsoft will create other > > technologies in the future which VB6 will also be excluded from. To me, > > that is called NOT supporting VB6. Period! > > I think that's pretty clearly the end result and personally believe > there's absolutely zero chance of any further updates/fixes/patches > other than paid per incident for VB6. I agree, which is why I take issue with anyone from Microsoft claiming that Microsoft is still supporting VB6. Rick
[quoted text, click to view]
Rick Rothstein wrote: > > > > ....I'm guessing Microsoft will create other > > > technologies in the future which VB6 will also be excluded from. To > me, > > > that is called NOT supporting VB6. Period! > > > > I think that's pretty clearly the end result and personally believe > > there's absolutely zero chance of any further updates/fixes/patches > > other than paid per incident for VB6. > > I agree, which is why I take issue with anyone from Microsoft claiming > that Microsoft is still supporting VB6.
[quoted text, click to view] "Duane Bozarth" <dpbozarth@swko.dot.net> wrote in message news:424861FB.90879BC8@swko.dot.net... > Rick Rothstein wrote: >> >> > > ....I'm guessing Microsoft will create other >> > > technologies in the future which VB6 will also be excluded from. To >> me, >> > > that is called NOT supporting VB6. Period! >> > >> > I think that's pretty clearly the end result and personally believe >> > there's absolutely zero chance of any further updates/fixes/patches >> > other than paid per incident for VB6. >> >> I agree, which is why I take issue with anyone from Microsoft claiming >> that Microsoft is still supporting VB6. > > Well, paid support is one definition of "support"... :) FWIW, "free support" isn't the issue here anyway. Neither is "paid support". The media has taken the timing of the petition as the reason for it, and that simply is not the case. Read the text of the petition. ClassicVB is dying or dead depending on who you ask. The overall environment is not healthy, regardless of how long the VB6 runtime is supported. IMHO, most applications will die because dependent libraries (3rd party controls, etc) will be broken as seemingly innocent changes are made to the OS libs. Most large apps contain a number of controls that they depend heavily upon. When they break, the app breaks. Some vendors are still around, but I question how long they can hang in there. Most are already gone and when their controls break, they break. So, "in the whole", how long do you think VB6 will be viable? Dunno, but it's not indefinite and it's not really related to how long VB6Runtime is out there. It *definitely* isn't related to how long MS provides free support. It *is* related to how MS moves ClassicVB code forward to healthy environments, or creates a renewal of the .COM VB environment such that vendors can see the benefit in getting back on board and continuing their development. Dan
[quoted text, click to view]
Dan Barclay wrote: > > "Duane Bozarth" <dpbozarth@swko.dot.net> wrote in message > news:424861FB.90879BC8@swko.dot.net... > > Rick Rothstein wrote: > >> > >> > > ....I'm guessing Microsoft will create other > >> > > technologies in the future which VB6 will also be excluded from. To > >> me, > >> > > that is called NOT supporting VB6. Period! > >> > > >> > I think that's pretty clearly the end result and personally believe > >> > there's absolutely zero chance of any further updates/fixes/patches > >> > other than paid per incident for VB6. > >> > >> I agree, which is why I take issue with anyone from Microsoft claiming > >> that Microsoft is still supporting VB6. > > > > Well, paid support is one definition of "support"... :) > > FWIW, "free support" isn't the issue here anyway. Neither is "paid > support". ... I didn't mean the original comment re: paid in the sense it is interpreted here (as the cost being the fundamental issue)--the point I was making was essentially what you go on to make--namely, that unless the individual end user is brings a particular issue to MS, regardless of how widespread the problem, no fix is going to happen (and even more significantly, any specific fixes will be very unlikely to be made publicly available). I agree, at some point in time, VB6 will in all probability get broken for virtually any serious application unless (as someone else has already noted) the overall environment of the app can be maintained such that new MS releases don't affect the particular environment. That becomes, obviously, a shrinking market w/ time which will inevitably at some point make VB untenable for virtually all except
As it does in VS 2003 and VS 2005. We are keeping Classic ASP support.
