Is that a joke ?

[Ted Nicols]

That's what I keep asking myself whenever develop in .NET. Is this a joke a
farse or just a bad dream?

..NET is slow, actually slow is just a polite word I can use in a newsgroup.



..NET is just a VM and as one it works very slowly, before and after JIT. I
don't understand why some people insist that a VM can be compared with
native code. I really feel sick, whenever compare native C++ code against
the same code ported to C#. I don't know what is the performance loss with
databases or corporate solutions but my math/CAE functions run times slower
in .NET.

Managed code might be fast enough for enterprise apps, database front ends
or asp intranets. It probably looks fast to Java or VB developers but what
about real time applications?

What about CAD, CAE, CAM, scientific applications, utilities, math, imaging,
desktop publishing etc. What should developers who write such applications
must do ? Port them into UNIX ?



What happened to the rule i knew twenty years ago? "Next version of anything
should be at least faster and more stable than the previous one"



I have many questions for MS developers, although I'm sure nobody will ever
answer.



1. Is .NET just an approach to enterprise development?

2. Or another battle with Sun's Java

3. Or an MS conclusion that performance doesn't matter any more

4. If .NET was slow for WinFS, Office or Longhorn then why we have to
believe that is fast for our own applications?

5. If Microsoft want a new API why that must be based on VM technology?

6. Why MS call .NET a "safe" framework, safe from what? Safe from hackers, I
don't thin so, they can write anything they want in unmanaged code. Safe
from mem leaks, a garbage collector doesn't make good programmers or safe
applications. I still wonder what "safe" means.

7. Winforms1 will become obsolete because of WF2. WF2 will become obsolete
because of Avalon. Then why they introduced them? Just to have something
that hides Win32/GDI calls?

8. Longhorn drivers, kernel and anything "low-level" will be written in
native code. LH must run in 64bit processors too, so native code must be
natively compiled in 64bit API calls. That means Win32 will become Win64.
Why MS don't simply implement WinFX as an OO frontend to Win32/64 API,
leaving out the VM?

9. Mr Gates, why all that brain wash? You can fool some enterprise
programmers but not the rest of us who used to hand-optimise our code, just
to gain speed.



Finally, a single word question to all those bright scientists who work for
MS, Why ?



Please don't try to change my opinion, you cannot. By the way I'm not one of
those stupid guys who use to call Microsoft as M$. Me and all my colleagues
use Microsoft development tools since 1982 and we all know what exactly are
JIT, VM and native compiler.



I really like .NET/WinFX as a library and C# as a modern language, but I
feel sick with all that waste of processing power and lack of performance.



Regards

Ted Nicols

 

[Cor Ligthert]

Ted,

What about CAD, CAE, CAM, scientific applications, utilities, math,
imaging, desktop publishing etc.

Can you give me the percentage that represents the people, working at
insurance companies and banks, which are business wise busy with what you
wrote above. (and than real desktop publishing not things as Word.

Maybe gives that an idea about real business.

Cor

 

[Wraith Daquell]

--> 1. Is .NET just an approach to enterprise development?
--> 2. Or another battle with Sun's Java
--> 3. Or an MS conclusion that performance doesn't matter any more

I wouldn't recommend using C# (and definitely not VB) to program a 3D
FPS, nor a CAD application. But, to be reasonable, you couldn't do it
in the vast majority of languages. That's not what they're here for; if
MS 'reinvented the wheel', would anyone be pleased? I develop many
useful applications in VB.NET that run as fast as they need to. It
would be an unproductive waste of time to use C++ or even VB6. Look at
sharpDevelop, the open source IDE. It runs quite on par with Delphi,
which is natively compiled, but sharpDevelop is written in C#.


--> 4. If .NET was slow for WinFS, Office or Longhorn then why we have
to believe that is fast for our own applications?

Nobody is forcing you to use .NET. There are a myriad of languages out
there... take your pick. For me, and my applications, and the
applications I've seen written and run, it works well enough.

--> 5. If Microsoft want a new API why that must be based on VM
technology?

First, MS gets slapped because "Java is the thing of the future". Then,
they get slapped because "they copy their competition". If the world
didn't want a VM API, MS wouldn't have made it. There are many things
that impossible or close to it to implement in a natively compiled
framework. And for the majority of apps, speed is not a killing issue,
so VMs work just fine.

--> 6. Why MS call .NET a "safe" framework, safe from what? Safe from
hackers, I don't thin so, they can write anything they want in
unmanaged code. Safe from mem leaks, a garbage collector doesn't make
good programmers or safe applications. I still wonder what "safe"
means.

"safe" is a loose term. "safe" could mean that eventually, there will
be no unmanaged code. "safe" could mean that more people could create
more useful applications using good practices without worrying about
garbage collection and the like. When the PC came out, many were wary
about switching from the typewriter. "On the PC, people don't have to
worry about typos! They won't be as careful!!!" How far did that
philosophy of "we learned it, so the new generation must learn it" get
them?

--> 7. Winforms1 will become obsolete because of WF2. WF2 will become
obsolete
because of Avalon. Then why they introduced them? Just to have
something
that hides Win32/GDI calls?

