A late wish for Santa.. 
Author Message
 A late wish for Santa..

Snippet from MSDN:

?VSIP allows third party vendors to build compilers and related tools
that integrate directly into
the Visual Studio environment.?

It would be a 'wet dream' to see Visal Basic one time in the (near)
future, compile our projects to independant, superfast,
yet easy to create, applications..?Kinda very PB'ish files. 8oT

--
~8o)  Haakon



Wed, 05 Jun 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 A late wish for Santa..

Quote:
> It would be a 'wet dream' to see Visal Basic one time in the (near)
> future, compile our projects to independant, superfast,
> yet easy to create, applications.. Kinda very PB'ish files. 8oT

I doubt you'll ever see that.  I'm convinced that Microsoft does not want to
give VB programmers the ability to create commercial quality apps.  They have
intentionally tried to make VB unsuitable for anything other than in-house,
corporate development.


Thu, 06 Jun 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 A late wish for Santa..
Did you ask Bill? Is he gonna do it? (smile)

--Lance

Quote:

>Snippet from MSDN:

>?VSIP allows third party vendors to build compilers and related tools
>that integrate directly into
>the Visual Studio environment.?

>It would be a 'wet dream' to see Visal Basic one time in the (near)
>future, compile our projects to independant, superfast,
>yet easy to create, applications..?Kinda very PB'ish files. 8oT

>--
>~8o)  Haakon



Thu, 06 Jun 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 A late wish for Santa..

Quote:
"Everyone" wrote...
> I doubt you'll ever see that.  I'm convinced that
> Microsoft does not want to give VB programmers
> the ability to create commercial quality apps.
> They have intentionally tried to make VB
> unsuitable for anything other than in-house,
> corporate development.

I almost agreed with you there for a second, but
when you think about it, what are some of the
defining characteristics of modern commercial apps?
Oversized, over-featured, unstable, poorly-planned,
"style-over-substance", poorly supported,
inconsiderate, just to name a few...

So what better than VB to design them with?

- Troy King



Thu, 06 Jun 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 A late wish for Santa..


Quote:
>I doubt you'll ever see that.  I'm convinced that Microsoft does not want to
>give VB programmers the ability to create commercial quality apps.  They have
>intentionally tried to make VB unsuitable for anything other than in-house,
>corporate development.

May be. It's hardly the case that MS does something un-intentionally.
But this may be the exception. IOW, they do not need to take great
pains to make such a mess of VB. It is MS's, so it's a mess already
-no pains involved.

Manuel Algora



Thu, 06 Jun 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 A late wish for Santa..

Quote:
> So what better than VB to design them with?

Maybe.

I won't even download a piece of shareware if it's written in VB.  Why bother?
It'll just tell me that I'm missing this or that version of the runtime .DLL.
Or crash because the developer used some OCX that he forgot to include.



Thu, 06 Jun 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 A late wish for Santa..

Quote:
"Everyone" wrote...
> I won't even download a piece of shareware if it's written in VB.
> Why bother? It'll just tell me that I'm missing this or that version
> of the runtime .DLL. Or crash because the developer used some OCX
> that he forgot to include.

I admit that I tend to not download VB freeware and shareware for
the same reason. Of the hundred or so I've tried over the past few
years, only two or three of them were solid enough to keep as part
of the arsenal. So as soon as I see an indication that the app was
written in VB, unless it looks like an *extremely* compelling
application or unless I know and/or trust the developer, I don't
bother either any more.

I've got a theory about why VB apps tend to be worse than other apps,
though. It's certainly not a theory that only I've had, but it's my
current one on that subject, anyway. In  other languages, the
learning technique tends to be that you start by learning about
things that make up good programming first, like control structures,
memory conservation, clock-cycle conservation, coding-style, naming
conventions, structuring etc. As you develop a bit of facility with
the language, you learn to use the libraries provided by other
developers and/or build your own.

However, with VB, one of the first things a new programmer learns is
to use other libraries rather than to code. Need to ftp? Drop this
control in. Want to present file open/close dialogs? Drop in this
*other* control, etc. VB makes is unbeleivably easy to be a bad
programmer, or to produce results that are impressive (relatively
speaking) without the need to have any actual programming skill other
than being able to guess your way through the environment and a day-1
coding level. New VB developers get lulled into thinking they're
"programming" when what they're really doing is drag-and-dropping
components and entering a line or two of code to actuate the
component. In other words, why should they learn to design
applications when they've got the VB Color-By-Numbers Programming
Kit?