Apparently it is not well known... I own the feature, I guess I need to talk to doc people... :-) Thanks Mikhail Arkhipov (Microsoft) -- This post is provided 'AS IS' with no warranties and confers no rights On 3/29/05 8:10, in article OvGJHnHNFHA.3760@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl, "Chris [quoted text, click to view] Gallucci" <chris@gallucci.com> wrote: > "Dan Barclay" <Dan@MVPs.org> wrote in message > news:OIGaoJ9MFHA.3336@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > | It *is* related to how MS moves ClassicVB code forward to healthy > | environments, or creates a renewal of the .COM VB environment such that > | vendors can see the benefit in getting back on board and continuing their > | development. > | > | Dan > | > > I made an interesting discovery recently. Classic VBScript in Classic ASP > pages loads, runs and debugs fine in Visual Studio.NET. In > fact, including SourceSafe integration and setting up IIS for debugging, it's > a *much* better IDE that Visual InterDev. > > ChrisG > >
[quoted text, click to view]
"Dan Barclay" <Dan@MVPs.org> wrote in message news:OIGaoJ9MFHA.3336@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... | environments, or creates a renewal of the .COM VB environment such that| It *is* related to how MS moves ClassicVB code forward to healthy | vendors can see the benefit in getting back on board and continuing their | development. | | Dan | I made an interesting discovery recently. Classic VBScript in Classic ASP pages loads, runs and debugs fine in Visual Studio.NET. In fact, including SourceSafe integration and setting up IIS for debugging, it's a *much* better IDE that Visual InterDev. ChrisG
Yes, there is a general feeling that they've closed the windows, and are
weathering the storm. However, I think there will be considerably fewer ships in the water once it's blown over. :-) Tony Proctor [quoted text, click to view] "Ken Halter" <Ken_Halter@Use_Sparingly_Hotmail.com> wrote in message news:#V8pCq6MFHA.3468@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > "Rick Rothstein" <rickNOSPAMnews@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message > news:eg3A9%23pMFHA.3928@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... > >> Some more on VB6 support from VB product unit manager > >> > >> http://blogs.msdn.com/jroxe/archive/2005/03/11/394337.aspx > > > > One question regarding Microsoft's "continued" support of VB6... Will > > there ever be a Service Pack 7? Or even a Service Pack 6.5 to fix bugs > > from SP6? > > > > Rick > > According to "someone" at MS, there may be an SP7/SP8... but, that comment > was made last year, right after SP6 was released and people started > screaming about its ability to trash working apps. I think they're just > plugging their ears now-a-days and couldn't care less. > > -- > Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB - http://www.vbsight.com > Sign up now to help keep VB support alive - http://classicvb.org/petition > Please keep all discussions in the groups.. > >
From: "Mikhail Arkhipov (Microsoft)" <mikhaila@online.microsoft.com>
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion,microsoft.public.vsnet.general Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 10:42 AM Subject: Re: VB.NET is the "New Coke" of the computing world. [quoted text, click to view] > As it does in VS 2003 and VS 2005. We are keeping Classic ASP support. > Apparently it is not well known... I own the feature, I guess I need to > talk > to doc people... :-) > > Thanks > Mikhail Arkhipov (Microsoft) > -- This post is provided 'AS IS' with no warranties and confers no rights Actually, I meant VS2003. (I've long since given up trying to keep up with the marketing names) ;-) I had reached a point of frustration with VID (esp. SS & debugging) and spent more than 50 hours searching for an alternate environment. I demoed all kinds of products. I finally came upon an obtuse reference in a google search that made try to load my ASP pages in VS2003. Viola'! It was amazing. Full support! Couldn't be happier. (at least until I can convert it to ASP.NET) Thanks, M.Arkhipov. ChrisG
[quoted text, click to view]
Mikhail Arkhipov (Microsoft) wrote: > I don't know. Microsoft is a large company and I don't even know > which team owns the ASW. As far as I can tell the product came with > purchase of external company (http://www.giantcompany.com) which > probably had its reasons to use VB6. Maybe the app will be ported to > .NET in the next development cycle. I have no idea. You might want to find out. The answer speaks volumes. [quoted text, click to view] > Couple of internal apps that used to be in VB (HeadTrax comes to > mind) were indeed ported to .NET couple of years ago. Most of > Intranet sites run ASP.NET. As you might know, we do typically > consume our own dogfood :-) Uh huh. Except for stuff you expect to sell to others, at any rate. -- Working Without a .NET? http://classicvb.org/petition
[quoted text, click to view]
Mikhail Arkhipov (Microsoft) wrote: > Some more on VB6 support from VB product unit manager > > http://blogs.msdn.com/jroxe/archive/2005/03/11/394337.aspx Jay's a marketeer, thanks. We've heard more than enough from that sort over the years. What part of that blog entry do you feel relevant to this thread? -- Working Without a .NET? http://classicvb.org/petition
I thought maybe you wanted to post your questions in the blog comments.
After all, VB PUM is in better position to answer VB related questions that I am since I don't even work in VB org :-) It is not marketing position, btw, PUM is the guy to whom development manager, test manager and general program manager report. Thanks Mikhail Arkhipov (Microsoft) -- This post is provided 'AS IS' with no warranties and confers no rights On 3/29/05 14:47, in article ejpTVFLNFHA.1040@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl, "Karl E. [quoted text, click to view] Peterson" <karl@mvps.org> wrote: > Mikhail Arkhipov (Microsoft) wrote: >> Some more on VB6 support from VB product unit manager >> >> http://blogs.msdn.com/jroxe/archive/2005/03/11/394337.aspx > > Jay's a marketeer, thanks. We've heard more than enough from that sort over > the > years. What part of that blog entry do you feel relevant to this thread?