Think experimentation here. Considering the fact that less than thirty
years have passed since MS Windows became great, I as a developer am
willing to be forgiving when a new, better idea totally eclipses a past
innovation. Besides, the WF and Avalon ideas sure help out RAD
developers.

--> 8. Longhorn drivers, kernel and anything "low-level" will be
written in native code. LH must run in 64bit processors too, so native
code must be natively compiled in 64bit API calls. That means Win32
will become Win64. Why MS don't simply implement WinFX as an OO
frontend to Win32/64 API, leaving out the VM?

Well, that'd be great. That's the mistake they made with Win16, all
native stuff that won't run right on a Win32 machine. With a properly
made VM, the transition to Win64, and eventually Win128, will be
easier.

--> 9. Mr Gates, why all that brain wash? You can fool some enterprise
programmers but not the rest of us who used to hand-optimise our code,
just to gain speed.

He's out to make money for MS, he's out to promote his products. Brain
wash is what happens in tyrannical regimes.

--> Finally, a single word question to all those bright scientists who
work for MS, Why ?

Free Country, Freedom of Choice rings a bell. If they like it and love
it, let'm be. You don't have to work for MS; if you're correct in all
that you believe, join a competitor, fight against them following the
law (viruses prove nothing), and once again, if you're correct, the
world will come to you.

--> Please don't try to change my opinion, you cannot.

Why'd you ask all these questions, then? Arrr... I got writer's cramp
for nothing

--> By the way I'm not one of those stupid guys who use to call
Microsoft as M$. Me and all my colleagues use Microsoft development
tools since 1982 and we all know what exactly are JIT, VM and native
compiler.

I'd agree with you on that one. Your questions were all valid, and
you're obviously a knowledged developer. Your post is a good example of
non-profane, non-offensive tech discussion. Thanks Ted.

 

[Nick Malik [Microsoft]]

The .Net framework DOES compile code into native op-codes. It is NOT an
interpreter.

While some operations run quicker in C++, including the initial load of the
app into memory, the fact is that .Net apps are not substantially slower,
when running, than C++ apps for most uses. Perhaps you have hit on a
situation that runs slower? Perhaps if you tell is a little more about your
app?

--
--- Nick Malik [Microsoft]
MCSD, CFPS, Certified Scrummaster
http://blogs.msdn.com/nickmalik

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this forum are my own, and not
representative of my employer.
I do not answer questions on behalf of my employer. I'm just a
programmer helping programmers.
--

 

[Wraith Daquell]

1. Is .NET just an approach to enterprise development?

2. Or another battle with Sun's Java
3. Or an MS conclusion that performance doesn't matter any more

I wouldn't recommend using C# (and definitely not VB) to program a 3D
FPS. But, to be reasonable, you couldn't do it in the vast majority of
languages. That's not what they're here for; if MS 'reinvented the
wheel', would anyone be pleased? I develop many useful applications in
VB.NET that run as fast as they need to. It would be an unproductive
waste of time to use C++ or even VB6. Look at sharpDevelop, the open
source IDE. It runs quite on par with Delphi, which is natively
compiled, but sharpDevelop is written in C#.

4. If .NET was slow for WinFS, Office or Longhorn then why we have to believe that is fast for our own applications?

Nobody is forcing you to use .NET. There are a myriad of languages out
there... take your pick. For me, and my applications, and the
applications I've seen written and run, it works well enough.

5. If Microsoft want a new API why that must be based on VM technology?

First, MS gets slapped because "Java is the thing of the future". Then,
they get slapped because "they copy their competition". If the world
didn't want a VM API, MS wouldn't have made it. There are many things
that impossible or close to it to implement in a natively compiled
framework. And for the majority of apps, speed is not a killing issue,
so VMs work just fine.

6. Why MS call .NET a "safe" framework, safe from what? Safe from hackers, I don't thin so, they can write anything they want in unmanaged code. Safe from mem leaks, a garbage collector doesn't make good programmers or safe applications. I still wonder what "safe" means.

"safe" is a loose term. "safe" could mean that eventually, there will
be no unmanaged code. "safe" could mean that more people could create
more useful applications using good practices without worrying about
garbage collection and the like. When the PC came out, many were wary
about switching from the typewriter. "On the PC, people don't have to
worry about typos! They won't be as careful!!!" How far did that
philosophy of "we learned it, so the new generation must learn it" get
them?

7. Winforms1 will become obsolete because of WF2. WF2 will become obsolete because of Avalon. Then why they introduced them? Just to have something that hides Win32/GDI calls?

Think experimentation here. Considering the fact that less than thirty
years have passed since MS Windows became great, I as a developer am
willing to be forgiving when a new, better idea totally eclipses a past
innovation.

8. Longhorn drivers, kernel and anything "low-level" will be written in native code. LH must run in 64bit processors too, so native code must be natively compiled in 64bit API calls. That means Win32 will become Win64. Why MS don't simply implement WinFX as an OO frontend to Win32/64 API, leaving out the VM?

Well, that'd be great. That's the mistake they made with Win16, all
native stuff that won't run right on a Win32 machine. With a properly
made VM, the transition to Win64, and eventually Win128, will be
easier.

9. Mr Gates, why all that brain wash? You can fool some enterprise programmers but not the rest of us who used to hand-optimise our code, just to gain speed.

