The End of Visual Basic -- Bruce McKinney 
Author Message
 The End of Visual Basic -- Bruce McKinney


belonged here since many of you don't travel over to the DevX newsgroups.

+++++++++++++++++

Quote:
----- Original Message -----

Newsgroups: vb.vb7
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 12:56 AM
Subject: The End of Visual Basic

> Although I don't use Visual Basic anymore, I have a sentimental attachment
> to it and I try to check in once in a while to see what's happening.
Imagine
> my feelings this time when I checked in to find...it's gone. No such
thing!
> Instead I find this new language that might be called Basic #.

> This language appears to have been invented in the following way. Somebody
> designs a new C-based language sort of like Java but with a few new
features
> and some style changes to fit the langauge designer's coding style and pet
> peeves. Once this perfect language is designed, it is separated into two
> parts: a language engine containing the core functionality and a syntax
> parser that recognizes C-style keywords and expressions. Next they create
a
> second parser that recognizes a Basic-style syntax instead of the C-style
> syntax. And there you have it! Basic #. It's a simple step to create a few
> more parsers. Cobol #. Pascal #. Ada #. fortran #. Eiffel #.

> The only problem is that all these parsers depend on the language engine,
> and this engine appears to have too much C-style stuff in it. For example,
> the definition of True and False seems to be in the language engine
instead
> of the parser, so languages that define True as -1 rather than 1 (most
> languages) are out of luck. They can't be compatible. The definition of
> arrays seems to be in the language engine, and since C arrays are 0-based,
> all other languages must have 0-based arrays even though no civilized
> high-level language would put such a stupid limitation on users by choice.
> (In fact, aspiring high-level languages like Java and C# should be
imitating
> VB and Pascal arrays, not the other way around.)

> Of course this is only an outsider's theory. There's another more sinister
> possibility. The definition of features such as array syntax and the
> definition of True may not be in the language engine at all. They may be
in
> the parser. Perhaps they could have made the language look any way they
> wanted. But the designers of Basic #, being C programmers, may simply be
> saying "#$!%& you, Basic scum. We're not bowing to your stupid prejudices
> just because there are ten times more of you than of us." They may be just
> breaking thing that are unfamiliar to them because they don't understand
or
> care about our language history and culture.

> In any case, it's clear they don't have the Basic spirit. Not one word of
my
> book (or any other VB book) will be true of this new language. This isn't
> quite what we asked for. We asked them to fix Visual Basic, not throw it
> away.

> I can't see any reason why anyone would use VB.NET rather than C#. If
you've
> got to learn a new language, why not start with a really new language
rather
> one that has just enough similarities to be confusing. You could probably
> write a VB to C# translator that would be more accurate and less confusing
> than the promised VB to VB.NET translator.

> Of course that remains to be seen. Perhaps they'll have the first language
> update tool in history that actually works. On second thought, there's not
> much chance of that if they change:

> Dim a(1 To 10) As Integer

> to:

> Dim a As Object = New VB6.Array(GetType(Short), 1,10)

> Seeing something like that in your converted code may be enough to make
you
> think about going to a different language vendor rather than a different
> language. Java or delphi or Eiffel or python may start to look
interesting.

> Stranger yet, it's almost as if Microsoft is making their whole operating
> system strategy dependent on their language tools. If .NET is the wave of
> the future, and the only way to create .NET tools is with Microsoft's .NET
> languages, then the whole company will be in trouble if nobody buys into
C#
> and Basic #. But from what I hear, some other departments at Microsoft are
> also looking skeptically at the new language tools. Don't hold your breath
> waiting for the new version of Office written completely in C#, much less
> the one written in Basic #.

> So why are they making these risky changes? They state it right up front:

> "One of our major goals was to ensure Visual Basic code could fully
> interoperate with code written in other languages, such as Microsoft
Visual
> C#T or Microsoft Visual C++?..."

> Ask the average VB programmer this question: How important is it to you
that
> your VB code be fully interoperable with other languages such as C++ and
C#?
> I did some preliminary polling on this question and found that language
> interoperability is number 217 on the average VB programmer's priority
list.

> They want it bad. We don't care about it. Who gets what they want? I guess
> we'll see.

> In theory I ought to be happy. This new language has just about everything
I
> ever asked for. Inheritance, data initialization, a real language
library...
> It's all there. They even changed Integer to mean 32-bit integer
(something
> I begged for in 32-bit VB4).