Hi Mikhail --
[quoted text, click to view] > I thought maybe you wanted to post your questions in the blog > comments. I have Jay's email address, and we chat occassionally. [quoted text, click to view] > After all, VB PUM is in better position to answer VB > related questions that I am since I don't even work in VB org :-) What brings you to this thread, in that case? Just rabble-rousing? ;-) [quoted text, click to view] > It is not marketing position, btw, PUM is the guy to whom development > manager, test manager and general program manager report. Well, this is how he described himself to me in a recent email: [quoted text, click to view] >>>> You can think of me as the new Ari Bixhorn, so I'm the >>>> marketing side of the world. You tell me -- why would he want to slum like that, were his responsibilities greater, hmmm? <g> Later... Karl -- Working Without a .NET? http://classicvb.org/petition
I actually meant link at the bottom of Jay's blog entry to Rob Copland's
blog. Rob is PUM, not Jay. Here is direct link. http://blogs.msdn.com/vbteam/archive/2005/03/11/394305.aspx As for why I am in this thread, I just tried to explain that "Why switch to .NET when Microsoft is not even using it for its applications? This sort of reminds me of MFC too, MFC was good enough for other people's programs but never Microsoft's own." was not quiet true. We do use .NET and we actually want to use it more since it makes developers more productive and resulting code shorter, simpler and more secure. As we do use MFC where we feel it helps us to increase productivity. Thanks Mikhail Arkhipov (Microsoft) -- This post is provided 'AS IS' with no warranties and confers no rights On 3/29/05 14:59, in article BE6F1DDF.F1F4%mikhaila@online.microsoft.com, [quoted text, click to view] "Mikhail Arkhipov (Microsoft)" <mikhaila@online.microsoft.com> wrote: > I thought maybe you wanted to post your questions in the blog comments. > After all, VB PUM is in better position to answer VB related questions that > I am since I don't even work in VB org :-) It is not marketing position, > btw, PUM is the guy to whom development manager, test manager and general > program manager report. > > Thanks > Mikhail Arkhipov (Microsoft) > -- This post is provided 'AS IS' with no warranties and confers no rights > > > On 3/29/05 14:47, in article ejpTVFLNFHA.1040@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl, "Karl E. > Peterson" <karl@mvps.org> wrote: > >> Mikhail Arkhipov (Microsoft) wrote: >>> Some more on VB6 support from VB product unit manager >>> >>> http://blogs.msdn.com/jroxe/archive/2005/03/11/394337.aspx >> >> Jay's a marketeer, thanks. We've heard more than enough from that sort over >> the >> years. What part of that blog entry do you feel relevant to this thread? > >
Hi Mikhail,
Many of the answers you're looking for are in another of Jay's blog's. http://blogs.msdn.com/jroxe/archive/2005/03/17/398325.aspx Well, they're not in his blog, but in the replies. Hope that helps, Dan "Mikhail Arkhipov (Microsoft)" <mikhaila@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:BE6F5434.F2C4%mikhaila@online.microsoft.com... [quoted text, click to view] >I actually meant link at the bottom of Jay's blog entry to Rob Copland's > blog. Rob is PUM, not Jay. Here is direct link. > > http://blogs.msdn.com/vbteam/archive/2005/03/11/394305.aspx > > As for why I am in this thread, I just tried to explain that > > "Why switch to .NET when Microsoft is not even using it for its > applications? This sort of reminds me of MFC too, MFC was good enough for > other people's programs but never Microsoft's own." > > was not quiet true. We do use .NET and we actually want to use it more > since > it makes developers more productive and resulting code shorter, simpler > and > more secure. As we do use MFC where we feel it helps us to increase > productivity. > > Thanks > Mikhail Arkhipov (Microsoft) > -- This post is provided 'AS IS' with no warranties and confers no rights > > On 3/29/05 14:59, in article BE6F1DDF.F1F4%mikhaila@online.microsoft.com, > "Mikhail Arkhipov (Microsoft)" <mikhaila@online.microsoft.com> wrote: > >> I thought maybe you wanted to post your questions in the blog comments. >> After all, VB PUM is in better position to answer VB related questions >> that >> I am since I don't even work in VB org :-) It is not marketing position, >> btw, PUM is the guy to whom development manager, test manager and general >> program manager report. >> >> Thanks >> Mikhail Arkhipov (Microsoft) >> -- This post is provided 'AS IS' with no warranties and confers no >> rights >> >> >> On 3/29/05 14:47, in article ejpTVFLNFHA.1040@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl, "Karl >> E. >> Peterson" <karl@mvps.org> wrote: >> >>> Mikhail Arkhipov (Microsoft) wrote: >>>> Some more on VB6 support from VB product unit manager >>>> >>>> http://blogs.msdn.com/jroxe/archive/2005/03/11/394337.aspx >>> >>> Jay's a marketeer, thanks. We've heard more than enough from that sort >>> over >>> the >>> years. What part of that blog entry do you feel relevant to this >>> thread? >> >> > >
[quoted text, click to view]