He's out to make money for MS, he's out to promote his products. Brain
wash is what happens in tyrannical regimes.

Finally, a single word question to all those bright scientists who work for MS, Why?

Free Country, Freedom of Choice rings a bell. If they like it and love
it, let'm be. You don't have to work for MS; if you're correct in all
that you believe, join a competitor, fight against them following the
law (viruses prove nothing), and once again, if you're correct, the
world will come to you.

Please don't try to change my opinion, you cannot.

Why'd you ask all these questions, then? Arrr... I got writer's cramp
for nothing

By the way I'm not one of those stupid guys who use to call Microsoft as M$. Me and all my colleagues use Microsoft development tools since 1982 and we all know what exactly are JIT, VM and native compiler.

I'd agree with you on that one. Your questions were all valid, and
you're obviously a knowledged developer. Your post is a good example of
non-profane, non-offensive tech discussion. Thanks Ted.

 

[jabailo]

Ted Nicols wrote:

.NET is slow, actually slow is just a polite word I can use in a
newsgroup.

'Slow' is also a word that you should never use if you want any respect from
engineers. Can you quantify what 'slow' means for you? If anything,
some of my running battles with certain c++ programmers show that it's
just-as-fast to nearly-as-fast for many key processes such as word search
( using Regex ) and highly threaded applications.

1. Is .NET just an approach to enterprise development?

No, not just.

2. Or another battle with Sun's Java

Not another, but *the* battle.

3. Or an MS conclusion that performance doesn't matter any more

Performance always matters. Somehow, you have this outdated notion of what
performance in business or Enterprise means. In my business we apply
strict speed and performance metrics to all our Operations from loading a
file to updating a database. My motto is "under 1 ms' -- the goal of
atomic operations should always be less than a millesecond.

4. If .NET was slow for WinFS, Office or Longhorn then why we have to
believe that is fast for our own applications?

What are your applications?

6. Why MS call .NET a "safe" framework, safe from what? Safe from hackers,
I don't thin so, they can write anything they want in unmanaged code. Safe
from mem leaks, a garbage collector doesn't make good programmers or safe
applications.

Safe from self-created memory leaks. But there is always the unsafe
approach if you have the skills.

7. Winforms1 will become obsolete because of WF2. WF2 will become obsolete
because of Avalon. Then why they introduced them? Just to have something
that hides Win32/GDI calls?

If you read the papers, the idea of making .NET as the only interface to the
new Longhorn API has been dismissed.

8. Longhorn drivers, kernel and anything "low-level" will be written in
native code. LH must run in 64bit processors too, so native code must be
natively compiled in 64bit API calls. That means Win32 will become Win64.
Why MS don't simply implement WinFX as an OO frontend to Win32/64 API,
leaving out the VM?

That's the first brilliant thing you've said.

9. Mr Gates, why all that brain wash? You can fool some enterprise
programmers but not the rest of us who used to hand-optimise our code,
just to gain speed.

Then go ahead. You can still use your hands, and your /head/. Meanwhile,
the Enterprise is adopting .NET in *droves*.

Finally, a single word question to all those bright scientists who work
for MS, Why ?

Well, that view of Lake Samnamnish from the big houses they bought with
their bonuses for one.

Please don't try to change my opinion, you cannot. By the way I'm not one
of those stupid guys who use to call Microsoft as M$. Me and all my
colleagues use Microsoft development tools since 1982 and we all know what
exactly are JIT, VM and native compiler.

Okay, then you must have higher level contacts than this newsgroup...or
don't you?

I really like .NET/WinFX as a library and C# as a modern language, but I
feel sick with all that waste of processing power and lack of performance.

Quantify.
Quantify.
Quantify.

 

[Jim Hubbard]

--> 5. If Microsoft want a new API why that must be based on VM
technology?

First, MS gets slapped because "Java is the thing of the future". Then,
they get slapped because "they copy their competition". If the world
didn't want a VM API, MS wouldn't have made it.

This isn't the reason for .Net at all. The real reason for it is because
Microsoft can save money in development and support of their development
languages by slapping them all on top of the CLR. Microsoft doesn't do
anything because "the people" want them to - just look at how they swept the
classic VB developers under the rug (millions of them) without paying any
attention to what they wanted or needed.

There are many things
that impossible or close to it to implement in a natively compiled
framework.

This is just plainly not true. Name an application or data manipultaion
that cannot be done outside a VM.

And for the majority of apps, speed is not a killing issue,
so VMs work just fine.

--> 6. Why MS call .NET a "safe" framework, safe from what? Safe from
hackers, I don't thin so, they can write anything they want in
unmanaged code. Safe from mem leaks, a garbage collector doesn't make
good programmers or safe applications. I still wonder what "safe"
means.

"safe" is a loose term. "safe" could mean that eventually, there will
be no unmanaged code. "safe" could mean that more people could create
more useful applications using good practices without worrying about
garbage collection and the like. When the PC came out, many were wary
about switching from the typewriter. "On the PC, people don't have to
worry about typos! They won't be as careful!!!" How far did that
philosophy of "we learned it, so the new generation must learn it" get
them?

""Safe" was a keyword used to generate interest in a product that was not
needed (.Net).