> But this victory feels as hollow as my victory in this year's election.
This
> is the first time I ever picked a winner. I voted for none of the above,
and
> he won. But now they're trying to strip my guy and hand the presidency
over
> to one of those two impostors. Alas, the new president isn't going to be
the
> only one with legitimacy problems. I predict Microsoft is going to have as
> much trouble getting acceptance for its new languages as the congress will
> have passing legislation.

> Oh, well. At least the language part isn't my problem.

> Bruce McKinney



Fri, 09 May 2003 18:31:36 GMT  
 The End of Visual Basic -- Bruce McKinney
Yeah. I got to agree with you. I've been trying to upgrade a project I'm
working on now ( not for production of course, just an I'm a nerd and this
is cool, s**ts and giggles kind of thing ) and it doesn't work. Not only do
I not understand alot of the code that is generated, what thev've done with
ADO is just plain confusing. I'm sure this time next year it won't matter,
but for now I'm pretty confused.


Quote:

> belonged here since many of you don't travel over to the DevX newsgroups.

> +++++++++++++++++

> ----- Original Message -----

> Newsgroups: vb.vb7
> Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 12:56 AM
> Subject: The End of Visual Basic

> > Although I don't use Visual Basic anymore, I have a sentimental
attachment
> > to it and I try to check in once in a while to see what's happening.
> Imagine
> > my feelings this time when I checked in to find...it's gone. No such
> thing!
> > Instead I find this new language that might be called Basic #.

> > This language appears to have been invented in the following way.
Somebody
> > designs a new C-based language sort of like Java but with a few new
> features
> > and some style changes to fit the langauge designer's coding style and
pet
> > peeves. Once this perfect language is designed, it is separated into two
> > parts: a language engine containing the core functionality and a syntax
> > parser that recognizes C-style keywords and expressions. Next they
create
> a
> > second parser that recognizes a Basic-style syntax instead of the
C-style
> > syntax. And there you have it! Basic #. It's a simple step to create a
few
> > more parsers. Cobol #. Pascal #. Ada #. Fortran #. Eiffel #.

> > The only problem is that all these parsers depend on the language
engine,
> > and this engine appears to have too much C-style stuff in it. For
example,
> > the definition of True and False seems to be in the language engine
> instead
> > of the parser, so languages that define True as -1 rather than 1 (most
> > languages) are out of luck. They can't be compatible. The definition of
> > arrays seems to be in the language engine, and since C arrays are
0-based,
> > all other languages must have 0-based arrays even though no civilized
> > high-level language would put such a stupid limitation on users by
choice.
> > (In fact, aspiring high-level languages like Java and C# should be
> imitating
> > VB and Pascal arrays, not the other way around.)

> > Of course this is only an outsider's theory. There's another more
sinister
> > possibility. The definition of features such as array syntax and the
> > definition of True may not be in the language engine at all. They may be
> in
> > the parser. Perhaps they could have made the language look any way they
> > wanted. But the designers of Basic #, being C programmers, may simply be
> > saying "#$!%& you, Basic scum. We're not bowing to your stupid
prejudices
> > just because there are ten times more of you than of us." They may be
just
> > breaking thing that are unfamiliar to them because they don't understand
> or
> > care about our language history and culture.

> > In any case, it's clear they don't have the Basic spirit. Not one word
of
> my
> > book (or any other VB book) will be true of this new language. This
isn't
> > quite what we asked for. We asked them to fix Visual Basic, not throw it
> > away.

> > I can't see any reason why anyone would use VB.NET rather than C#. If
> you've
> > got to learn a new language, why not start with a really new language
> rather
> > one that has just enough similarities to be confusing. You could
probably
> > write a VB to C# translator that would be more accurate and less
confusing
> > than the promised VB to VB.NET translator.

> > Of course that remains to be seen. Perhaps they'll have the first
language
> > update tool in history that actually works. On second thought, there's
not
> > much chance of that if they change:

> > Dim a(1 To 10) As Integer

> > to:

> > Dim a As Object = New VB6.Array(GetType(Short), 1,10)

> > Seeing something like that in your converted code may be enough to make
> you
> > think about going to a different language vendor rather than a different
> > language. Java or Delphi or Eiffel or Python may start to look
> interesting.

> > Stranger yet, it's almost as if Microsoft is making their whole
operating
> > system strategy dependent on their language tools. If .NET is the wave
of
> > the future, and the only way to create .NET tools is with Microsoft's
.NET
> > languages, then the whole company will be in trouble if nobody buys into
> C#
> > and Basic #. But from what I hear, some other departments at Microsoft
are
> > also looking skeptically at the new language tools. Don't hold your
breath
> > waiting for the new version of Office written completely in C#, much
less
> > the one written in Basic #.