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:50:30 -0600, "Dan Barclay" <Dan@MVPs.org> wrote: in <u7I$juNNFHA.2468@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl> [quoted text, click to view] >Hi Mikhail, > >Many of the answers you're looking for are in another of Jay's blog's. > >http://blogs.msdn.com/jroxe/archive/2005/03/17/398325.aspx > >Well, they're not in his blog, but in the replies. > >Hope that helps, > >Dan I'm glad that a few of you still have the energy to formulate the cogent arguments that unfortunately are destined to fall on deaf ears. I've given up on Microsoft as they have given up on me. I'll use their tools and their OS because it's not like I have a choice, but I'll never participate in another MS beta anything. I'll never utter another word in support of MS or any of their products for they have forsaken my assets. Eventually, something will come along that will move MS into that place occupied by previous giants such as IBM and DEC. I can only hope that that will be sooner and not later. ---
[quoted text, click to view] "Stefan Berglund" <keepit@in.thegroups> wrote in message news:ulql41hibkbsdulblmn54m00or3henm1fa@4ax.com... > On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:50:30 -0600, "Dan Barclay" <Dan@MVPs.org> wrote: > in <u7I$juNNFHA.2468@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl> > >>Hi Mikhail, >> >>Many of the answers you're looking for are in another of Jay's blog's. >> >>http://blogs.msdn.com/jroxe/archive/2005/03/17/398325.aspx >> >>Well, they're not in his blog, but in the replies. >> >>Hope that helps, >> >>Dan > > I'm glad that a few of you still have the energy to formulate the cogent > arguments that unfortunately are destined to fall on deaf ears. Yes, deaf ears. When they convinced me (us) after VB4 that they "got it" and wouldn't screw up the language again I told them that I would back off a little. I also told them that if they did it again, I wouldn't. I do like to keep my promises, even if they do not. [quoted text, click to view] > I've given up > on Microsoft as they have given up on me. I'll use their tools and their > OS > because it's not like I have a choice, but I'll never participate in > another MS > beta anything. I'll never utter another word in support of MS or any of > their > products for they have forsaken my assets. Yup, that's the way it is. FWIW, I'm about to go Delphi it looks like. I've put it off about as long as I can. Drop in over there (non-technical newsgroup) if you're interested in it. It's not as easy a conversion as it could be, but it's definitely very VB like. I'm trying to get them to put together an "on ramp" for VB folks, and there seems to be some interest. [quoted text, click to view] > Eventually, something will come > along that will move MS into that place occupied by previous giants such > as IBM > and DEC. I can only hope that that will be sooner and not later. How soon they forget those lessons. MS succeeded in the corporate structure because IBM got so arrogant. At one time the mantra was "you couldn't get fired buying Blue". Then they blew it. Same with DEC, to a lesser degree. Dan
[quoted text, click to view]
Mikhail Arkhipov (Microsoft) wrote: > I actually meant link at the bottom of Jay's blog entry to Rob > Copland's blog. Rob is PUM, not Jay. Here is direct link. > > http://blogs.msdn.com/vbteam/archive/2005/03/11/394305.aspx Rob's blog is moderated. Posts there aren't presented publicly. [quoted text, click to view] > As for why I am in this thread, I just tried to explain that > > "Why switch to .NET when Microsoft is not even using it for its > applications? This sort of reminds me of MFC too, MFC was good enough > for other people's programs but never Microsoft's own." > > was not quiet true. We do use .NET and we actually want to use it > more since it makes developers more productive and resulting code > shorter, simpler and more secure. As we do use MFC where we feel it > helps us to increase productivity. Wow, are you in marketing, as well? If you _really_ believe that load, I definitely encourage you (again) to take a look into the migraton plans for AntiSpyware. Later... Karl -- Working Without a .NET? http://classicvb.org/petition
[quoted text, click to view]
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 13:15:12 -0600, "Dan Barclay" <Dan@MVPs.org> wrote: in <OaAMNzVNFHA.576@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl> [quoted text, click to view] > >"Stefan Berglund" <keepit@in.thegroups> wrote in message >news:ulql41hibkbsdulblmn54m00or3henm1fa@4ax.com... >> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:50:30 -0600, "Dan Barclay" <Dan@MVPs.org> wrote: >> in <u7I$juNNFHA.2468@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl> >> >>>Hi Mikhail, >>> >>>Many of the answers you're looking for are in another of Jay's blog's. >>> >>>http://blogs.msdn.com/jroxe/archive/2005/03/17/398325.aspx >>> >>>Well, they're not in his blog, but in the replies. >>> >>>Hope that helps, >>> >>>Dan >> >> I'm glad that a few of you still have the energy to formulate the cogent >> arguments that unfortunately are destined to fall on deaf ears. > >Yes, deaf ears. When they convinced me (us) after VB4 that they "got it" >and wouldn't screw up the language again I told them that I would back off a >little. I also told them that if they did it again, I wouldn't. I do like >to keep my promises, even if they do not. > >> I've given up on Microsoft as they have given up on me. I'll use their tools and their >> OS because it's not like I have a choice, but I'll