The imaginary "DLL Hell" was also listed as a reason for .Net. This too was
a lie. All that you had to do to avoid the "DLL Hell" boogey man was to
place your DLLs in the same directory as your executable! What a farce!

--> 7. Winforms1 will become obsolete because of WF2. WF2 will become
obsolete
because of Avalon. Then why they introduced them? Just to have
something
that hides Win32/GDI calls?

Think experimentation here. Considering the fact that less than thirty
years have passed since MS Windows became great, I as a developer am
willing to be forgiving when a new, better idea totally eclipses a past
innovation. Besides, the WF and Avalon ideas sure help out RAD
developers.

Wrong again.... Microsoft, as a corporation, is very business savy. There
are several real reasons for changing the user interface - not one of which
has anything to do with innovation or helping developers.

For one, Microsoft knows that "new and shiny" sells operating systems. Just
look at XP. What great and new things did XP give us over 2000 except a
shiny new interface and new names for the same old OS tools? Not much.

People aren't very smart. You can slap a new cover on an old book and it
will sell nearly as well as the first time it was released. Same thing goes
for cars, houses, campaign promises and operating systems. This is simply
user manipulation.

Another reason for Avalon would be to give back to the PC hardware industry
for it's help in making Microsoft the monopoly it is today. To get the "new
shiny" buttons in Longhorn, most users will need a new (or at least
upgraded) PC to reach the 3Ghz CPU, 512MB RAM and 3D capable graphics cards
needed to run it. This is just another "new and shiny" covering on the same
unstable core.

And, what PC manufacturer wouldn't agree to sell your OS if it means more PC
sales for them?

--> 8. Longhorn drivers, kernel and anything "low-level" will be
written in native code. LH must run in 64bit processors too, so native
code must be natively compiled in 64bit API calls. That means Win32
will become Win64. Why MS don't simply implement WinFX as an OO
frontend to Win32/64 API, leaving out the VM?

Well, that'd be great. That's the mistake they made with Win16, all
native stuff that won't run right on a Win32 machine. With a properly
made VM, the transition to Win64, and eventually Win128, will be
easier.

Bull. Microsoft is increasingly making it more difficult to move forward.
Just ask anyone that has had to port VB6 to VB.Net in an enterprise
application.

--> 9. Mr Gates, why all that brain wash? You can fool some enterprise
programmers but not the rest of us who used to hand-optimise our code,
just to gain speed.

He's out to make money for MS, he's out to promote his products. Brain
wash is what happens in tyrannical regimes.

Microsoft is like Neverland. All of Michael's (and Bill's) cheerleaders are
there telling him what he wants to hear to make sure they keep getting that
paycheck.

They make the decisions YOU have to live with. Don't fool yourself into
thinking that MS is in the business of suppporting customers. It's i the
business of supporting investors.

--> Finally, a single word question to all those bright scientists who
work for MS, Why ?

Free Country, Freedom of Choice rings a bell. If they like it and love
it, let'm be. You don't have to work for MS; if you're correct in all
that you believe, join a competitor, fight against them following the
law (viruses prove nothing), and once again, if you're correct, the
world will come to you.

One word......money.

Jim

 

[jabailo]

This isn't the reason for .Net at all. The real reason for it is because
Microsoft can save money in development and support of their development
languages by slapping them all on top of the CLR. Microsoft doesn't do
anything because "the people" want them to - just look at how they swept
the classic VB developers under the rug (millions of them) without paying
any attention to what they wanted or needed.

Huh?  That's crazy. As far as I can see, they just elevated all those VB
developers to status of c++ developers by giving them features like
Threading that works, Remoting and Reflection as well as the ability to
develop windows services.

A VB6 developer who's willing to do a little training and work can now be
part of the *club*.

 

[Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu]

That's what I keep asking myself whenever develop in .NET. Is this a
joke a farse or just a bad dream?

Many others have posted good replies to your questions, but here is my view and addresses directly
many of your questions.

http://www.codeproject.com/dotnet/WhyDotNET.asp


--
Chad Z. Hower (a.k.a. Kudzu) - http://www.hower.org/Kudzu/
"Programming is an art form that fights back"

Make your ASP.NET applications run faster
http://www.atozed.com/IntraWeb/

 

[Wraith Daquell]

First, MS gets slapped because "Java is the thing of the future". Then, they get slapped because "they copy their competition". If the world didn't want a VM API, MS wouldn't have made it.

This isn't the reason for .Net at all. The real reason for it is because Microsoft can save money in development and support of their development languages by slapping them all on top of the CLR. Microsoft doesn't do anything because "the people" want them to - just look at how they swept the classic VB developers under the rug (millions of them) without paying any attention to what they wanted or needed.

Yeah, they swept them under the rug, and yeah, that's too bad. I'm
serious. But VB6 is old, and the developers are competent. The language
is not changing much, so I can sympathize with both sides. But I don't
(I have, but don't anymore) work with VB6, so I can't empathize as
much. You win a cookie with this point.

There are many things that are impossible or close to it to implement in a natively compiled framework.

This is just plainly not true. Name an application or data manipultaion that cannot be done outside a VM.

The problem with the "DLL Hell", and the solution you gave for it, is
that many developers just didn't follow those guidlines. The nice thing
about the CLR is that it's all there, loaded into the system, for you
to use. Also, debugging is much easier to implement (as is reverse
engineering... I know). And with a project such as Mono, the problems
of portability seem to fade into the background.