I respect what VB was trying to accomplish. IMO it really raised the bar
for what sort of functions make it easy on developers. However, like with
many of their applications, MS focused a bit too much on features and not
enough on stability and sensible behavior. The language hasn't really
improved since version 4, and though there have been some under-the-hood
changes that have made it a bit better, by and large v5 and v6 don't
enable anything that v4 didn't, nor improve the language enough to bother,
but that's a different conversation.

IMO, the reason VB apps tend to be worse than non-VB apps is because
VB makes it easy for a rank beginner to produce something that
resembles a real application, so beginning programmers learning VB as
their first language as VB rarely evolve out of the beginning skill
levels.

- Troy



Thu, 06 Jun 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 A late wish for Santa..

Quote:
> Did you ask Bill? Is he gonna do it? (smile)

I'm not asking him for nothing more after he never sent me my two last
MCP diplomas! That cheap bast**d, couldn't afford the paper, or the
stamps??  8o)

Btw, Lance.. are U from New Zee..?

--
~8o)  Haakon



Thu, 06 Jun 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 A late wish for Santa..

Quote:
> changes that have made it a bit better, by and large v5 and v6 don't
> enable anything that v4 didn't, nor improve the language enough to bother,
> but that's a different conversation.

  For many there is improvement. Being more "object oriented", in the way
it now gives a file object rather than manually opening and closing files
makes it more efficient to finish an app. No, it's not an app to satisfy
loads of "hard coders", but as long as it's doing it's job and someone is
willing to pay for it..

As long as there are shortcuts, some will use them. It's up to the
developer to put his/her pride and effort into it rather than making a
bloatware app even more bloat.

It's like desktop publishing and web design. Today anyone can do it, but
that gives us a shitload of bad results. All because the tools are to
easy to use for the 'man in the street'.

So target the developer, not the tool(s). It's actually possible to make
wothwhile quality software that companies will pay good fees for, right
there in VB! - Every tool for it's job. It's possible to mount an Ikea
cupboard with a butter knife (I've done it!), but it will hang togeter
much longer done with the proper tool.

As I'v mentioned before, somewhere, doing a job in VB will take shorter
time and is more likely to get you the job, with a reasonable fee. Unless
your'e a real hard coder and knows your way around in a lower level
language and can do the job there just as fast. Thats not the case for me
at this moment, and I think my wife appreciate that!
To me and many others VB is invaluable until we can grasp something
'better'.

--
~8o)  Haakon



Thu, 06 Jun 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 A late wish for Santa..


Quote:
>I've got a theory about why VB apps tend to be worse than other apps,
>though. It's certainly not a theory that only I've had, but it's my
>current one on that subject, anyway. In  other languages, the
>learning technique tends to be that you start by learning about
>things that make up good programming first, like control structures,
>memory conservation, clock-cycle conservation, coding-style, naming
>conventions, structuring etc. As you develop a bit of facility with
>the language, you learn to use the libraries provided by other
>developers and/or build your own.

>However, with VB, one of the first things a new programmer learns is
>to use other libraries rather than to code.

(and)

Quote:
>IMO, the reason VB apps tend to be worse than non-VB apps is because
>VB makes it easy for a rank beginner to produce something that
>resembles a real application, so beginning programmers learning VB as
>their first language as VB rarely evolve out of the beginning skill
>levels.

But really, why does somebody choose VB as its programming tool?
Rarely a knwoledgeable programmer would choose it! So it's not just
that VB encourages bad programming practices. To begin with, it
doesn't allow you good programming practices in the first place,
because of its many lacking features. So VB may be chosen by those who
precisely don't want to bother with anything but the scratch of
programming. It's not that VB encourages bad programming practices in
some, but that these are looking for them in the first place.

That being said, there are also very good programmers in the VB area.
Many of them are being forced to programm with VB by the company they
work with. How silly, but true. I know many such, quite capable
programmers in C or assembler, but working with VB because of
professional necessity. Then, take a look at the books written for VB.
It's obvious many of their authors are not run of the mill. They are
devoting their efforts to the VB area, however, because this a most
rewarding path to thread. And, thus, there are lots of very good books
written for VB. If only there were one such for PB! Some of those
authors show an astonishing knowledge of the API functions or the COM
architecture. This is hard to bear! So many resources at the disposal
of such a bad programming tool, while others, much better, get so
little support. Almost any question you may have of a programming
nature is responded somewhere in the Web the VB-way of doing it. Money
rules. But beware! Money's path leads to destruction. Mankind may
learn that in the long run if awareness of the situation doesn't grow
fast enough.