> > So why are they making these risky changes? They state it right up
front:

> > "One of our major goals was to ensure Visual Basic code could fully
> > interoperate with code written in other languages, such as Microsoft
> Visual
> > C#T or Microsoft Visual C++?..."

> > Ask the average VB programmer this question: How important is it to you
> that
> > your VB code be fully interoperable with other languages such as C++ and
> C#?
> > I did some preliminary polling on this question and found that language
> > interoperability is number 217 on the average VB programmer's priority
> list.

> > They want it bad. We don't care about it. Who gets what they want? I
guess
> > we'll see.

> > In theory I ought to be happy. This new language has just about
everything
> I
> > ever asked for. Inheritance, data initialization, a real language
> library...
> > It's all there. They even changed Integer to mean 32-bit integer
> (something
> > I begged for in 32-bit VB4).

> > But this victory feels as hollow as my victory in this year's election.
> This
> > is the first time I ever picked a winner. I voted for none of the above,
> and
> > he won. But now they're trying to strip my guy and hand the presidency
> over
> > to one of those two impostors. Alas, the new president isn't going to be
> the
> > only one with legitimacy problems. I predict Microsoft is going to have
as
> > much trouble getting acceptance for its new languages as the congress
will
> > have passing legislation.

> > Oh, well. At least the language part isn't my problem.

> > Bruce McKinney



Fri, 09 May 2003 19:17:26 GMT  
 The End of Visual Basic -- Bruce McKinney
Post some of your segments. Someone here should be able to decipher it, and
we all need the practice.

--
Jonathan Allen


Quote:
> Yeah. I got to agree with you. I've been trying to upgrade a project I'm
> working on now ( not for production of course, just an I'm a nerd and this
> is cool, s**ts and giggles kind of thing ) and it doesn't work. Not only
do
> I not understand alot of the code that is generated, what thev've done
with
> ADO is just plain confusing. I'm sure this time next year it won't matter,
> but for now I'm pretty confused.




also
> > belonged here since many of you don't travel over to the DevX
newsgroups.

> > +++++++++++++++++

> > ----- Original Message -----

> > Newsgroups: vb.vb7
> > Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 12:56 AM
> > Subject: The End of Visual Basic

> > > Although I don't use Visual Basic anymore, I have a sentimental
> attachment
> > > to it and I try to check in once in a while to see what's happening.
> > Imagine
> > > my feelings this time when I checked in to find...it's gone. No such
> > thing!
> > > Instead I find this new language that might be called Basic #.

> > > This language appears to have been invented in the following way.
> Somebody
> > > designs a new C-based language sort of like Java but with a few new
> > features
> > > and some style changes to fit the langauge designer's coding style and
> pet
> > > peeves. Once this perfect language is designed, it is separated into
two
> > > parts: a language engine containing the core functionality and a
syntax
> > > parser that recognizes C-style keywords and expressions. Next they
> create
> > a
> > > second parser that recognizes a Basic-style syntax instead of the
> C-style
> > > syntax. And there you have it! Basic #. It's a simple step to create a
> few
> > > more parsers. Cobol #. Pascal #. Ada #. Fortran #. Eiffel #.

> > > The only problem is that all these parsers depend on the language
> engine,
> > > and this engine appears to have too much C-style stuff in it. For
> example,
> > > the definition of True and False seems to be in the language engine
> > instead
> > > of the parser, so languages that define True as -1 rather than 1 (most
> > > languages) are out of luck. They can't be compatible. The definition
of
> > > arrays seems to be in the language engine, and since C arrays are
> 0-based,
> > > all other languages must have 0-based arrays even though no civilized
> > > high-level language would put such a stupid limitation on users by
> choice.
> > > (In fact, aspiring high-level languages like Java and C# should be
> > imitating
> > > VB and Pascal arrays, not the other way around.)

> > > Of course this is only an outsider's theory. There's another more
> sinister
> > > possibility. The definition of features such as array syntax and the
> > > definition of True may not be in the language engine at all. They may
be
> > in
> > > the parser. Perhaps they could have made the language look any way
they
> > > wanted. But the designers of Basic #, being C programmers, may simply
be
> > > saying "#$!%& you, Basic scum. We're not bowing to your stupid
> prejudices
> > > just because there are ten times more of you than of us." They may be
> just
> > > breaking thing that are unfamiliar to them because they don't
understand
> > or
> > > care about our language history and culture.

