Aaron Smith said:
Never going to happen. I personally don't want it to happen. If the apps
run for the next 5 years, that will be long enough for me to convert my
customers over to .Net.
But, what happens when a .Net patch breaks your code? Not many people have
caught onto the fact that Microsoft issues patches for .Net (although you
have to call them to get one).
If you find an error (or just some weird behavior) in the .Net framework,
Microsft may have a patch for it that you can get and apply to your systems.
You can even have it installed with your application (which would be
neccessary if you used it - as others most certainly won't have it
installed).
Problem is, if another application is already installed (or gets installed
later) that writes around the error in .Net, your patch will cause that
author's app to malfunction.
It works the other way too. If you code around all of the bugs found in
..Net (yes, I know....every program has bugs - I'm not digging at Microsoft
for not having perfect code - remeber, I liked VB6) but, another author
patches the framework, (BAM!) your code malfunctions.
It looks like trading DLL Hell for Patch Hell. What's the difference?
Most of my customer's are just now upgrading to XP, so I really won't have
to worry about it for a long time, if at all. By the time they start to
migrate to Longhorn, they will need to upgrade our software too.. Selling
upgrades and new features in software is what makes us money. If a customer
buys it and wants to use it for 15 years, that's fine, but we only make
money on that initial sale and then support contracts. I'd rather sell them
better software with more features every few years plus the support
contracts.
All valid points. But, usually business changes dictate that software be
updated and enhanced regardless of the OS or programming language status.
That's where we make most of our money. We service clients with volatile
business climates. They always need a change for something.
Don't compare C++ to Visual Basic.
(awww crap! One of *those*.....)
So, let me get this straight... You would rather spend your time and your
customer's money by downgrading them to real basic, than upgrading them to
a .Net language?
I guess it depends on how you look at it. I consider creating applications
that link everything into a single executable (as opposed to a framework
that may or may not be "patched") a more stable solution - therefore an
UPgrade. I consider being able to service my clients needs on Windows, MAC
or Linux another advantage. I consider the added ability to write code for
any Windows, MAC or Linux customer good for my company - as it expands our
potential client base to those desktops and increasingly includes more
goverments and school systems around the globe.
In all, I'd say that I consider true safety from DLL Hell (or Patch Hell),
an increased customer base, the ability to adjust to a changing desktop
market and the ability to assist our customers in choosing the best
desktop/server environments for them an UPgrade.
Especially when that company is really small in comparison to Microsoft?
Microsoft's size is one of the disadvantages of doing business with them.
No longer do Microsoft customers call the shots. Microsoft is doing
anything it damn well pleases....just because it can.
Real Software has to listen to it's customers. And, (as a potential
customer) I like that.
I don't know of any customers that like being told what to do by the company
they are doing business with. What would happen if you told one of your
customers that you were going to change their technologies even though they
didn't want you to? You could even assure them that it's in their best
interest. But, I doubt you'd be around much longer.
However, Microsoft pulls this off. How?
It's two-fold. Microsoft doesn;t have to convince business. They convince
programmers that they have a new and improved thingy that is "the new big
thing" in programming. Developers make their living developing. So, in
attempt to keep stay on top (thus keeping an income stream going) they rush
to adopt the latest from Microsoft. Then, the devlopers try and convince
their bosses and clients that they jsut have to get "the new big thing" or
they will be left in the dust.
Microsoft uses fear to sell their products.
Does a business really need the very latest from Microsoft to compete?
Rarely.
Hmm... If I were your customer, I'd be pissed and running from you.
You'd never be my customer. We screen better than that. We only take
clients that we know we can make happy. Fortunately, in the last 2.5 years
we've only had to turn away 3 clients.
You get what you pay for.
You sure do. Viruses, unstable IDEs, intentinal breakig of backwards
compatability and a forced march to deposit more money into Microsoft;s
$50,000,000,000 cash pile.
I think the cost is too high.
Really? What market are you in? In ours, it matters. In fact, some IT
departments kicked us out before we switched to VB because they didn't
want non-Microsoft products in house.
If we adopt REALbasic as our core tool. we wouldn;t be a good fit for those
companies. I can live with that.
Increasingly, governments, large companies and school systems are moving to
Linux. Maybe we're just a little ahead of the curve.
The same went for MySQL. Open source? No way.. They were having none of
that....
And, that's fine. We are not a one-size-fits-all software shop.
And the workers want to get their job done. If they can't, they get fired.
Right. It's your job to make sure they can get that job done. Usually,
though, if they can't get their job done because of the software, ot would
be you gettig fired......wouldn't it?
It should be. It's your job to get your customers the best solution for
them. IT may be Windows. It may be Mac, It may be Linux. They look to us
to know and guide them in this decision. That's what we get paid for.
I would never suggest an operating system that would slow production or harm
productivity. That would hurt them and our reputation. I'd rather not have
the job at all, and recommend them to another shop that can help them.
Try putting a linux desktop in an manufacturing environment. It won't
last. I've seen it happen.
Every business and situation is different.
I personally don't really care what happens to VB6 at this point. I've
started to upgrade my skills from it to VB.Net, because I saw the need.
Good. You should do what makes you happy.
My customers need more advanced features and better support for newer
technologies.
Interesting. I have yet to get the customer that cares what technology I
use to write their applications. They just want to be able to compete and
share info with other businesses as inexpensively as possible.
I can do that and stay with Microsoft by moving everything to VB.Net, or
even C# if I wanted to.
REALbasic is not for everybody. I wish you well with Microsoft
technologies. I am just looking at this from my point of view and what is
needed to satisfy the real estate companies, home builders and attorney's
offices that I support.
I look at this as an opportunity, not a hinderance.
IMHO, it is simply an opportunity for Microsoft to pad their pockets. I was
doing fine before .Net, and I'll do fine after it. But,I have to make the
best call that I can for the future.
That doesn't include willful breaking of backwards comparability.
Jim Hubbard