never participate in >> another MS beta anything. I'll never utter another word in support of MS or any of >> their products for they have forsaken my assets. > >Yup, that's the way it is. FWIW, I'm about to go Delphi it looks like. >I've put it off about as long as I can. Drop in over there (non-technical >newsgroup) if you're interested in it. It's not as easy a conversion as it >could be, but it's definitely very VB like. I'm trying to get them to put >together an "on ramp" for VB folks, and there seems to be some interest. > >> Eventually, something will come along that will move MS into that place >> occupied by previous giants such as IBM and DEC. I can only hope that >> that will be sooner and not later. > >How soon they forget those lessons. MS succeeded in the corporate structure >because IBM got so arrogant. At one time the mantra was "you couldn't get >fired buying Blue". Then they blew it. Same with DEC, to a lesser degree. > >Dan > I've already purchased Delphi, RealBasic, and PowerBasic and I'm looking at all of them as well as considering C# (only because it's not MS proprietary) - those days of naivete are over. It's definitely a tough decision. I came from a C++ background as well as Borland's Turbo Pascal so Delphi is no mystery. The irony of it all is that a friend convinced me way back when to abandon C++ for RAD VB4 so I rewrote my bread and butter app in VB. Ha ha, so now the joke's on me. Oh well, at least there are plenty of viable alternatives and MS will NEVER again be one of them. ---
[quoted text, click to view] > > I've already purchased Delphi, RealBasic, and PowerBasic and I'm looking > at all of > them as well as considering C# (only because it's not MS proprietary) - > those days of > naivete are over. Until another vendor has a viable (that is, widely used) C# tool, I'd consider it MS proprietary. [quoted text, click to view] > It's definitely a tough decision. I came from a C++ background as well as > Borland's Turbo Pascal so Delphi is no mystery. The irony of it all is > that a friend convinced me > way back when to abandon C++ for RAD VB4 so I rewrote my bread and butter > app in VB. Ha ha, so now the joke's on me. Yea, I dragged my brother kicking and screaming into Basic (in the DOS days) from TurboPascal. Still not a bad run, considering all the mileage we covered (back when MS actually did know what they were doing). I do pity those who got on the boat recently though. I'd consider RealBasic and PowerBasic, but in looking at them from a "high level", I'm not convinced on the richness of the environment. I haven't had hands on, but what I still need to learn won't be found with hands on. Our apps are large and complex, with external interfaces to all sorts of things. We'll see, but for now I'm pretty sure we'll end up with Delphi. Now, if one of these guys could get with Borland in a way that Basic code could be linked seamlessly with Delphi code... drool drool... [quoted text, click to view] > Oh well, at least there are plenty of viable alternatives and MS will > NEVER again > be one of them. It'll be a cold day... Dan
[quoted text, click to view]
Stefan Berglund wrote: .... > > I've already purchased Delphi, RealBasic, and PowerBasic and I'm looking at all of > them as well as considering C# (only because it's not MS proprietary) - those days of > naivete are over. It's definitely a tough decision. I came from a C++ background as well as > Borland's Turbo Pascal so Delphi is no mystery. The irony of it all is that a friend convinced me > way back when to abandon C++ for RAD VB4 so I rewrote my bread and butter > app in VB. Ha ha, so now the joke's on me. > > Oh well, at least there are plenty of viable alternatives and MS will NEVER again > be one of them. Not to tell you what to do/not do, but aren't you simply changing from one proprietary solution to another by any of these? I don't know much about C# but is there any implementation of C# that isn't MS and doesn't MS control the language spec? Other than a language w/ a non-proprietary-controlled Standard, it's
http://www.mono-project.com/CSharp_Compiler
Thanks Mikhail Arkhipov (Microsoft) -- This post is provided 'AS IS' with no warranties and confers no rights On 3/31/05 9:35, in article 424C34C8.21AE55F8@swko.dot.net, "Duane Bozarth" [quoted text, click to view] <dpbozarth@swko.dot.net> wrote: > Stefan Berglund wrote: > ... > >> >> I've already purchased Delphi, RealBasic, and PowerBasic and I'm looking at >> all of >> them as well as considering C# (only because it's not MS proprietary) - those >> days of >> naivete are over. It's definitely a tough decision. I came from a C++ >> background as well as >> Borland's Turbo Pascal so Delphi is no mystery. The irony of it all is that >> a friend convinced me >> way back when to abandon C++ for RAD VB4 so I rewrote my bread and butter >> app in VB. Ha ha, so now the joke's on me. >> >> Oh well, at least there are plenty of viable alternatives and MS will NEVER >> again >> be one of them. > > Not to tell you what to do/not do, but aren't you simply changing from > one proprietary solution to another by any of these? I don't know much > about C# but is there any implementation of C# that isn't MS and doesn't > MS control the language spec? > > Other than a language w/ a non-proprietary-controlled Standard, it's > basically a choice of vendors...