> > > In any case, it's clear they don't have the Basic spirit. Not one word
> of
> > my
> > > book (or any other VB book) will be true of this new language. This
> isn't
> > > quite what we asked for. We asked them to fix Visual Basic, not throw
it
> > > away.

> > > I can't see any reason why anyone would use VB.NET rather than C#. If
> > you've
> > > got to learn a new language, why not start with a really new language
> > rather
> > > one that has just enough similarities to be confusing. You could
> probably
> > > write a VB to C# translator that would be more accurate and less
> confusing
> > > than the promised VB to VB.NET translator.

> > > Of course that remains to be seen. Perhaps they'll have the first
> language
> > > update tool in history that actually works. On second thought, there's
> not
> > > much chance of that if they change:

> > > Dim a(1 To 10) As Integer

> > > to:

> > > Dim a As Object = New VB6.Array(GetType(Short), 1,10)

> > > Seeing something like that in your converted code may be enough to
make
> > you
> > > think about going to a different language vendor rather than a
different
> > > language. Java or Delphi or Eiffel or Python may start to look
> > interesting.

> > > Stranger yet, it's almost as if Microsoft is making their whole
> operating
> > > system strategy dependent on their language tools. If .NET is the wave
> of
> > > the future, and the only way to create .NET tools is with Microsoft's
> .NET
> > > languages, then the whole company will be in trouble if nobody buys
into
> > C#
> > > and Basic #. But from what I hear, some other departments at Microsoft
> are
> > > also looking skeptically at the new language tools. Don't hold your
> breath
> > > waiting for the new version of Office written completely in C#, much
> less
> > > the one written in Basic #.

> > > So why are they making these risky changes? They state it right up
> front:

> > > "One of our major goals was to ensure Visual Basic code could fully
> > > interoperate with code written in other languages, such as Microsoft
> > Visual
> > > C#T or Microsoft Visual C++?..."

> > > Ask the average VB programmer this question: How important is it to
you
> > that
> > > your VB code be fully interoperable with other languages such as C++
and
> > C#?
> > > I did some preliminary polling on this question and found that
language
> > > interoperability is number 217 on the average VB programmer's priority
> > list.

> > > They want it bad. We don't care about it. Who gets what they want? I
> guess
> > > we'll see.

> > > In theory I ought to be happy. This new language has just about
> everything
> > I
> > > ever asked for. Inheritance, data initialization, a real language
> > library...
> > > It's all there. They even changed Integer to mean 32-bit integer
> > (something
> > > I begged for in 32-bit VB4).

> > > But this victory feels as hollow as my victory in this year's
election.
> > This
> > > is the first time I ever picked a winner. I voted for none of the
above,
> > and
> > > he won. But now they're trying to strip my guy and hand the presidency
> > over
> > > to one of those two impostors. Alas, the new president isn't going to
be
> > the
> > > only one with legitimacy problems. I predict Microsoft is going to
have
> as
> > > much trouble getting acceptance for its new languages as the congress
> will
> > > have passing legislation.

> > > Oh, well. At least the language part isn't my problem.

> > > Bruce McKinney



Fri, 09 May 2003 20:38:34 GMT  
 The End of Visual Basic -- Bruce McKinney
And the little boy cried out "But the emporer has no clothes!"

And the crowd gasped.

But maybe he is right? :-(

Ah well, people have said it before and MS just plowed on. If every VB
customer held hands together and begged MS to do something about this, they
would not even slip a micron past the end of this year.

--
MichKa

a new book on internationalization in VB at
http://www.i18nWithVB.com/


Quote:

> belonged here since many of you don't travel over to the DevX newsgroups.

> +++++++++++++++++

> ----- Original Message -----

> Newsgroups: vb.vb7
> Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 12:56 AM
> Subject: The End of Visual Basic

> > Although I don't use Visual Basic anymore, I have a sentimental
attachment
> > to it and I try to check in once in a while to see what's happening.
> Imagine
> > my feelings this time when I checked in to find...it's gone. No such
> thing!
> > Instead I find this new language that might be called Basic #.