"safe" is a loose term. "safe" could mean that eventually, there will
be no unmanaged code. "safe" could mean that more people could create
more useful applications using good practices without worrying about
garbage collection and the like. When the PC came out, many were wary
about switching from the typewriter. "On the PC, people don't have to
worry about typos! They won't be as careful!!!" How far did that
philosophy of "we learned it, so the new generation must learn it" get
them?

""Safe" was a keyword used to generate interest in a product that was not needed (.Net).

Good point, well taken, but... some proof?

The imaginary "DLL Hell" was also listed as a reason for .Net. This too was a lie. All that you had to do to avoid the "DLL Hell" boogey man was to place your DLLs in the same directory as your executable! What a farce!

See above ^

Think experimentation here. Considering the fact that less than thirty years have passed since MS Windows became great, I as a developer am willing to be forgiving when a new, better idea totally eclipses a past innovation. Besides, the WF and Avalon ideas sure help out RAD developers.

Wrong again.... Microsoft, as a corporation, is very business savy. There are several real reasons for changing the user interface - not one of which has anything to do with innovation or helping developers. For one, Microsoft knows that "new and shiny" sells operating systems. Just look at XP. What great and new things did XP give us over 2000 except a shiny new interface and new names for the same old OS tools? Not much. People aren't very smart. You can slap a new cover on an old book and it will sell nearly as well as the first time it was released. Same thing goes for cars, houses, campaign promises and operating systems. This is simply user manipulation. Another reason for Avalon would be to give back to the PC hardware industry for it's help in making Microsoft the monopoly it is today. To get the "new shiny" buttons in Longhorn, most users will need a new (or at least upgraded) PC to reach the 3Ghz CPU, 512MB RAM and 3D capable graphics cards needed to run it. This is just another "new and shiny" covering on the same unstable core. And, what PC manufacturer wouldn't agree to sell your OS if it means more PC sales for them?

Your argument here is completely valid. It's so valid, in fact, that it
would make the Mac users who complain that Windows is too old and ugly
looking, pretty angry. WF and Avalon have (will) help developers. And
it's Microsoft's job to sell their software. They wouldn't be much of a
company if their motto was, "Don't make the product look good." Like
you said, this goes for every company. It's part of the way of
business.

--> 8. Longhorn drivers, kernel and anything "low-level" will be written in native code. LH must run in 64bit processors too, so native code must be natively compiled in 64bit API calls. That means Win32 will become Win64. Why MS don't simply implement WinFX as an OO frontend to Win32/64 API, leaving out the VM?

Well, that'd be great. That's the mistake they made with Win16, all native stuff that won't run right on a Win32 machine. With a properly made VM, the transition to Win64, and eventually Win128, will be easier.

Microsoft is increasingly making it more difficult to move forward. Just ask anyone that has had to port VB6 to VB.Net in an enterprise application.

Okay, this point defines the argument. While all the VB6 programmers
are angry, and partly rightly so, this is progress. For better, or
worse, it remains to be seen, though I see a bright horizon. There have
always been the nay-sayers through history, consider the steam-engine,
the car, the rocket-ship. To move forward, something has to be left
behind. In a radical situation like the move from VB6 to .NET,
Microsoft is making the statement that they are trying to change things
for the better. I think they have, and there's alot of people behind
me.

He [Bill Gates] is out to make money for MS, he's out to promote his products. Brain
wash is what happens in tyrannical regimes.

Microsoft is like Neverland. All of Michael's (and Bill's) cheerleaders are there telling him what he wants to hear to make sure they keep getting that paycheck. They make the decisions YOU have to live with. Don't fool yourself into thinking that MS is in the business of suppporting customers. It's the business of supporting investors.

And I bet that MS would continue to prosper if nobody bought their
products? My point is, people are buying it. People are liking it.

Free Country, Freedom of Choice rings a bell. If they like it and love it, let'm be. You don't have to work for MS; if you're correct in all that you believe, join a competitor, fight against them following the law (viruses prove nothing), and once again, if you're correct, the world will come to you.

One word......money.

It's hard to criticize a manger for wanting to get paid. Until I stand
in Mr. Gates' shoes (and I'm not likely to ever do that), I won't down
him like that. He stands in the balance between two volatile worlds -
The Company, and The People. Neither of which will ever be pleased.

As a final note here, I've got to say that I don't agree with
everything MS does. I don't work for them, have never worked for them,
and don't know if I ever will.

 

[Jim Hubbard]

Huh? That's crazy. As far as I can see, they just elevated all those VB
developers to status of c++ developers by giving them features like
Threading that works, Remoting and Reflection as well as the ability to
develop windows services.

That's because, like Microsoft, you haven't done your homework on just who
Visual Basic 6 programmers were or their skills and goals.

The majority of Visual Basic 6 programmers were not professional programmers
and had no desire to be. They were people that did other jobs to make a
living (lawyers, accountants, mail clerks, students, etc.) and found Visual
Basic to be an easy-to-use tool that they could use to write simple programs
to make their lives (or hobbies) easier.

