Richard Grimes bids farewell to .NET
-
<snip>Richard has used .NET for five years, he was on the technical preview for COM+2 which was the technology that eventually became .NET. Richard has decided to break his link with .NET, this site will continue to contain the free .NET resources that Richard has produced over the last 5 years, but Richard will no longer be available to do any more work on .NET. He will not write any more .NET articles, no more .NET books and will no longer speak at .NET conferences.</snip> http://www.grimes.demon.co.uk/[^]
-
<snip>Richard has used .NET for five years, he was on the technical preview for COM+2 which was the technology that eventually became .NET. Richard has decided to break his link with .NET, this site will continue to contain the free .NET resources that Richard has produced over the last 5 years, but Richard will no longer be available to do any more work on .NET. He will not write any more .NET articles, no more .NET books and will no longer speak at .NET conferences.</snip> http://www.grimes.demon.co.uk/[^]
Can't say I'll miss him, breaking a link with .net is his loss and for his petition signing to keep 'unmanaged' VB (now thats a laugh), well I can only say I'd sign a petition to get shut of VB completely, I'm sure only CP members will agree here.
-
Can't say I'll miss him, breaking a link with .net is his loss and for his petition signing to keep 'unmanaged' VB (now thats a laugh), well I can only say I'd sign a petition to get shut of VB completely, I'm sure only CP members will agree here.
Grimes is/was never pro-VB6, what he is/was is anti-VB.NET. He feels VB.NET should never have been created when you have alternatives like C# or a slightly more syntactically complex but higher-performing C++. The reason he gave for signing the petition was that all over the world, 6-7 years of work/R&D and millions of lines of VB6 code gets obsoleted abruptly. He feels MS is letting down its customer base by doing so. Nish
-
<snip>Richard has used .NET for five years, he was on the technical preview for COM+2 which was the technology that eventually became .NET. Richard has decided to break his link with .NET, this site will continue to contain the free .NET resources that Richard has produced over the last 5 years, but Richard will no longer be available to do any more work on .NET. He will not write any more .NET articles, no more .NET books and will no longer speak at .NET conferences.</snip> http://www.grimes.demon.co.uk/[^]
Repost[^] Stability. What an interesting concept. -- Chris Maunder
-
<snip>Richard has used .NET for five years, he was on the technical preview for COM+2 which was the technology that eventually became .NET. Richard has decided to break his link with .NET, this site will continue to contain the free .NET resources that Richard has produced over the last 5 years, but Richard will no longer be available to do any more work on .NET. He will not write any more .NET articles, no more .NET books and will no longer speak at .NET conferences.</snip> http://www.grimes.demon.co.uk/[^]
I agree that in its current form VB.NET is not making anyone throw a party. If the current VB6 shops are mad at VB.NET - MS must rethink its strategy. Isnt it that simple? A strawberry milk shake is not a great drink if your target audience is expecting a Bud Lite. (side note) The height of irony is C# developers making condescending remarks about VB6ers. It is not as if C# developers are writing bump mapping code for Doom4 or working on the Google File System. In the real world I suspect the majority of C# and VB6 developers are writing code to enter insurance claims data for a company like Prudential. (Not that there is anything wrong with that)
-
<snip>Richard has used .NET for five years, he was on the technical preview for COM+2 which was the technology that eventually became .NET. Richard has decided to break his link with .NET, this site will continue to contain the free .NET resources that Richard has produced over the last 5 years, but Richard will no longer be available to do any more work on .NET. He will not write any more .NET articles, no more .NET books and will no longer speak at .NET conferences.</snip> http://www.grimes.demon.co.uk/[^]
Many of these MVPs got that status for writing clever but long winded code to get VB.classic to do things that it was never meant to do like multithreading and subclassing etc and their noses are put out of joint because all of that is not needed any more. I also am in that category but because I code in the real world I am glad to be shot of those "extreme VB code" things. '--8<------------------------ Ex Datis: Duncan Jones Merrion Computing Ltd
-
I agree that in its current form VB.NET is not making anyone throw a party. If the current VB6 shops are mad at VB.NET - MS must rethink its strategy. Isnt it that simple? A strawberry milk shake is not a great drink if your target audience is expecting a Bud Lite. (side note) The height of irony is C# developers making condescending remarks about VB6ers. It is not as if C# developers are writing bump mapping code for Doom4 or working on the Google File System. In the real world I suspect the majority of C# and VB6 developers are writing code to enter insurance claims data for a company like Prudential. (Not that there is anything wrong with that)