> > This language appears to have been invented in the following way.
Somebody
> > designs a new C-based language sort of like Java but with a few new
> features
> > and some style changes to fit the langauge designer's coding style and
pet
> > peeves. Once this perfect language is designed, it is separated into two
> > parts: a language engine containing the core functionality and a syntax
> > parser that recognizes C-style keywords and expressions. Next they
create
> a
> > second parser that recognizes a Basic-style syntax instead of the
C-style
> > syntax. And there you have it! Basic #. It's a simple step to create a
few
> > more parsers. Cobol #. Pascal #. Ada #. Fortran #. Eiffel #.

> > The only problem is that all these parsers depend on the language
engine,
> > and this engine appears to have too much C-style stuff in it. For
example,
> > the definition of True and False seems to be in the language engine
> instead
> > of the parser, so languages that define True as -1 rather than 1 (most
> > languages) are out of luck. They can't be compatible. The definition of
> > arrays seems to be in the language engine, and since C arrays are
0-based,
> > all other languages must have 0-based arrays even though no civilized
> > high-level language would put such a stupid limitation on users by
choice.
> > (In fact, aspiring high-level languages like Java and C# should be
> imitating
> > VB and Pascal arrays, not the other way around.)

> > Of course this is only an outsider's theory. There's another more
sinister
> > possibility. The definition of features such as array syntax and the
> > definition of True may not be in the language engine at all. They may be
> in
> > the parser. Perhaps they could have made the language look any way they
> > wanted. But the designers of Basic #, being C programmers, may simply be
> > saying "#$!%& you, Basic scum. We're not bowing to your stupid
prejudices
> > just because there are ten times more of you than of us." They may be
just
> > breaking thing that are unfamiliar to them because they don't understand
> or
> > care about our language history and culture.

> > In any case, it's clear they don't have the Basic spirit. Not one word
of
> my
> > book (or any other VB book) will be true of this new language. This
isn't
> > quite what we asked for. We asked them to fix Visual Basic, not throw it
> > away.

> > I can't see any reason why anyone would use VB.NET rather than C#. If
> you've
> > got to learn a new language, why not start with a really new language
> rather
> > one that has just enough similarities to be confusing. You could
probably
> > write a VB to C# translator that would be more accurate and less
confusing
> > than the promised VB to VB.NET translator.

> > Of course that remains to be seen. Perhaps they'll have the first
language
> > update tool in history that actually works. On second thought, there's
not
> > much chance of that if they change:

> > Dim a(1 To 10) As Integer

> > to:

> > Dim a As Object = New VB6.Array(GetType(Short), 1,10)

> > Seeing something like that in your converted code may be enough to make
> you
> > think about going to a different language vendor rather than a different
> > language. Java or Delphi or Eiffel or Python may start to look
> interesting.

> > Stranger yet, it's almost as if Microsoft is making their whole
operating
> > system strategy dependent on their language tools. If .NET is the wave
of
> > the future, and the only way to create .NET tools is with Microsoft's
.NET
> > languages, then the whole company will be in trouble if nobody buys into
> C#
> > and Basic #. But from what I hear, some other departments at Microsoft
are
> > also looking skeptically at the new language tools. Don't hold your
breath
> > waiting for the new version of Office written completely in C#, much
less
> > the one written in Basic #.

> > So why are they making these risky changes? They state it right up
front:

> > "One of our major goals was to ensure Visual Basic code could fully
> > interoperate with code written in other languages, such as Microsoft
> Visual
> > C#T or Microsoft Visual C++?..."

> > Ask the average VB programmer this question: How important is it to you
> that
> > your VB code be fully interoperable with other languages such as C++ and
> C#?
> > I did some preliminary polling on this question and found that language
> > interoperability is number 217 on the average VB programmer's priority
> list.

> > They want it bad. We don't care about it. Who gets what they want? I
guess
> > we'll see.

> > In theory I ought to be happy. This new language has just about
everything
> I
> > ever asked for. Inheritance, data initialization, a real language
> library...
> > It's all there. They even changed Integer to mean 32-bit integer
> (something
> > I begged for in 32-bit VB4).

> > But this victory feels as hollow as my victory in this year's election.
> This
> > is the first time I ever picked a winner. I voted for none of the above,
> and
> > he won. But now they're trying to strip my guy and hand the presidency
> over
> > to one of those two impostors. Alas, the new president isn't going to be
> the
> > only one with legitimacy problems. I predict Microsoft is going to have
as
> > much trouble getting acceptance for its new languages as the congress
will
> > have passing legislation.

> > Oh, well. At least the language part isn't my problem.

> > Bruce McKinney



Fri, 09 May 2003 23:22:34 GMT  
 The End of Visual Basic -- Bruce McKinney
I think Bruce sums it up pretty well in the paragraph below. Microsoft
is obsessed with this concept. The question everyone needs to ask when
making any type of change is "why is this useful"?

