Programming Language Popularity // Looking for Concrete Info

  • Thread starter Thread starter sloan
  • Start date Start date
S

sloan

I found these (2 links below). Does anyone know of any (neutral) reference
sites for this kind of information?

http://www.itjungle.com/tug/tug121406-story03.html
Microsoft's Visual Basic 6 and Visual Basic.NET language is taking a serious
beating in the development cubicles of the United States and Canada.


http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2065392,00.asp
Study: Developer Use of Visual Basic Plummets



I need concrete information, not holy wars.


We have this product we bought out from someone, and its in vb.net. We've
been trying to find a developer for it.
Replies to the job are bad.

I don't know if its just a good market here (RDU, NC), our location (Durham)
or a trend that MS developers are less and less attracted to vb.net jobs.

I don't want to convert this entire application to C# just for the sake of
it......but man.

...........

This is also sparked that I was at TechEd2007 last week, and:

Number of C# samples seen: >100
Number of VB.Net samples seen: 3
Number of VB.Net samples seen, just to prove it'll work with something else
(C#) : 2

Again, looking for concrete trends and information. Not Holy War material.
Circa 2007 or late 2006 would be nice as well. I found a bunch of stuff
dated 2004.

If you have counter information that VB.net is healthy, growing then let me
know that too. I'm not looking for just a one sided argument if 2 sides
exist.

I also found this:
http://www.tiobe.com/index.htm?tiobe_index

but it gives percentages, not numbers.

-0.85% (vb) against 2,000,000 (make up number) means 17,000 developers. The
total number means something here I think.

Thanks......
...............

I am posting to
microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb

so I might get both sides.



I am not slamming VB.NET, I'm only posting links to stuff I've found on the
subject.
 
Not to beat a dead horse, Sloan, but there are several excellent VB.NET to C#
converters out there.
Peter
 
Yeah. I kinda know the path to take if the decision was made to translate
it.

I don't have to be convinced. My manager(s) have to be.
 
There are a lot of legacy applications still written in VB 6. If it's not
broke, then don't fix it.

I have been in shops here in the US where the decision was between Java and
..Net, and each time the decision was made to go to .Net.

Jobs are plentiful here in the US for C# and VB.NET programmers.

What some programmer is saying while setting at his or her disk and what
management needs for cost justification are two different things, believe
me.
 
Here's some links from info based on O'Reilly book sales which shows
c# up and vb way down.

http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/08/programming_language_trends_1.html

http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/04/book_sales_as_a.html

There are many things that can explain this besides popularity of
languages, but it is something concrete to point to.


Personally, if you're a c# shop then I would convert the app. It'll
be much better for you in the long run (and I'm a former
vba/vb6/vb.net developer).

HTH,

Sam
 
Thanks Sam.

Very "concrete-ish".


Samuel R. Neff said:
Here's some links from info based on O'Reilly book sales which shows
c# up and vb way down.

http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/08/programming_language_trends_1.html

http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/04/book_sales_as_a.html

There are many things that can explain this besides popularity of
languages, but it is something concrete to point to.


Personally, if you're a c# shop then I would convert the app. It'll
be much better for you in the long run (and I'm a former
vba/vb6/vb.net developer).

HTH,

Sam


------------------------------------------------------------
We're hiring! B-Line Medical is seeking .NET
Developers for exciting positions in medical product
development in MD/DC. Work with a variety of technologies
in a relaxed team environment. See ads on Dice.com.
Click to expand...
 
sloan said:
Yeah. I kinda know the path to take if the decision was made to translate
it.

I don't have to be convinced. My manager(s) have to be.
Click to expand...

And you're not going to convince management with some articles off of the
Internet. You had better show cost justification as to why management should
do something.

You had better show management the bottom line profits for the department
and the company as a whole with cost justification as to why.

You had better show some dollars and cents as to why management is going to
or should do anything. Otherwise, you're just wasting your time and
management's.
 
Mr. Arnold said:
There are a lot of legacy applications still written in VB 6. If it's not
broke, then don't fix it.
Click to expand...

If we're reciting adages: "Change is the only constant". Remember Sears,
the "former" leading U.S. retailer? Why bother to change if it ain't broke?
Well perhaps because somebody who doesn't agree with your definition of
"broke" is going to usurp your position.