[quoted text, click to view]
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 11:35:04 -0600, Duane Bozarth <dpbozarth@swko.dot.net> wrote: ¤ ...¤ Stefan Berglund wrote: ¤ > ¤ > I've already purchased Delphi, RealBasic, and PowerBasic and I'm looking at all of ¤ > them as well as considering C# (only because it's not MS proprietary) - those days of ¤ > naivete are over. It's definitely a tough decision. I came from a C++ background as well as ¤ > Borland's Turbo Pascal so Delphi is no mystery. The irony of it all is that a friend convinced me ¤ > way back when to abandon C++ for RAD VB4 so I rewrote my bread and butter ¤ > app in VB. Ha ha, so now the joke's on me. ¤ > ¤ > Oh well, at least there are plenty of viable alternatives and MS will NEVER again ¤ > be one of them. ¤ ¤ Not to tell you what to do/not do, but aren't you simply changing from ¤ one proprietary solution to another by any of these? I don't know much ¤ about C# but is there any implementation of C# that isn't MS and doesn't ¤ MS control the language spec? ¤ You bet. Unless it can be separated from the .NET environment extensions - which would likely break code. Paul ~~~~
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 11:35:04 -0600, Duane Bozarth
[quoted text, click to view] <dpbozarth@swko.dot.net> wrote: in <424C34C8.21AE55F8@swko.dot.net> [quoted text, click to view] >Stefan Berglund wrote: >... >> >> I've already purchased Delphi, RealBasic, and PowerBasic and I'm looking at all of >> them as well as considering C# (only because it's not MS proprietary) - those days of >> naivete are over. It's definitely a tough decision. I came from a C++ background as well as >> Borland's Turbo Pascal so Delphi is no mystery. The irony of it all is that a friend convinced me >> way back when to abandon C++ for RAD VB4 so I rewrote my bread and butter >> app in VB. Ha ha, so now the joke's on me. >> >> Oh well, at least there are plenty of viable alternatives and MS will NEVER again >> be one of them. > >Not to tell you what to do/not do, but aren't you simply changing from >one proprietary solution to another by any of these? I don't know much >about C# but is there any implementation of C# that isn't MS and doesn't >MS control the language spec? > >Other than a language w/ a non-proprietary-controlled Standard, it's >basically a choice of vendors... To reiterate, the only reason I'd consider C# is if it is not an MS proprietary language. To wit: http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-334.htm Actually, it looks like I'll probably just return to C/C++ since it definitely has a standard that's not controlled/owned by MS. As far as choice of vendors goes, I'm fairly certain everyone here agrees that there really isn't a choice at this point in time. But I'll damn sure do whatever I can to use any and all suitable alternatives to any of their products at every turn in the road. ---
[quoted text, click to view]
> Unfortunately we have fallen victim to MS's PR machine > > - they deliberately misinterpret the meaning of 'support' Have you noticed that Mikhail has not responded to my question that started this sub-thread? First, he offered the company line about paid support and then ignored the question I asked about the "other" kind of support (even though he participated in this thread after my message was posted). Rick
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:14:58 +0100, "Tony Proctor"
[quoted text, click to view] <tony_proctor@aimtechnology_NoMoreSPAM_.com> wrote: >Yes, there is a general feeling that they've closed the windows, and are >weathering the storm. However, I think there will be considerably fewer >ships in the water once it's blown over. :-) > > Tony Proctor Unfortunately we have fallen victim to MS's PR machine - they deliberately misinterpret the meaning of 'support' - they make it look as if we are whining about 'free help' - when in fact we are using the technical term which is:- 'an undertaking that MS will not pull the rug out from under us at the operating system level'. Actually I was reading something about the MS testing system - they call it 'Running the Gauntlet' A few articles in the popular and low end press would get them running around in headless chicken mode. I suggest something like: 'Will Microsoft drop the Gauntlet on VB and VBA ?' When making modifications to the basic operating system that is behind Windows, or developing a new version like the fabled 'Longhorn', Microsoft are well aware that one small mistake can ripple through the system, and make it impossible for older programs to run. To prevent this, they have a sophisticated testing system called 'The Gauntlet' VB and VBA programmers have heard rumours that MS will drop the Gauntlet testing for ... There is some evidence of this in the release of VB6 SP6 which was supposed to fix bugs, but actually created them When challenged, the MS publicity panzer deliberately misrepresented the reason for the programmers protests, and suggested that they were just bleating about the 'withdrawel of /Free/ support' Of course, in the programming community 'Ask Microsoft' is a well known way of saying 'there is no known answer'. Of course, the above may, or not be factually accurate - but PR and 'facts' seldom mix