Adding features, speed, and efficiency to VB is useful.

Removing features and making the language more difficult and confusing
is not.

Reminds me of the Intel Rambus fiasco. The smart thing to do in this
case is for Microsoft to call it exactly what it is.  A completely NEW
language, as C# is. How about VBSharp. Keep Visual Basic separate.
Integration is not always a good thing.

Quote:
>> "One of our major goals was to ensure Visual Basic code could fully
>> interoperate with code written in other languages, such as Microsoft



Sat, 10 May 2003 00:09:09 GMT  
 The End of Visual Basic -- Bruce McKinney

Quote:
> The smart thing to do in this
> case is for Microsoft to call it exactly what it is.  A completely NEW
> language, as C# is. How about VBSharp.

I like VB2 (Visual Basic Squared). BTW, this whole .Net/+ business has made
web searches about impossible.

What really concerns me is the name for ADO.Net. It has NOTHING to do with
ADO, but the name is used interchangeably. It took me several e-mails to
convince a newbie that they weren't the same thing. As a trainer, I see this
leading to many more headaches.

--
Jonathan Allen


Quote:
> I think Bruce sums it up pretty well in the paragraph below. Microsoft
> is obsessed with this concept. The question everyone needs to ask when
> making any type of change is "why is this useful"?

> Adding features, speed, and efficiency to VB is useful.

> Removing features and making the language more difficult and confusing
> is not.

> Reminds me of the Intel Rambus fiasco. The smart thing to do in this
> case is for Microsoft to call it exactly what it is.  A completely NEW
> language, as C# is. How about VBSharp. Keep Visual Basic separate.
> Integration is not always a good thing.

> >> "One of our major goals was to ensure Visual Basic code could fully
> >> interoperate with code written in other languages, such as Microsoft



Sat, 10 May 2003 00:36:53 GMT  
 The End of Visual Basic -- Bruce McKinney
I agree with that completely. Lousy name for searching based on my own
search attempts. It reminds me of trying to search for "Windows NT".
Another lousy name for searching. When I name my programs, I always
keep search engines in mind. I guess MS doesn't need to worry about
that. I'm sure they'd rather point you to www.microsoft.com anyway and
make you drill down about 500 pages till you found what you were
looking for.
Quote:
>I like VB2 (Visual Basic Squared). BTW, this whole .Net/+ business has made
>web searches about impossible.



Sat, 10 May 2003 01:14:48 GMT  
 The End of Visual Basic -- Bruce McKinney
How about New VB and VB Classic?  Too clever for Microsoft...
Quote:
>I like VB2 (Visual Basic Squared). BTW, this whole .Net/+ business has made
>web searches about impossible.



Sat, 10 May 2003 01:35:49 GMT  
 The End of Visual Basic -- Bruce McKinney
I would argue that defining True as -1 is not a feature, and is goofy in any
event.  VBA does this, and it leads to no end of confusion when converting
things to SQL Server, which has a bit type that is used to implement
booleans, and those bit types allow 1 or 0.  I understand how this will
break some code, but I do not think the majority of languages define True
as -1.


Quote:

> belonged here since many of you don't travel over to the DevX newsgroups.

> +++++++++++++++++

> ----- Original Message -----

> Newsgroups: vb.vb7
> Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 12:56 AM
> Subject: The End of Visual Basic

> > Although I don't use Visual Basic anymore, I have a sentimental
attachment
> > to it and I try to check in once in a while to see what's happening.
> Imagine
> > my feelings this time when I checked in to find...it's gone. No such
> thing!
> > Instead I find this new language that might be called Basic #.

> > This language appears to have been invented in the following way.
Somebody
> > designs a new C-based language sort of like Java but with a few new
> features
> > and some style changes to fit the langauge designer's coding style and
pet
> > peeves. Once this perfect language is designed, it is separated into two
> > parts: a language engine containing the core functionality and a syntax
> > parser that recognizes C-style keywords and expressions. Next they
create
> a
> > second parser that recognizes a Basic-style syntax instead of the
C-style
> > syntax. And there you have it! Basic #. It's a simple step to create a
few
> > more parsers. Cobol #. Pascal #. Ada #. Fortran #. Eiffel #.