Vivek Rajan wrote: If the current VB6 shops are mad at VB.NET - MS must rethink its strategy. Isnt it that simple? but why are they really mad at VB.NET? Is it because they don't understand the OOP concepts or because their code won't recompile straightaway? Software Development has moved on since VB6 was released into the community. There has to come a time when as a developer one must move into the future too. MFC programmers are having to bite the bullet, so why should it be any different for VB programmers. VB programmers should have an easier time as most of the WinForms model is based around the VB "RAD" environment. There comes a time in a man's life when he must put his toys away and leave his "childhood" behind. If the VBers don't want to do this, perhaps they should remain in the nursery and let the rest of us lead "adult" programming lives. Michael CP Blog [^] Development Blog [^]
-
Repost[^] Stability. What an interesting concept. -- Chris Maunder
Mike Dimmick wrote: Repost[^] Oh well, I at least waited 15 days before I did so :-D
-
Vivek Rajan wrote: If the current VB6 shops are mad at VB.NET - MS must rethink its strategy. Isnt it that simple? but why are they really mad at VB.NET? Is it because they don't understand the OOP concepts or because their code won't recompile straightaway? Software Development has moved on since VB6 was released into the community. There has to come a time when as a developer one must move into the future too. MFC programmers are having to bite the bullet, so why should it be any different for VB programmers. VB programmers should have an easier time as most of the WinForms model is based around the VB "RAD" environment. There comes a time in a man's life when he must put his toys away and leave his "childhood" behind. If the VBers don't want to do this, perhaps they should remain in the nursery and let the rest of us lead "adult" programming lives. Michael CP Blog [^] Development Blog [^]
Michael P Butler wrote: MFC programmers are having to bite the bullet, so why should it be any different for VB programmers. MFC code will compile under VS.NET 2005 and probably will do so for the next version too. VB6 code won't compile on any post VB6 compiler. That's what all this trouble is about :-) Nish
-
I agree that in its current form VB.NET is not making anyone throw a party. If the current VB6 shops are mad at VB.NET - MS must rethink its strategy. Isnt it that simple? A strawberry milk shake is not a great drink if your target audience is expecting a Bud Lite. (side note) The height of irony is C# developers making condescending remarks about VB6ers. It is not as if C# developers are writing bump mapping code for Doom4 or working on the Google File System. In the real world I suspect the majority of C# and VB6 developers are writing code to enter insurance claims data for a company like Prudential. (Not that there is anything wrong with that)
Vivek Rajan wrote: It is not as if C# developers are writing bump mapping code for Doom4 or working on the Google File System. In the real world I suspect the majority of C# and VB6 developers are writing code to enter insurance claims data for a company like Prudential. Exactly my thoughts whenever I see C#ers putting down VBers :) Nish
-
Vivek Rajan wrote: If the current VB6 shops are mad at VB.NET - MS must rethink its strategy. Isnt it that simple? but why are they really mad at VB.NET? Is it because they don't understand the OOP concepts or because their code won't recompile straightaway? Software Development has moved on since VB6 was released into the community. There has to come a time when as a developer one must move into the future too. MFC programmers are having to bite the bullet, so why should it be any different for VB programmers. VB programmers should have an easier time as most of the WinForms model is based around the VB "RAD" environment. There comes a time in a man's life when he must put his toys away and leave his "childhood" behind. If the VBers don't want to do this, perhaps they should remain in the nursery and let the rest of us lead "adult" programming lives. Michael CP Blog [^] Development Blog [^]
Michael P Butler wrote: There comes a time in a man's life when he must put his toys away and leave his "childhood" behind. If the VBers don't want to do this, perhaps they should remain in the nursery and let the rest of us lead "adult" programming lives. Well said, and if I may add this is what VB is all about, easy peasy none structured programming. Great for the 'Novice' or occasional user, not for building large or mission critical systems. Now VBer's have to think about programming in a structured way, this can't be done by somebody who has hacked their systems together. It's time to move on leave VB and MFC behind, they've done their job and let them die in dignity. As for the future, well .net and C# are the place to be with a smattering on C++ and ATL.