[quoted text, click to view]
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 03:38:33 -0400, "Rick Rothstein" <rickNOSPAMnews@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote: ¤ > Unfortunately we have fallen victim to MS's PR machine ¤ > ¤ > - they deliberately misinterpret the meaning of 'support' ¤ ¤ Have you noticed that Mikhail has not responded to my question that ¤ started this sub-thread? First, he offered the company line about paid ¤ support and then ignored the question I asked about the "other" kind of ¤ support (even though he participated in this thread after my message was ¤ posted). The support you were referring to is not provided for during the Extended Phase. This is documented in the Product Family Life-Cycle Guidelines for Visual Basic 6.0. Paul ~~~~
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 03:38:33 -0400, "Rick Rothstein"
[quoted text, click to view] <rickNOSPAMnews@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote: >> Unfortunately we have fallen victim to MS's PR machine >> >> - they deliberately misinterpret the meaning of 'support' > >Have you noticed that Mikhail has not responded to my question that >started this sub-thread? First, he offered the company line about paid >support and then ignored the question I asked about the "other" kind of >support (even though he participated in this thread after my message was >posted). Yes, he was sent here to take the temperature I am half wondering whether MS /do/ plan to break backwards compatibility. Their first real attempt with the DEC Alpha was coerced, - but if they can port .NET then it could open new vistas for them. I have a strong suspicion that MS do not realize what a spectacular job we did in the last 20+ years, kicking out mainframes and minis.
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 11:45:32 -0400, "Rick Rothstein"
[quoted text, click to view] <rickNOSPAMnews@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote: in <O$ZmW1SOFHA.3072@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl> > >basically implying the petition's (http://classicvb.org/petition) >premise is unfounded. Since Mikhail set himself up to be a "spokesman" >for Microsoft on this issue, I just wanted him to address the issue of >what I (and others) consider to be TRUE support for VB6. It matters >little if I can pay Microsoft to answer questions if they plan to push >the product off of the cliff of future usability, which they have >already started to do. In a response to Ken Halter, I raised the issue >of DirectX. Microsoft provided an SDK for Version 8 and deliberately did >not do so for the latest version 9. That, to me, is not what I would >call support for VB6; as a matter-of-fact, it is what I would call just >the opposite. Since Mikhail was so eager to jump in and defend Microsoft >as a supporter of VB6, I just wanted to hear his thoughts on what I >suspect most people mean when they say support. Of course, he appears to >have chosen not to answer this question... > Rick, you realize of course that it takes some time and effort to come up with the proper spin... Frankly, I find myself too dizzy to continue. ---
[quoted text, click to view]
> ¤ > Unfortunately we have fallen victim to MS's PR machine > ¤ > > ¤ > - they deliberately misinterpret the meaning of 'support' > ¤ > ¤ Have you noticed that Mikhail has not responded to my question that > ¤ started this sub-thread? First, he offered the company line about paid > ¤ support and then ignored the question I asked about the "other" kind of > ¤ support (even though he participated in this thread after my message was > ¤ posted). > > The support you were referring to is not provided for during the Extended Phase. This is documented > in the Product Family Life-Cycle Guidelines for Visual Basic 6.0. I know. The reason I posed the question is because the BLOG that Mikhail referenced starts off this way "There have been a lot of questions raised about the "end" of support for Visual Basic 6.0 recently that are worthwhile addressing. Let's just get the biggest question out of the way: Support is not ending. Let me say that again: Support is not ending." basically implying the petition's (http://classicvb.org/petition) premise is unfounded. Since Mikhail set himself up to be a "spokesman" for Microsoft on this issue, I just wanted him to address the issue of what I (and others) consider to be TRUE support for VB6. It matters little if I can pay Microsoft to answer questions if they plan to push the product off of the cliff of future usability, which they have already started to do. In a response to Ken Halter, I raised the issue of DirectX. Microsoft provided an SDK for Version 8 and deliberately did not do so for the latest version 9. That, to me, is not what I would call support for VB6; as a matter-of-fact, it is what I would call just the opposite. Since Mikhail was so eager to jump in and defend Microsoft as a supporter of VB6, I just wanted to hear his thoughts on what I suspect most people mean when they say support. Of course, he appears to have chosen not to answer this question... [DrippingWithSarcasm] I wonder why? [/DrippingWithSarcasm] Rick