They had no interest in becomming a professional developer on the level of a
C/C++ programmer. Their interest lied in RAD development of solutions to
everyday problems that confronted them. Visual Basic 6 (and its
predecessors) gave them such a simple RAD tool. It was powerful enough to
accomplish almost anything they could imagine, but simple enough that
learning it did not take away vast amounts of time from their primary job.

With .Net, Microsoft essentially destroyed that. Now, you MUST devote the
time to become a professional developer in order to use VB.Net. The RAD
tool we all loved is dead. And, so is the devotion of millions of Visual
Basic 6 programmers.

Visual Basic programmers that did decide to deveop for a living frequently
learned C++ to do the things that professional developers like to do. But,
that in no way forced the everyday RAD developer that used Visual Basic 6 as
a tool to enhance their non-programming jobs to devote hours and hours to
learning all of the underpinnings of COM+ to use an activex control. VB.Net
changed that for the worse.

Had Microsoft sought out exactly who their Visual Basic 6 millions were (and
cared), they never would've made such a tremendous blunder (both in image
and business).

A VB6 developer who's willing to do a little training and work can now be
part of the *club*.

To hell with the "club"! Classic VB developers wanted to get their jobs
done in the most efficient manner possible. They didn't give a damn about
impressing themselves ("Ooooo, look what I know!"). That's the domain of
arrogant geek asses that don't have a clue about getting business done.

In my 22+ years in programming, I've lead teams of programmers for some of
the highest profile companies in the U.S., and I'll take a part-time
programmer that just wants to get the job done over a bunch of "professional
developers" (with their in-fighting and bitching and whining and lack of
people skills) any day.

All too frequently, "professional developers" are only interested in playing
with the newest "toy", and they don't think about how it will affect daily
business. They are more concerned with the "new and shiny" stuff than with
accomplishing the company's goals in the most efficient manner possible.
That's what's happening with .Net.

Nobody seems interested in the security lapses in .Net (for applications
that are distributed). Nobody seems to realize that ,Net is written
specifically for Microsoft to realized it's goals of software-as-a-service.
And, they sure as hell don't realize that Microsoft has turned them into the
world's largest beta program for a product designed solely around
Microsoft's own goals for it's software.

I just die everytime I see a contractor go into a small company and start
preaching the Microsoft doctrine of the Microsoft SDLC. It's like watching
Tom Cruise talk about psychiatric drugs......they look sincere, but they are
simply brainwashed drones and lost as hell when it comes to accomplishing
business goals in as efficient a manner as possible. (Hey, at least it's
entertaining......right?)

I, for one, wish that Microsoft would've been broken up. I think we'd all
have been better off.

Jim

 

[jabailo]

The majority of Visual Basic 6 programmers were not professional
programmers
and had no desire to be. They were people that did other jobs to make a
living (lawyers, accountants, mail clerks, students, etc.) and found
Visual Basic to be an easy-to-use tool that they could use to write simple
programs to make their lives (or hobbies) easier.

Then you shouldn't be addressing .NET at all.

You should be learning Avalon and WinFx.

 

[Jim Hubbard]

Yeah, they swept them under the rug, and yeah, that's too bad. I'm
serious.

And, who's to say you're not next? When MS comes out with C*.ZAP to replace
everything in C# and offers not valid upgrade, you'll sing a different tune
then.

But VB6 is old, and the developers are competent. The language
is not changing much, so I can sympathize with both sides.

Not changing much?! You have no idea what you are taking about.......

But I don't
(I have, but don't anymore) work with VB6, so I can't empathize as
much. You win a cookie with this point.

I'd rather have VB 7.

The problem with the "DLL Hell", and the solution you gave for it, is
that many developers just didn't follow those guidlines. The nice thing
about the CLR is that it's all there, loaded into the system, for you
to use.

Exactly! Microsoft couldn't get it's own programmers to not leave bad code
(possible buffer overruns, etc.) in their own source.....so they opt to
force it down their throats. This was not the case with most programs
written at most companies. It was an OS problem that Microsoft could not
control with their own coders. But, they forced the "solution" on us all.

Also, debugging is much easier to implement (as is reverse
engineering... I know). And with a project such as Mono, the problems
of portability seem to fade into the background.

Mono is a joke. It has, is and always will be playing "catch-up" to
Microsoft's every move. That's why they'll always be behind. Microsoft
creates and they copy. Why don't these people innovate for themselves?

I talked to one of the head developers at Suse about this very thing. They
should break away and write a RAD development environment for Linux instead
of following MS like a lost puppy. He agreed, but said that the corporate
heads at Novell wouldn't hear of it.

Good point, well taken, but... some proof?

"DLL Hell" that didn't exist. Code that can be disassembled by your
competition. A buggy OS that still leaves you vulnerable. How many proofs
would you like?

How about this one......C# can still write unmanaged code. That blows one
hell of a hole into the whole garbage collection scheme.....in fact, it
completely negates it and all other ".Net advantages".

See above ^

Your argument here is completely valid. It's so valid, in fact, that it
would make the Mac users who complain that Windows is too old and ugly
looking, pretty angry. WF and Avalon have (will) help developers. And
it's Microsoft's job to sell their software. They wouldn't be much of a
company if their motto was, "Don't make the product look good." Like
you said, this goes for every company. It's part of the way of
business.

