Richard Grimes bids farewell to .NET
-
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.
-
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.
gnjunge wrote: 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. Somehow I believe our distinguished friend Christian Gaus could say a word or two about the matter :laugh:
My programming blahblahblah blog. If you ever find anything useful here, please let me know to remove it.
-
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 [^]
Despite your youthful exuberance, you have some very good points here, Grasshopper. I agree it is silly to want to compile your stuff on a the latest compiler without any kind of migration plan rationale. Especially when that "compiler" is a different platform. I don't think anyone using VB 6 should rationally think that VB.NET is just the next version of VB; there has been plenty of communication to the contrary. Also, it is quite reasonable in some cases to keep using an old compiler. On the C# project that I worked on the last two years or so, I found a need for some handy components I had written over the years. Of course they were not written in C#, as it didn't exist. Instead, I wrapped them in a COM component using the original compiler (Borland C++ Builder 5) and was off and running. I still use Borland C++ Builder 5 quite often, even though the bulk of my work is in C# or Python these days. I don't understand what the whining about VB.NET is -- there is nothing preventing anyone from using VB 6 is there? Matt Gerrans
-
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
Nishant S wrote: Exactly my thoughts whenever I see C#ers putting down VBers It's just the same cool-factor that drives M$ bashing and linux bashing, ... Just a bunch of dumb arse who believe putting down others would somehow elevate their own position/image. At the end of the day, a lot of the widely accepted tools are great tools: Java/J2EE/SE/.NET/C#/VB.NET/MySQL/M$SQL/IIS/Apache/Linux/NHibernate/Log4J/Log4Net... there's slight advantage of one over another on different aspects but most of the time it doesn't justify the kind of snoobish bashing that's so unique in our community. And, VB.NET is certainly not "worthless piece of junk". Norman Fung
-
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
Nishant S wrote: 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++. I personally think that that is an stupid belief. VB.NET isabout choice.. VB people could move to it or not. Nobody is forcing them.... Using the same point of view you could say why create C# when you have C++ and Java.. or why create C++ when you have C... It's all about choice and in my opinion having more choice is a lot better then having less. If C# was enough for .NET then why isn't he ranting of Spec#, Perl.NET, Fortran.NET, IronPython, F#, S#, Boo, etc., etc., etc. The list of .NET languages goes on. Nishant S wrote: 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 I personally think that this is complete bullshit. There is nothing stopping people from still using VB. AFAIK, and I could be wrong here, MS are still supporting VB6 and will continue to do so for a while to come. If you start a project, whether it be huge or small, with VB6 then you sure as hell should not start it believing that MS will come out with brilliant new features in 2 years time... you bas your project on what you have now or what you KNOW will be available soon (i.e. C++\CLI is an example of what we know will be available soon). Saying that projects are now obsolete is complete crap and I can't for a second thing of why he, or anybody, would say that. There is nothing stopping those projects from continuing development. I'm sure MS won't say at some stage... "It's now illegal to use VB6... stop it... "... if maintenance is an issue, keep your VS6 discs and install them when you need to do the maintenance. Don't whine that your favourite language hasn't been updated. I personally think it's extremely childish. btw Nish, this is not aimed at you... this is aimed at Grimes and all those VB'ers that feel hard done by. Regards, Brian Dela :-) Now Bloging![^]
-
<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/[^]
Nish, It IS curious as to why, after having so much invested in .NET, that he would shuck it all. Any idea why, and why now? Robert Scott
-
<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/[^]
Yer know, old Grimesy deserves a bit more respect than the spit and vomit being spouted about him in this thread, he's a great developer and many people have learned alot from his books. Perhaps you should actually read his article, what he actually says is that he is dissappointed with the .Net platform and feels that technology decisions were made by marketing rather than technical people, and that with the inclusion of VB.NET, the resultant .NET has been hamstrung. His argument is that VB.NET should never have existed and the had it not, the .NET platform would have greatly benefitted. And exactley what IS the point of VB.NET, what is it good for, where, say C# isn't. Pre .NET there where good reasons for using for using VB over C++ "it's convenient for writing GUIs for instance". MS should have dropped VB.NET, the VBers of the world would eventually have come round, you wouldn't throw away your investment in developing applications for MS platforms, simply because you had to learn another language would you? Well the marketing people thought so evidently. And why is there soooooo much hoo haa over .NET generally, it's a framework. period. Mr Grimes point about MS not taking .NET seriously, is also valid, 99% of the stuff MS churns out is not written in .NET, they do [add in] .NET to OS's (and drop stuff out if the Longhorn story is anything to go by) and services, otherwise everythings written in C++ - well if MS don't develop stuff in .NET shouldn't we be asking why. Phil Harding