[quoted text, click to view] "Paul Clement" <UseAdddressAtEndofMessage@swspectrum.com> wrote in message news:ug63519fq76bcr3tl57gpp2um3vofff5it@4ax.com... > On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 11:45:32 -0400, "Rick Rothstein" <rickNOSPAMnews@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote: > > ¤ > ¤ > Unfortunately we have fallen victim to MS's PR machine > ¤ > ¤ > > ¤ > ¤ > - they deliberately misinterpret the meaning of 'support' > ¤ > ¤ > ¤ > ¤ Have you noticed that Mikhail has not responded to my question that > ¤ > ¤ started this sub-thread? First, he offered the company line about > ¤ paid > ¤ > ¤ support and then ignored the question I asked about the "other" kind > ¤ of > ¤ > ¤ support (even though he participated in this thread after my message > ¤ was > ¤ > ¤ posted). > ¤ > > ¤ > The support you were referring to is not provided for during the > ¤ Extended Phase. This is documented > ¤ > in the Product Family Life-Cycle Guidelines for Visual Basic 6.0. > ¤ > ¤ I know. The reason I posed the question is because the BLOG that Mikhail > ¤ referenced starts off this way > ¤ > ¤ "There have been a lot of questions raised about the "end" > ¤ > ¤ of support for Visual Basic 6.0 recently that are worthwhile > ¤ > ¤ addressing. Let's just get the biggest question out of the > ¤ > ¤ way: Support is not ending. Let me say that again: > ¤ > ¤ Support is not ending." > ¤ > ¤ > ¤ > ¤ basically implying the petition's (http://classicvb.org/petition) > ¤ premise is unfounded. Since Mikhail set himself up to be a "spokesman" > ¤ for Microsoft on this issue, I just wanted him to address the issue of > ¤ what I (and others) consider to be TRUE support for VB6. It matters > ¤ little if I can pay Microsoft to answer questions if they plan to push > ¤ the product off of the cliff of future usability, which they have > ¤ already started to do. In a response to Ken Halter, I raised the issue > ¤ of DirectX. Microsoft provided an SDK for Version 8 and deliberately did > ¤ not do so for the latest version 9. That, to me, is not what I would > ¤ call support for VB6; as a matter-of-fact, it is what I would call just > ¤ the opposite. Since Mikhail was so eager to jump in and defend Microsoft > ¤ as a supporter of VB6, I just wanted to hear his thoughts on what I > ¤ suspect most people mean when they say support. Of course, he appears to > ¤ have chosen not to answer this question... > > It's been answered repeatedly and clearly documented. The blog even clarifies the level of support > that is being provided (omitted from your quote). This isn't anything new. > > If there is some inconsistency with respect to the premise of the petition, perhaps you could point > it out. > > I'm not sure what the confusion is because this issue been discussed in the past. > > > Paul > ~~~~ > Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic) For my own edification I have three (made up) dictionary terms for "support" (1) You can contact MS and get answers to classic VB questions. (2) MS issues occasional service packs so classic VB works better. (3) Future operating systems support the use of classic VB. I assume we are talking about (3) and a little (2) Galen
[quoted text, click to view] On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 11:45:32 -0400, "Rick Rothstein" <rickNOSPAMnews@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote: ¤ > ¤ > Unfortunately we have fallen victim to MS's PR machine ¤ > ¤ > ¤ > ¤ > - they deliberately misinterpret the meaning of 'support' ¤ > ¤ ¤ > ¤ Have you noticed that Mikhail has not responded to my question that ¤ > ¤ started this sub-thread? First, he offered the company line about ¤ paid ¤ > ¤ support and then ignored the question I asked about the "other" kind ¤ of ¤ > ¤ support (even though he participated in this thread after my message ¤ was ¤ > ¤ posted). ¤ > ¤ > The support you were referring to is not provided for during the ¤ Extended Phase. This is documented ¤ > in the Product Family Life-Cycle Guidelines for Visual Basic 6.0. ¤ ¤ I know. The reason I posed the question is because the BLOG that Mikhail ¤ referenced starts off this way ¤ ¤ "There have been a lot of questions raised about the "end" ¤ ¤ of support for Visual Basic 6.0 recently that are worthwhile ¤ ¤ addressing. L |