Love is Joy.
Manuel Algora



Thu, 06 Jun 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 A late wish for Santa..

Quote:
> IMO, the reason VB apps tend to be worse than non-VB apps is because
> VB makes it easy for a rank beginner to produce something that
> resembles a real application, so beginning programmers learning VB as
> their first language as VB rarely evolve out of the beginning skill
> levels.

In other words, many people using VB aren't "real" programmers.  The overall
quality of VB shareware certainly seems to support this view.

The most accurate summation that I've heard from a "real" programmer is
that VB looks impressive at the start but over time; the more you use it, the
more
you grow to hate it. Borland's Delphi is just the opposite, even those who don't
like
it initially grow to love it over time.  This is not just my opinion, check this
link:

http://www.deja.com/rate/list_items.xp?CID=11954&PCID=11803



Thu, 06 Jun 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 A late wish for Santa..

Quote:
"Haakon" wrote...

  > For many there is improvement. Being more "object oriented", in the
  > way it now gives a file object rather than manually opening and
  > closing files makes it more efficient to finish an app. No, it's not
  > an app to satisfy loads of "hard coders", but as long as it's doing
  > it's job and someone is willing to pay for it..

I like the FileSystem object as well, but you gotta admit, it doesn't
allow anything that other techniques in VB didn't. Plus, it was
available when VB4 (!) was still out. The FileSystem object first
shipped with VI 1.0, and later with WSH. But it's still very nice.

  > As long as there are shortcuts, some will use them. It's up to the
  > developer to put his/her pride and effort into it rather than making
  > a bloatware app even more bloat.

I agree. I also use the shortcuts when appropriate. What I meant was
that a beginner whose first language is VB will never *have* to get
better. In other words, the programmer hasn't learned enough
technique to be able to overcome an issue when VB-off-the-shelf
and/or an OCX or other object server can't do it.

  > It's like desktop publishing and web design. Today anyone can do it,
  > but that gives us a shitload of bad results. All because the tools
  > are to easy to use for the 'man in the street'.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying.

  > So target the developer, not the tool(s). It's actually possible to
  > make wothwhile quality software that companies will pay good fees
  > for, right there in VB! - Every tool for it's job. It's possible to
  > mount an Ikea cupboard with a butter knife (I've done it!), but it
  > will hang togeter much longer done with the proper tool.

I do. My point is that the tool doesn't require the developer to
actually develop any skill. In other words, it's almost *too* easy a
tool to learn on. The developer doesn't know that their shortcuts are
shortcuts. I guess as an example, I'd use DDT in powerbasic. If
you've never created windows "by hand", then DDT doesn't seem like a
shortcut, it just seems like "how you do it", and a PB developer new
to the Windows API won't have the skills to overcome something DDT
can't do. I guess what I wish was that VB weren't someone's first
language :)

  > As I'v mentioned before, somewhere, doing a job in VB will take
  > shorter time and is more likely to get you the job, with a reasonable
  > fee. Unless your'e a real hard coder and knows your way around in a
  > lower level language and can do the job there just as fast. Thats not
  > the case for me at this moment, and I think my wife appreciate that!
  > To me and many others VB is invaluable until we can grasp something
  > 'better'.

I'm mostly a fan of VB. My point wasn't necessarily to badmouth VB,
though I did do a bit of that. VB's weaknesses are the fault of MS
features-over-substance policies. I have a small VB site myself
( http://submain.com ). I don't dislike VB. I just think it's not a
good language to learn on.

- Troy



Fri, 07 Jun 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 A late wish for Santa..
"Manuel Algora" wrote ...

  > <SNIP> But really, why does somebody choose VB as its programming
  > tool? Rarely a knwoledgeable programmer would choose it! So it's not
  > just that VB encourages bad programming practices. To begin with, it
  > doesn't allow you good programming practices in the first place,
  > because of its many lacking features. So VB may be chosen by those
  > who precisely don't want to bother with anything but the scratch of
  > programming. It's not that VB encourages bad programming practices in
  > some, but that these are looking for them in the first place.

I wouldn't say it's lack of features is the cause, but rather it's
presence of so many shortcuts. I've seen good solid VB code that any
programmer would be proud of. It doesn't *stop* you from using good
techniques, but it in no way requires or encourages them. So we're
sort of arriving at the same conclusion, but for different reasons.

  > That being said, there are also very good programmers in the VB
  > area. Many of them are being forced to programm with VB by the
  > company they work with. How silly, but true. I know many such,
  > quite capable programmers in C or assembler, but working with VB
  > because of professional necessity. ...

