J
Jim Hubbard
Mitchell S. Honnert said:Maybe it was because C++ wasn't screwed up like VB6 was.
IYHO? Religous zeal is best relegated to religion.
Maybe MS didn't want the taint of VB6 at all associated with their
next-generation application development tool.
What "taint"? The opinions of programming language zealots? I, and
4,000,000+ others, respectfully disagree.
I've stated before that VB6 was a great tool for the time, but by today's
standards it's crap. I don't know C++, but my assumption was that it was
OK the way it was, whereas VB was long overdue for a major overhaul.
According to whom? Sure there were some issues, but never was there a call
by the classic Visual Basic community for a completely new language. This
hallucination is uniquely Microsoft's.
I think your statement above is evidence of the mixed signals in the
petition. The petition is calling for a major upgrade to VB6 and yet you
say that "we'd" be happy with just a better upgrade tool.
I said we'd all be happy to move on. Moving on is (if made possible by an
upgrade too that actually worked for larger projects) preferable to
rewriting our existing codebase.
(I don't think you are using the royal "we", so I'm assuming you are
speaking on behalf of the petitioners.)
Not all of them. As you will notice, I am only a supporter of the
petition.....not an author.
The conclusion I draw from this is that petitioners don't really want to
address the problems stated in the petition itself, but the unstated
"problem" that they think VB.NET should never have been developed in the
first place.
I don't draw that conclusion at all. I haven't seen anyhting in the
petition that says that Microsoft should not have produced a new programming
language. It deals mainly with backwards compatibility and continued use of
the HUGE VB6 codebase in use.
Which part of what I said don't you agree with? That a better upgrade
tool wouldn't solve the problems stated in the petition? That VB.COM
would be a major undertaking?
To your statement....."that the proposed solution is overkill." It is no
less than the C/C++ programmers recieved.
I've heard this argument used several times and I have the same response
every time. Just because VS.NET's support of C/C++ is in principle the
same as a theoretical support for VB6 in VS.NET it doesn't mean that it
makes economic sense to invest in this development. To use an analogy
I've used before, if I already have a mortgage, the principle of getting a
loan to buy a house is the same, but that doesn't mean I can buy *another*
house. So, just because Microsoft felt it was a good investment to
incorporate C/C++ into VS.NET doesn't mean that (especially so far after
the fact) it would be a good investment (from their perspective) to do it
for VB6.
I don't know the financial situation, costs or revenues gained from Visual
Basic or C++. Niether do you. This is pure speculation on your part. I
could just as easily argue that Visual Basic 6 was more financially feasable
because of the enormous 3rd party component market that supports it. But,
without hard data, that would be just as speculative as your argument.
(In all fairness, a great deal of this thread has been reduced to pure
speculation - including my speculation on the reasons for Microsoft's
abandonment of the largest programming group on history. Perhaps we should
stick to what can be tested and proven?)
I happen to think one of the biggest reasons that C/C++ was supported in
VS.NET and not VB6 is related to Doug's original point about VB.COM being
a "dead-end project". In practical terms, VB6 wasn't incorporated into
the original version of VS.NET (nor will it be with VB.COM) for the simple
reason that MS programmers themselves use C/C++ more than VB.
Finally we agree on something.
Too many programmers would have viewed being assigned to the "VB6.NET" as
a one-way ticket to professional oblivion. "Oh, so you worked on the
VB6.NET project, eh? That's nice. Next!"
If the development was continued (as requested in the petition, and has been
Microsoft's track record with Visual Basic since it's inception) it wouldn't
be a one-way ticket. In fact, those programmers would have a greater number
of companies desiring their services - just as they did with the most
popular programming language in the world - VB 6.
The old, tired argument that you are insinuating that these professional
developers at Microsoft buy into (that classic Visual Basic is a "toy
language") is only put forth by those ignorant of the business needs of the
businesses that have adopted Visual Basic 6 as their premier RAD tool.
Have you worked with many companies that have rapidly changing needs? What
size/type of companies have you done VB programming at?
Jim Hubbard
Jim Hubbard