> > The only problem is that all these parsers depend on the language
engine,
> > and this engine appears to have too much C-style stuff in it. For
example,
> > the definition of True and False seems to be in the language engine
> instead
> > of the parser, so languages that define True as -1 rather than 1 (most
> > languages) are out of luck. They can't be compatible. The definition of
> > arrays seems to be in the language engine, and since C arrays are
0-based,
> > all other languages must have 0-based arrays even though no civilized
> > high-level language would put such a stupid limitation on users by
choice.
> > (In fact, aspiring high-level languages like Java and C# should be
> imitating
> > VB and Pascal arrays, not the other way around.)

> > Of course this is only an outsider's theory. There's another more
sinister
> > possibility. The definition of features such as array syntax and the
> > definition of True may not be in the language engine at all. They may be
> in
> > the parser. Perhaps they could have made the language look any way they
> > wanted. But the designers of Basic #, being C programmers, may simply be
> > saying "#$!%& you, Basic scum. We're not bowing to your stupid
prejudices
> > just because there are ten times more of you than of us." They may be
just
> > breaking thing that are unfamiliar to them because they don't understand
> or
> > care about our language history and culture.

> > In any case, it's clear they don't have the Basic spirit. Not one word
of
> my
> > book (or any other VB book) will be true of this new language. This
isn't
> > quite what we asked for. We asked them to fix Visual Basic, not throw it
> > away.

> > I can't see any reason why anyone would use VB.NET rather than C#. If
> you've
> > got to learn a new language, why not start with a really new language
> rather
> > one that has just enough similarities to be confusing. You could
probably
> > write a VB to C# translator that would be more accurate and less
confusing
> > than the promised VB to VB.NET translator.

> > Of course that remains to be seen. Perhaps they'll have the first
language
> > update tool in history that actually works. On second thought, there's
not
> > much chance of that if they change:

> > Dim a(1 To 10) As Integer

> > to:

> > Dim a As Object = New VB6.Array(GetType(Short), 1,10)

> > Seeing something like that in your converted code may be enough to make
> you
> > think about going to a different language vendor rather than a different
> > language. Java or Delphi or Eiffel or Python may start to look
> interesting.

> > Stranger yet, it's almost as if Microsoft is making their whole
operating
> > system strategy dependent on their language tools. If .NET is the wave
of
> > the future, and the only way to create .NET tools is with Microsoft's
.NET
> > languages, then the whole company will be in trouble if nobody buys into
> C#
> > and Basic #. But from what I hear, some other departments at Microsoft
are
> > also looking skeptically at the new language tools. Don't hold your
breath
> > waiting for the new version of Office written completely in C#, much
less
> > the one written in Basic #.

> > So why are they making these risky changes? They state it right up
front:

> > "One of our major goals was to ensure Visual Basic code could fully
> > interoperate with code written in other languages, such as Microsoft
> Visual
> > C#T or Microsoft Visual C++?..."

> > Ask the average VB programmer this question: How important is it to you
> that
> > your VB code be fully interoperable with other languages such as C++ and
> C#?
> > I did some preliminary polling on this question and found that language
> > interoperability is number 217 on the average VB programmer's priority
> list.

> > They want it bad. We don't care about it. Who gets what they want? I
guess
> > we'll see.

> > In theory I ought to be happy. This new language has just about
everything
> I
> > ever asked for. Inheritance, data initialization, a real language
> library...
> > It's all there. They even changed Integer to mean 32-bit integer
> (something
> > I begged for in 32-bit VB4).

> > But this victory feels as hollow as my victory in this year's election.
> This
> > is the first time I ever picked a winner. I voted for none of the above,
> and
> > he won. But now they're trying to strip my guy and hand the presidency
> over
> > to one of those two impostors. Alas, the new president isn't going to be
> the
> > only one with legitimacy problems. I predict Microsoft is going to have
as
> > much trouble getting acceptance for its new languages as the congress
will
> > have passing legislation.

> > Oh, well. At least the language part isn't my problem.

> > Bruce McKinney



Sat, 10 May 2003 01:55:32 GMT  
 The End of Visual Basic -- Bruce McKinney

Quote:
> I understand how this will
> break some code, but I do not think the majority of languages define True
> as -1.

Actually they do.

True is normally represented as all 1's.
In binary, all 1's (FF FF FF FF) = -1

Personally I like the current shift because it puts C++, VB, and SQL on
equal footing. (Besides, I hated having to use -1*B to populate checkboxes.)