Might there be a lot of legacy apps written in BASIC running under CP/M?
Let's say there are 10,000 of them, does this make it a "good" solution?
I'd fire any manager who told me to retain old VB 6 code simply because "it
ain't broke." Perhaps they don't understand the term broke and are simply
hoping to retire before they need to learn something new.

"Manage change or change management."
 
Tom Leylan said:
If we're reciting adages: "Change is the only constant". Remember Sears,
the "former" leading U.S. retailer? Why bother to change if it ain't
broke? Well perhaps because somebody who doesn't agree with your
definition of "broke" is going to usurp your position.
Click to expand...

I don't even know what you're talking about here. The condition of some
company and its state has nothing to do with some programmer telling
management that change is needed without cost justification to management.

I worked in a multi, multi too many multi billion dollars company that
wouldn't go to .NET. No programming manager or director could convince all
of management that the path to take was to go to .NET. It didn't happen
until such time that outside consultants and auditors laied out the cost
justifications.

Without cost justification to present to management, which they can in turn
present to upper management, all you're doing is blowing smoke.
Might there be a lot of legacy apps written in BASIC running under CP/M?
Let's say there are 10,000 of them, does this make it a "good" solution?
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with it being a good solution. It has to do with cost
justifcation. If you can't prove the justification for the change of this
nature, then it's not changing.
I'd fire any manager who told me to retain old VB 6 code simply because
"it ain't broke." Perhaps they don't understand the term broke and are
simply hoping to retire before they need to learn something new.
Click to expand...

It's ovious that you have not been in management with a statement like that.

They said that about Cobol too running on the big iron horse mainframes.
Nether one of them have gone anywhere, because to push those transactions,
companies are still using the solutions. You got to have some kind of cost
justification to prove to management that change is required, otherwise, it
not going to happen as easily as you think it should happen.
"Manage change or change management."
Click to expand...

And about that above statement there, what will change is you hitting the
streets as they force you out the door, by any means necessary, with you
wondering what happened, believe me. :)
 
Sounds like you need management with vision to see a good thing
without having to spend a boatload on studies and analysis (sometimes
it's not necessary).

Sam

------------------------------------------------------------
We're hiring! B-Line Medical is seeking .NET
Developers for exciting positions in medical product
development in MD/DC. Work with a variety of technologies
in a relaxed team environment. See ads on Dice.com.



On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:49:11 -0400, "Mr. Arnold" <MR.
 
Mr. Arnold said:
I don't even know what you're talking about here. The condition of some
company and its state has nothing to do with some programmer telling
management that change is needed without cost justification to management.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about some programmer? Sears management couldn't see what
was broken... perhaps they didn't hire the correct consultants?
I worked in a multi, multi too many multi billion dollars company that
wouldn't go to .NET. No programming manager or director could convince all
of management that the path to take was to go to .NET. It didn't happen
until such time that outside consultants and auditors laied out the cost
justifications.
Click to expand...

The question wasn't about developing in .Net. Many multi-billion dollar
companies (and smaller) pay for software that increases their productivity.
I doubt that they check the language that Outlook was written in before
sending an e-mail. But you've also just pointed out they made the switch to
..Net.
It has nothing to do with it being a good solution. It has to do with cost
justifcation. If you can't prove the justification for the change of this
nature, then it's not changing.
Click to expand...

It will change... a year or two after it should have changed when it would
have cost less and could have been at an acceptable pace. When the
cost-justified need finally hits home the fix is 10 man-years away from
completion and they are plainly losing revenue while it is being developed.
In many cases a competing company (who added the new features) surpasses the
market leader and the game is over. Where is VisiCalc, Lotus 1-2-3, Quattro
Pro? Do you have a Novell network? Do you think they didn't notice the
business case? They did but it was too late.
They said that about Cobol too running on the big iron horse mainframes.
Nether one of them have gone anywhere, because to push those transactions,
companies are still using the solutions. You got to have some kind of cost
justification to prove to management that change is required, otherwise,
it not going to happen as easily as you think it should happen.
Click to expand...

Nobody here suggested migrating COBOL running on a mainframe to .Net on a
PC. Read the original message and consider sticking to the subject.
And about that above statement there, what will change is you hitting the
streets as they force you out the door, by any means necessary, with you
wondering what happened, believe me. :)
Click to expand...