-
Michael P Butler wrote: MFC programmers are having to bite the bullet, so why should it be any different for VB programmers. MFC code will compile under VS.NET 2005 and probably will do so for the next version too. VB6 code won't compile on any post VB6 compiler. That's what all this trouble is about :-) Nish
Nishant S wrote: MFC code will compile under VS.NET 2005 and probably will do so for the next version too. VB6 code won't compile on any post VB6 compiler. That's what all this trouble is about The real point is, Why would you want to recompile an existing app in a new compiler. That is only asking for trouble. Unless you have a well worked out migration plan, simply recompiling just for the "newness" factor of a new compiler is something only inexperienced developers would do. (And I'm speaking from youthful experience here ;-) ) With MFC, there is no point in moving over to a new environment because there are no changes worth the effort. (Unless MS have changed their mind about mothballing MFC development) For years, VB programmer complained that VB6 didn't have proper OOP support, when MS give it to them in VB.NET they complain because it breaks their existing code. So Microsoft bastardized VB.NET to make it more compatible with VB6 and yet they still complain. Why can't they just develop new components in VB.NET and use COM Callable Wrappers to allow their existing code to use the new code. Thats what I've done with languages as diverse as VB6, FoxPro and C++. It doesn't break my existing apps and still allows me to use the .NET framework. All this fuss just shows that a minority of VB programmers really do match the sterotype with which more experienced developers paint them. Michael CP Blog [^] Development Blog [^]
-
<snip>Richard has used .NET for five years, he was on the technical preview for COM+2 which was the technology that eventually became .NET. Richard has decided to break his link with .NET, this site will continue to contain the free .NET resources that Richard has produced over the last 5 years, but Richard will no longer be available to do any more work on .NET. He will not write any more .NET articles, no more .NET books and will no longer speak at .NET conferences.</snip> http://www.grimes.demon.co.uk/[^]
Then there are many people who will step up to bat in his place. I learnt a lot from his COM books, but his attitude towards .NET shows that he isn't as "smart" as I thought he was. Michael CP Blog [^] Development Blog [^]
-
Nishant S wrote: MFC code will compile under VS.NET 2005 and probably will do so for the next version too. VB6 code won't compile on any post VB6 compiler. That's what all this trouble is about The real point is, Why would you want to recompile an existing app in a new compiler. That is only asking for trouble. Unless you have a well worked out migration plan, simply recompiling just for the "newness" factor of a new compiler is something only inexperienced developers would do. (And I'm speaking from youthful experience here ;-) ) With MFC, there is no point in moving over to a new environment because there are no changes worth the effort. (Unless MS have changed their mind about mothballing MFC development) For years, VB programmer complained that VB6 didn't have proper OOP support, when MS give it to them in VB.NET they complain because it breaks their existing code. So Microsoft bastardized VB.NET to make it more compatible with VB6 and yet they still complain. Why can't they just develop new components in VB.NET and use COM Callable Wrappers to allow their existing code to use the new code. Thats what I've done with languages as diverse as VB6, FoxPro and C++. It doesn't break my existing apps and still allows me to use the .NET framework. All this fuss just shows that a minority of VB programmers really do match the sterotype with which more experienced developers paint them. Michael CP Blog [^] Development Blog [^]
Michael P Butler wrote: The real point is, Why would you want to recompile an existing app in a new compiler. Following this line, probably all of us should be using VC++ 4.2 and Delphi 1.0. Migrating to newer compilers is something that needs to be done, or you'll become stuck in an older technology, and sometime in the future (3~5 years), your product will not be selling anymore. If you believe you can sell in the future with current compilers, look at how many products are selling today and are still using older compilers. I see dead pixels Yes, even I am blogging now!