You can certainly make your product look good. Third party components for
Visual Basic did that very well. But, what MS is doing is painting a used
car and selling it to you as new. That is wrong.

Okay, this point defines the argument. While all the VB6 programmers
are angry, and partly rightly so, this is progress. For better, or
worse, it remains to be seen, though I see a bright horizon.

Me too. I see developer applications like REALBasic that are bright stars
on that horizon. Its company only does development software (not OS's or
applications that compete with it's developer's applications like MS). They
MUST listen to their developers, and they do.

There have
always been the nay-sayers through history, consider the steam-engine,
the car, the rocket-ship.

True. People also thought the Titanic, Ross rifles (look up Canadian
Soldiers in WW I) , the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, disco and smoking were just
great too.

To move forward, something has to be left
behind.

Not true. C++ wasn't left behind. It was brought forward and can continue
to run and be used from the .Net IDE. They could've done this with Visual
Basic 6. They simply CHOSE to abandon the largest group of developers on
the planet.

In a radical situation like the move from VB6 to .NET,
Microsoft is making the statement that they are trying to change things
for the better.

Are you really that niave?

I think they have, and there's alot of people behind
me.

There were a lot of people behind Hitler......didn't make it right.

He [Bill Gates] is out to make money for MS, he's out to promote his
products. Brain
wash is what happens in tyrannical regimes.

Microsoft is like Neverland. All of Michael's (and Bill's) cheerleaders
are there telling him what he wants to hear to make sure they keep
Don't fool yourself into thinking that MS is in the business of

And I bet that MS would continue to prosper if nobody bought their
products? My point is, people are buying it. People are liking it.

People are NOT buying it willingly. They are buying it because they won't
have support for the older technology. If people were given a true choice,
VB6 and C++ would rule.

It's hard to criticize a manger for wanting to get paid. Until I stand
in Mr. Gates' shoes (and I'm not likely to ever do that), I won't down
him like that. He stands in the balance between two volatile worlds -
The Company, and The People. Neither of which will ever be pleased.

I will down him like that. I have stood in a similar position (customers
want one thing, while the shareholders want quick money). I chose the
customers and the shareholders were better off for it. Eventually they
figured it out.

As a final note here, I've got to say that I don't agree with
everything MS does. I don't work for them, have never worked for them,
and don't know if I ever will.

Actually, I hope that you do. It would be a real eye-opener for you.

With whatever you choose, I wish you the best.

Jim

 

[Jim Hubbard]

Then you shouldn't be addressing .NET at all.

You should be learning Avalon and WinFx.

For what? Microsoft will just throw that out when it's convenient for
*them* to do so.

 

[jabailo]

For what? Microsoft will just throw that out when it's convenient for
*them* to do so.

Go Linux.

 

[Jim Hubbard]

Go Linux.

The only thing that's missing is a RAD tool for Linux that's as easy as VB.

REALBasic is making some great strides in that area.....and I've got my
fingers crossed.

Jim

 

[Wraith Daquell]

Yeah, they swept them under the rug, and yeah, that's too bad. I'm serious.

And, who's to say you're not next? When MS comes out with C*.ZAP to replace everything in C# and offers not valid upgrade, you'll sing a different tune then.

Nah, I keep up with the times. Call me young and unsatisfied, but I'm
always waiting for something new to come out. (famous last words)

"DLL Hell" that didn't exist. Code that can be disassembled by your competition. A buggy OS that still leaves you vulnerable. How many proofs would you like?
How about this one......C# can still write unmanaged code. That blows a hole into the whole garbage collection scheme.....in fact, it completely negates it and all other ".Net advantages".

DLL Hell did exist. Not to directly to refute you or anything. I have
three junked computers' worth of proof. And the problem didn't lie with
MS. Native code can be decompiled as well (MSIL, assembly, not much
difference). As for the buggy OS, think about what vulnerable means.
It's the people with anti-MS philosophy that write the terrible viruses
and such that makes the world vulnerable. This problem does not
originate by MS, nor is it mitigated by anyone, Linux, Apple, or
Microsoft.
I wouldn't say that the unmanaged feature of C#'s compiler is bad. I'm
happy to learn it has this; I was not aware. It doesn't blow a hole
into the scheme... it puts an extra switch into the pipe for choosy
developers. When did extra options ever negate something relevant to
this?

You can certainly make your product look good. Third party components for Visual Basic did that very well. But, what MS is doing is painting a used car and selling it to you as new. That is wrong.

Personally, I liked the features of XP. Yeah, it wasn't a Major major
upgrade from 2000, but it fixed alot of things (Plug and Play,
anyone?). As for Visual Basic.NET just being an old program redone; if
that were true, VB6 developers wouldn't be complaining, and instead of
debating with you right now I'd be eating chocolate cake.

While all the VB6 programmers are angry, and partly rightly so, this is progress. For better, or worse, it remains to be seen, though I see a bright horizon.

Me too. I see developer applications like REALBasic that are bright stars on that horizon. Its company only does development software (not OS's or applications that compete with it's developer's applications like MS). They MUST listen to their developers, and they do.