Why should anybody believe you? People reciting pretty much what you're
written here are being replaced at companies every day. A "can't do"
attitude isn't hard to come by and if I had one I'd be let go tomorrow and
rightfully so. I didn't write the quote BTW.

The original poster made it quite clear that his company has a software
product "they bought out from someone" written in VB.Net and they're trying
to find a developer for it (and apparently can't). This has nothing to do
with COBOL.

Anyway it's been fun... I'm not trying to convince you of anything. The guy
with the problem needs a sensible solution and converting to C# could be it.
 
Samuel R. Neff said:
Sounds like you need management with vision to see a good thing
without having to spend a boatload on studies and analysis (sometimes
it's not necessary).
Click to expand...

I am a contractor, it's not my problem, and I was glad to leave the company,
just after they flew in a .NET guru from India that trained all the company
client server programmer 8 hours a day for four weeks on C# .NET.

It wasn't soon after that I got my first .NET certification and bailed out
of the company and out of the two bit town that the company owned.

I am just telling it like it is when it comes to cost justification. One
had better show the cost justification for change, because management is
not just going to start throwing money around on hearsay.

It's been that way since 1971 when I first entered into the IT field.
 
Tom Leylan said:
Who said anything about some programmer? Sears management couldn't see
what was broken... perhaps they didn't hire the correct consultants?
Click to expand...

That's Sears and their problems. I could care less about Sears. I worked for
Sears here recently on a contract. As long as Sears was putting money in my
pockets, I don't care what its past history was about.
The question wasn't about developing in .Net. Many multi-billion dollar
companies (and smaller) pay for software that increases their
productivity. I doubt that they check the language that Outlook was
written in before sending an e-mail. But you've also just pointed out
they made the switch to .Net.
Click to expand...

The only way that company was going to it was due to cost justification,
which was the example I gave, and they went kicking and screaming. I don't
care if it was .NET or .NOT, as it was just an example.

They sure a were not listening to some programmer standing up some corner
hollering *I want change, and I want my oatmeal.* And there were some that
were hollering. :)
It will change... a year or two after it should have changed when it would
have cost less and could have been at an acceptable pace.
Really?

When the cost-justified need finally hits home the fix is 10 man-years
away from completion and they are plainly losing revenue while it is being
developed. In many cases a competing company (who added the new features)
surpasses the market leader and the game is over.
Click to expand...

Yeah know, I myself have not seen a compnay loose revenue due to some
program not being changed to new technology. What I have seen is end-users
wanting change, because they were able to do things at home with their
computers that they couldn't do on the job. I have seen tremendous heat
brought on the IT department by a department or departments wanting change.
Where is VisiCalc, Lotus 1-2-3, Quattro Pro? Do you have a Novell
network? Do you think they didn't notice the business case? They did but
it was too late.
Click to expand...

You seeme to be off in left field about some legacy application and it's
purpose running in a company that was written in VB 6. What you're talking
about has nothing to do with the subject at hand and cost justication for
change.
Nobody here suggested migrating COBOL running on a mainframe to .Net on a
PC. Read the original message and consider sticking to the subject.
Click to expand...

Your original message was about BASIC and CPM, which had nothing to do with
the subject as well. Well, the same thing applied to COBOL and the
mainframe O/S(s) and they were suppose to be out of date and falling to the
waste side running legacy applications.

Well that's not the case and a company is not going to jump ship because of
some programmer whining about change. There had better be some cost
justification

And your spin to me even about Sear's had nothing to do with the subject.

I am going to say what I want, and if you don't like it, that's too bad.

You can't be coming up with *keep to the subject* when you yourself are not
on subject. wondering around. :)
Why should anybody believe you?
Click to expand...

Well, put it to the test I say, and you step if front of management and tell
them how you think they are not doing their jobs and you report back, from
the streets. :)

I wish you would try to firer someone that had a management position in a
company with out some serious justification supporting it, more than that
nonsense you were talking about. Your behind would be rolled on the carpet,
along with the compnay, if wrongful termination could be proved.
Anyway it's been fun... I'm not trying to convince you of anything. The
guy with the problem needs a sensible solution and converting to C# could
be it.
Click to expand...