Absolutely I agree. Some of the best programmers I know use VB
every day because of their job. I'm not saying that all VB
programmers are bad! I'm saying that for a beginning programmer,
VB will not require them to develop any "real" programming
skills, and this is the reason for so much bad VB-developed
software.

  > ... Then, take a look at the
  > books written for VB. It's obvious many of their authors are not
  > run of the mill. They are devoting their efforts to the VB area,
  > however, because this a most rewarding path to thread. And,
  > thus, there are lots of very good books written for VB. If only
  > there were one such for PB! Some of those authors show an
  > astonishing knowledge of the API functions or the COM
  > architecture. This is hard to bear! ...

There are indeed some excellent VB authors out there, but hardly
are they the bulk of the authors or the books! Most of the VB
books on the market encourage the same bad habits that VB
establishes. But *some* of the authors currenlty writing VB books
are, IMO, some of the best programmers in general we've had.

  > ...So many resources at the
  > disposal of such a bad programming tool, while others, much
  > better, get so little support. Almost any question you may have
  > of a programming nature is responded somewhere in the Web the
  > VB-way of doing it....

There's no doubt VB is "king of the hill" right now in terms of
sheer number of programmers using it. I've been using PBDLL for
my Windows apps lately except where I'm being required to use VB
to get along COM objects in ASP/SQL projects. I've even done a
couple ISAPI dlls with PBDLL to avoid using COM, but because I'm
not developing in a vacuum, still have to use VB myself.

  > Money rules. But beware! Money's path leads
  > to destruction. Mankind may learn that in the long run if
  > awareness of the situation doesn't grow fast enough.

Don't *even* get me started on that one :)

- Troy



Fri, 07 Jun 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 A late wish for Santa..
Yes, I live & work in New Zealand.  It's no secret that I work for
PowerBASIC "remotely".  

It's summer here right now, the America's Cup racing is on, and I've
been luckly enough to get the chance to look over a couple of
expensive super-yachts that are moored at the "cup basin"... one was
worth NZ$105,000,000 (approx US$52,000,000).   What a luxury boat! I
could see myself living on one of those, but at NZ$30,000 per day to
hire, I don't think I'd could afford to live on one for more than a
few minutes at a time! (smile).

Quote:

>Btw, Lance.. are U from New Zee..?

Lance
PowerBASIC Support

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
PowerBASIC, Inc.      | 800-780-7707 Sales | "We put the Power in Basic!"
316 Mid Valley Center | 831-659-8000 Voice | http://www.powerbasic.com



Fri, 07 Jun 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 A late wish for Santa..

Quote:
> available when VB4 (!) was still out. The FileSystem object first
> shipped with VI 1.0, and later with WSH. But it's still very nice.

Not that I really pay that much attention to every detail of things. But
I was once sick enough to read the VB 3.0 manual from start to end. And
I've never seen anything about this kind of feature. But then again, we
might not thik of the same thing.

Quote:
> better. In other words, the programmer hasn't learned enough
> technique to be able to overcome an issue when VB-off-the-shelf

Agree,.. for me that became a issue of pride to do things in the
"correct" manner. But to begin with I just flushed VBX apps. Now I
sometimes drag that pride to far and really waste my time to get ahead of
myself. Buying PB was the largest attempt to overcome myself so far. But
then again this positive attitude, which I believe is rear amongst the
horde, have paid of in profitable jobs/projects. I've even been teaching
VB for a year.

Quote:
> to the Windows API won't have the skills to overcome something DDT
> can't do. I guess what I wish was that VB weren't someone's first

But then again, sometimes it's just lovely to not be 'forced' to think
all the time. - In between the challenges!  8o)

--
~8o)  Haakon



Sun, 09 Jun 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 15 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. ANNOUNCE: Three WISHes for 2006 (WISH Supernotepad 2006, WISH Command Center 2006, WISH CD-Writer 2006)

2. Latest wish in path

3. Latest 1.6.7 release works, but latest 1.7.2 doesn't

4. ANNOUNCE: Three WISHes (WISH Mini-Console 0.2.0, WISH CD-Writer 0.3.0, WISH Command Center 0.3.0)

5. I wish I could find wish ...

6. Wish problem: How can I avoid wish from forking

7. wish to pipe to wish

8. how to start wish inside wish program?

9. Wish in an Wish

10. A wish to use wish

11. wish and wishx, wish and tcl

12. TOOLS USA 96 - Santa Barbara, July 29 - August 2

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software