-
Then there are many people who will step up to bat in his place. I learnt a lot from his COM books, but his attitude towards .NET shows that he isn't as "smart" as I thought he was. Michael CP Blog [^] Development Blog [^]
There are so many things to be gained from moving to VB.Net (I have listed some on Ecademy[^]) that the pains are worth enduring (in my humble and not very valuable person opinion) '--8<------------------------ Ex Datis: Duncan Jones Merrion Computing Ltd
-
Michael P Butler wrote: The real point is, Why would you want to recompile an existing app in a new compiler. Following this line, probably all of us should be using VC++ 4.2 and Delphi 1.0. Migrating to newer compilers is something that needs to be done, or you'll become stuck in an older technology, and sometime in the future (3~5 years), your product will not be selling anymore. If you believe you can sell in the future with current compilers, look at how many products are selling today and are still using older compilers. I see dead pixels Yes, even I am blogging now!
Daniel Turini wrote: Following this line, probably all of us should be using VC++ 4.2 and Delphi 1.0. Migrating to newer compilers is something that needs to be done, or you'll become stuck in an older technology, and sometime in the future (3~5 years), your product will not be selling anymore. If you believe you can sell in the future with current compilers, look at how many products are selling today and are still using older compilers. Of course you eventually need to move up, but to do that you need a proper migration plan. This means that you need to take into account changes to the compiler, language etc. The VBers are complaining because it takes some work to move to VB.NET and that you can't simply just recompile. I'm arguing that this is a bad attitude to take, even if VB6 had recompiled straight off in VB.NET that doesn't mean something wouldn't come along and bite you in the ass because you assumed that everything was working fine. Michael CP Blog [^] Development Blog [^]
-
Then there are many people who will step up to bat in his place. I learnt a lot from his COM books, but his attitude towards .NET shows that he isn't as "smart" as I thought he was. Michael CP Blog [^] Development Blog [^]
-
<snip>Richard has used .NET for five years, he was on the technical preview for COM+2 which was the technology that eventually became .NET. Richard has decided to break his link with .NET, this site will continue to contain the free .NET resources that Richard has produced over the last 5 years, but Richard will no longer be available to do any more work on .NET. He will not write any more .NET articles, no more .NET books and will no longer speak at .NET conferences.</snip> http://www.grimes.demon.co.uk/[^]
.NET is not going to go away because Richard Grimes decides to leave it behind. His loss, not mine! Ant. I'm hard, yet soft.
I'm coloured, yet clear.
I'm fruity and sweet.
I'm jelly, what am I? Muse on it further, I shall return! - David Walliams (Little Britain) -
Vivek Rajan wrote: It is not as if C# developers are writing bump mapping code for Doom4 or working on the Google File System. In the real world I suspect the majority of C# and VB6 developers are writing code to enter insurance claims data for a company like Prudential. Exactly my thoughts whenever I see C#ers putting down VBers :) Nish
Mine too :-O
My programming blahblahblah blog. If you ever find anything useful here, please let me know to remove it.
-
I agree that in its current form VB.NET is not making anyone throw a party. If the current VB6 shops are mad at VB.NET - MS must rethink its strategy. Isnt it that simple? A strawberry milk shake is not a great drink if your target audience is expecting a Bud Lite. (side note) The height of irony is C# developers making condescending remarks about VB6ers. It is not as if C# developers are writing bump mapping code for Doom4 or working on the Google File System. In the real world I suspect the majority of C# and VB6 developers are writing code to enter insurance claims data for a company like Prudential. (Not that there is anything wrong with that)
I never understood the big fuss about VB.NET vs C#. VBers have to open their eyes, say bye to their VB6, and move on to VB.NET or C#, that is called development, and without development we would still be driving our camels in the dessert. And everybody that has a little bit of grey matter in his skull should be able to easily swap between VB.NET and C#, its merely syntax.