I am not trying to convince you of anything, either. And you can't convince
me on anything, because I have already been down the road more than once,
in my 30+ years in IT. The OP had better show cost justification, otherwise,
it's not going to happen. :)

asta la vista baby
 
Samuel said:
Here's some links from info based on O'Reilly book sales which shows
c# up and vb way down.
Click to expand...

No: it shows book sales, not C# vs. VB usage. And anyway, strictly speaking
there's no mention of VB.NET book sales. Let's assume that VB.NET was meant
where it said VB.
http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/08/programming_language_trends_1.html

http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/04/book_sales_as_a.html

There are many things that can explain this besides popularity of
languages
Click to expand...

For example, people could be having more trouble with C# than VB.NET. Or
VB.NET might have better documentation supplied/on-line, reducing the need
for book purchases. Or some other publisher may have most of the market
share of VB.NET books. Many other reasons are mentioned in the Comments
section on the first page cited.

That data is more like quicksand than concrete if you want to extrapolate
from it. What is needed is to see if it has any correlation to reality,
rather than assuming reality has a correlation to the data.

Andrew
 
You can also try Google Trends: http://trends.google.com

For C# and VB or VB.NET it gives:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=C#,+(VB+|+VB.NET)

PS: Seperate the different terms with comma's.

Note: you'll probably want to refine the search because it will now also
hit on the musical note C# I guess.

Anyway, the use of VB seems to be going down the last 2 years or so but
the increase of C# is less, so maybe there's another "hot" language on
the rise. :-)

And as always, take the results with a little caution. I'm not sure what
they are indexing (searchterms, contents of websites, ...) but it sure
gives nice graphs. :-)

-- Freddy


Andrew Morton schreef:
 
Might there be a lot of legacy apps written in BASIC running under CP/M?
Let's say there are 10,000 of them, does this make it a "good" solution?
I'd fire any manager who told me to retain old VB 6 code simply because "it
ain't broke." Perhaps they don't understand the term broke and are simply
hoping to retire before they need to learn something new.
Click to expand...

It may indeed make it a good solution. You're playing fast and loose
with the definition of "broke". If an old vb app on a c/pm machine is,
say, managing transfer of a file from here to there, and it's been
doing it for 25 years, and it isn't blowing up and losing stuff, and
you have a bunch of other tasks that *are* blowing up, or *are* losing
the company money, or *are* customer-facing issues, then the VB app is
going to get short shrift.
Now, we could get carried away with this example and start talking
about managing risk (can you replace the cp/m box if it one day barfs
up a disk head?) and so forth, but the point is that you don't just
replace old stuff just because it offends your sensibilities. You make
a business case to replace it, which may revolve around ROI, or may
revolve around Risk Management, or may revolve around PR (customer:
You're using WHAT to process my orders??!?!?!), or any of many other
arguments. But it's always in the end about saying to management: If
we replace it, we get *this*, if we don't, we get *that*, where this
is preferable to that.
 
Barfy the Wonder Camel said:
It may indeed make it a good solution. You're playing fast and loose
with the definition of "broke". If an old vb app on a c/pm machine is,
say, managing transfer of a file from here to there, and it's been
doing it for 25 years, and it isn't blowing up and losing stuff, and
you have a bunch of other tasks that *are* blowing up, or *are* losing
the company money, or *are* customer-facing issues, then the VB app is
going to get short shrift.
Now, we could get carried away with this example and start talking
about managing risk (can you replace the cp/m box if it one day barfs
up a disk head?) and so forth, but the point is that you don't just
replace old stuff just because it offends your sensibilities. You make
a business case to replace it, which may revolve around ROI, or may
revolve around Risk Management, or may revolve around PR (customer:
You're using WHAT to process my orders??!?!?!), or any of many other
arguments. But it's always in the end about saying to management: If
we replace it, we get *this*, if we don't, we get *that*, where this
is preferable to that.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have seen the Return On Investment and Risk Management come into
play, which is part of the cost justification. If one goes in front of
management without cost justification as to why something should be done,
usually, it's dollars and cents coming into play, then it's not happening.

About risk management, I have seen presentations as to why a company needed
to do something because of the risk and watched it rejected with, we'll take
the risk. It's about those dollars and cents.

I have also seen the card played with power-users for a department wanting
something out of IT, and it wasn't going to happen without their backing,
telling them if you want it, you're going to have to put the pressure on to
get it. They got what they wanted.
 
Back
Top