REALBasic's download page doesn't work, I tried it, and they admit it
in their FAQ. But if you choose them, I applaud you for it. This is the
concept that MS makes their programs available, not mandatory. No
matter how sneaky they are, they're NOT the ones buying their software,
so it's not their fault (unless they're underhanded, which they
sometimes are, granted) if something runs amuck.

As for the Titanic and all that, it doesn't apply to this discussion
and I was foolish to put that point in in the first place. BTW, in
regards to Ross Rifles... are you a WW buff? Nice!

To move forward, something has to be left behind.

Not true. C++ wasn't left behind. It was brought forward and can continue to run and be used from the .Net IDE. They could've done this with Visual Basic 6. They simply CHOSE to abandon the largest group of developers on the planet.

This is an interesting idea. I bet that someone could write a VB6 addon
for Visual Studio. I'll have to think about that one.

In a radical situation like the move from VB6 to .NET, Microsoft is making the statement that they are trying to change things for the better.

Are you really that niave?

Read, optimistic.

I think they have, and there's alot of people behind me.

There were a lot of people behind Hitler......didn't make it right.

The first time .NET sets off a major killing spree, you betcha I'm on
your side. I think that, since both of us follow different ideas, it
may be that we're both right, wrong, or neither. VB6 is a great
language, as is .NET; they both have their uses; yeah, MS was wrong to
dump you; these things happen.

Instead of quoting and reposting and all that for the rest, I'll just
spill my thoughts.
Sometimes, I think, if people were left to themselves, the earth would
quagmire. Hitler was left to himself for too long. So are the spyware
companies. .NET has displaced a tidal-wave, and nothing can stop it. I
didn't make .NET, I can't defend it like, say, a certified professional
could. But I can say that, since this change is in motion, we could all
sort of work towards refining it and enhancing it.

If we never get a chance to argue again, I must say that this has been
a fascinating discussion.

With whatever you choose, I wish you the best.

Thanks. To you too. Hopefully, this will all smooth out.

-Wraith

 

[jabailo]

The only thing that's missing is a RAD tool for Linux that's as easy as
VB.

REALBasic is making some great strides in that area.....and I've got my
fingers crossed.

Jim

You should look at /boo/

 

[Ted Nicols]

'Slow' is also a word that you should never use if you want any respect
from
engineers. Can you quantify what 'slow' means for you? If anything,
some of my running battles with certain c++ programmers show that it's
just-as-fast to nearly-as-fast for many key processes such as word search
( using Regex ) and highly threaded applications.

I was talking about applications like cad, cam, engineering stuf, math,
scientific applications, data aquisition etc. In that case I hope you
understand that .NET regex performance doesn't help a lot.
Last two years, I've ported a lot of code from C++ to C# and managed C++.
I've seen up to 4x performance decrease and more than 7x resources usage.
Please don't ask me what was the comparison results when tested data
aquisition & analysis, testing just peaked to 100% of CPU usage and the
application was not able to poll data.
Not to mention user interface slowness, probably that will be changed in the
future.

Performance always matters. Somehow, you have this outdated notion of
what
performance in business or Enterprise means. In my business we apply
strict speed and performance metrics to all our Operations from loading a
file to updating a database. My motto is "under 1 ms' -- the goal of
atomic operations should always be less than a millesecond.

Do you really think that this kind of performance is all we need today ?
I suppose that in your business, you still use programs like imaging, math
or statistics, archivers, spreadsheet, utilities etc.
Can you tell me how database performance can help Photoshop, for example,
rendering an image or an archiver to compress files or even the OS itself to
do other usefull tasks ?

What are your applications?

I'm working on engeeneering, industrial automation and CAD projects.

Safe from self-created memory leaks. But there is always the unsafe
approach if you have the skills.

AFAIK there is no "self-created" leaks.
If a developer use to allocate memory and forgets to free it then don't
blame Win API for that.
What do you think this kind of developers will do in .NET? Maybe GC will
protect framework from their faults but I cannot see how the system will be
protected from their poor coding.

If you read the papers, the idea of making .NET as the only interface to
the
new Longhorn API has been dismissed.

I've read the papers and the only thing I understood is that WinFX will be
the primary programming API. And as you know WinFX is managed code. Of
course Win32/64 will be there too, although it will be called "legacy".

That's the first brilliant thing you've said.

I'm glad you agreed with that.

Okay, then you must have higher level contacts than this newsgroup...or
don't you?

What you mean by that ? If you asked if I know MS people then the answer is
"NO" with the exception of a few of them who were in the same univ with me
years ago.
Even if I knew Bill Gates, do you think that I could make him change
Microsoft's roadmap ?
One think I've learned all these years, is that nobody, including mr Gates,
makes a decission based on his own will. I'm sure that MS marketing people
either have plans for web service market or believe that personal computer
market is dead.


I wonder what will happen when MS try to rewrite Excel or Word in managed
code (!) Unless they have plans to make Office available as a web service on
subscription basis.

What a future for the "computer science" world !

Regards

Ted Nicols.

 

[Ted Nicols]

Can you give me the percentage that represents the people, working at
insurance companies and banks, which are business wise busy with what you
wrote above. (and than real desktop publishing not things as Word.

Maybe gives that an idea about real business.

You're right Cor, that means business for MS marketing people.
Unfortunately I'm one of those old-timers who learned that Computer is a
system that computes as fast as it can.

Ted