-
Nishant S wrote: 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++. I personally think that that is an stupid belief. VB.NET isabout choice.. VB people could move to it or not. Nobody is forcing them.... Using the same point of view you could say why create C# when you have C++ and Java.. or why create C++ when you have C... It's all about choice and in my opinion having more choice is a lot better then having less. If C# was enough for .NET then why isn't he ranting of Spec#, Perl.NET, Fortran.NET, IronPython, F#, S#, Boo, etc., etc., etc. The list of .NET languages goes on. Nishant S wrote: 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 I personally think that this is complete bullshit. There is nothing stopping people from still using VB. AFAIK, and I could be wrong here, MS are still supporting VB6 and will continue to do so for a while to come. If you start a project, whether it be huge or small, with VB6 then you sure as hell should not start it believing that MS will come out with brilliant new features in 2 years time... you bas your project on what you have now or what you KNOW will be available soon (i.e. C++\CLI is an example of what we know will be available soon). Saying that projects are now obsolete is complete crap and I can't for a second thing of why he, or anybody, would say that. There is nothing stopping those projects from continuing development. I'm sure MS won't say at some stage... "It's now illegal to use VB6... stop it... "... if maintenance is an issue, keep your VS6 discs and install them when you need to do the maintenance. Don't whine that your favourite language hasn't been updated. I personally think it's extremely childish. btw Nish, this is not aimed at you... this is aimed at Grimes and all those VB'ers that feel hard done by. Regards, Brian Dela :-) Now Bloging![^]
Brian Delahunty wrote: MS are still supporting VB6 and will continue to do so for a while to come Free support is ending March 31st. After that, there'll be paid support till 2007. There won't be any more updates, service packs, bug-fixes etc for VB6. But while that might appear a big deal, truth is no one really uses free support, and VB6 hasnt had updates or bug fixes in many years now, so it's really a knee-jerk reaction by VBers Brian Delahunty wrote: btw Nish, this is not aimed at you... this is aimed at Grimes and all those VB'ers that feel hard done by. :-) Btw Grimes is not a VBer, never was either I think. Nish
-
Yer know, old Grimesy deserves a bit more respect than the spit and vomit being spouted about him in this thread, he's a great developer and many people have learned alot from his books. Perhaps you should actually read his article, what he actually says is that he is dissappointed with the .Net platform and feels that technology decisions were made by marketing rather than technical people, and that with the inclusion of VB.NET, the resultant .NET has been hamstrung. His argument is that VB.NET should never have existed and the had it not, the .NET platform would have greatly benefitted. And exactley what IS the point of VB.NET, what is it good for, where, say C# isn't. Pre .NET there where good reasons for using for using VB over C++ "it's convenient for writing GUIs for instance". MS should have dropped VB.NET, the VBers of the world would eventually have come round, you wouldn't throw away your investment in developing applications for MS platforms, simply because you had to learn another language would you? Well the marketing people thought so evidently. And why is there soooooo much hoo haa over .NET generally, it's a framework. period. Mr Grimes point about MS not taking .NET seriously, is also valid, 99% of the stuff MS churns out is not written in .NET, they do [add in] .NET to OS's (and drop stuff out if the Longhorn story is anything to go by) and services, otherwise everythings written in C++ - well if MS don't develop stuff in .NET shouldn't we be asking why. Phil Harding
Actually, one of the big brownie pionts for .NET over others such as Java is simply that developers can work in lanaguage syntaxes they are already comfortable. (I cannot believe I am going to say this ;) ) .NET should have VB.NET along with all the others. It would have been down right stupid for MS not to include VB.NET. Just because Grimesy has problems, that does not mean he is correct. I know of many quite happy VB.NET developers and almost eveyyone else I know is working on C#/.NET applications. As for MS's use of .NET, I have read several insider blogs detailing all the areas that MS is using .NET and that most of their new development (outside of core OS features) are being built or integrated with .NET. I would not expect to see previous applications rewritten to use .NET just to say they are using .NET, that would be stupid. For internal use it depends on the applications and if they can justify the extra memory overhead. But from the blogs I have read, they say MS is using .NET heavily for internal applications also. .NET is here to stay and is were most developers are at or are heading. As far as a framework, I consider it a platform. Use it calls into Win32, but from my .NET applciations, they only see .NET and 100% managed code. If I should choose, I can make them native Linux apps. It would be interesting to see behind the scenes of Grimesy to know what really happened. Sounds more like toes getting crunched, but I do not know so I cannot say. It is sad however. Rocky <>< All Kinds of Stuff[^]