--
Jonathan Allen


Quote:
> I would argue that defining True as -1 is not a feature, and is goofy in
any
> event.  VBA does this, and it leads to no end of confusion when converting
> things to SQL Server, which has a bit type that is used to implement
> booleans, and those bit types allow 1 or 0.  I understand how this will
> break some code, but I do not think the majority of languages define True
> as -1.




also
> > belonged here since many of you don't travel over to the DevX
newsgroups.

> > +++++++++++++++++

> > ----- Original Message -----

> > Newsgroups: vb.vb7
> > Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 12:56 AM
> > Subject: The End of Visual Basic

> > > Although I don't use Visual Basic anymore, I have a sentimental
> attachment
> > > to it and I try to check in once in a while to see what's happening.
> > Imagine
> > > my feelings this time when I checked in to find...it's gone. No such
> > thing!
> > > Instead I find this new language that might be called Basic #.

> > > This language appears to have been invented in the following way.
> Somebody
> > > designs a new C-based language sort of like Java but with a few new
> > features
> > > and some style changes to fit the langauge designer's coding style and
> pet
> > > peeves. Once this perfect language is designed, it is separated into
two
> > > parts: a language engine containing the core functionality and a
syntax
> > > parser that recognizes C-style keywords and expressions. Next they
> create
> > a
> > > second parser that recognizes a Basic-style syntax instead of the
> C-style
> > > syntax. And there you have it! Basic #. It's a simple step to create a
> few
> > > more parsers. Cobol #. Pascal #. Ada #. Fortran #. Eiffel #.

> > > The only problem is that all these parsers depend on the language
> engine,
> > > and this engine appears to have too much C-style stuff in it. For
> example,
> > > the definition of True and False seems to be in the language engine
> > instead
> > > of the parser, so languages that define True as -1 rather than 1 (most
> > > languages) are out of luck. They can't be compatible. The definition
of
> > > arrays seems to be in the language engine, and since C arrays are
> 0-based,
> > > all other languages must have 0-based arrays even though no civilized
> > > high-level language would put such a stupid limitation on users by
> choice.
> > > (In fact, aspiring high-level languages like Java and C# should be
> > imitating
> > > VB and Pascal arrays, not the other way around.)

> > > Of course this is only an outsider's theory. There's another more
> sinister
> > > possibility. The definition of features such as array syntax and the
> > > definition of True may not be in the language engine at all. They may
be
> > in
> > > the parser. Perhaps they could have made the language look any way
they
> > > wanted. But the designers of Basic #, being C programmers, may simply
be
> > > saying "#$!%& you, Basic scum. We're not bowing to your stupid
> prejudices
> > > just because there are ten times more of you than of us." They may be
> just
> > > breaking thing that are unfamiliar to them because they don't
understand
> > or
> > > care about our language history and culture.

> > > In any case, it's clear they don't have the Basic spirit. Not one word
> of
> > my
> > > book (or any other VB book) will be true of this new language. This
> isn't
> > > quite what we asked for. We asked them to fix Visual Basic, not throw
it
> > > away.

> > > I can't see any reason why anyone would use VB.NET rather than C#. If
> > you've
> > > got to learn a new language, why not start with a really new language
> > rather
> > > one that has just enough similarities to be confusing. You could
> probably
> > > write a VB to C# translator that would be more accurate and less
> confusing
> > > than the promised VB to VB.NET translator.

> > > Of course that remains to be seen. Perhaps they'll have the first
> language
> > > update tool in history that actually works. On second thought, there's
> not
> > > much chance of that if they change:

> > > Dim a(1 To 10) As Integer

> > > to:

> > > Dim a As Object = New VB6.Array(GetType(Short), 1,10)

> > > Seeing something like that in your converted code may be enough to
make
> > you
> > > think about going to a different language vendor rather than a
different
> > > language. Java or Delphi or Eiffel or Python may start to look
> > interesting.

> > > Stranger yet, it's almost as if Microsoft is making their whole
> operating
> > > system strategy dependent on their language tools. If .NET is the wave
> of
> > > the future, and the only way to create .NET tools is with Microsoft's
> .NET
> > > languages, then the whole company will be in trouble if nobody buys
into
> > C#
> > > and Basic #. But from what I hear, some other departments at Microsoft
> are
> > > also looking skeptically at the new language tools. Don't hold your
> breath
> > > waiting for the new version of Office written completely in C#, much
> less
> > > the one written in Basic #.

> > > So why are they making these risky changes? They state it right up
> front:

> > > "One of our major goals was to ensure Visual Basic code could fully
> > > interoperate with code written in other languages, such as Microsoft
> > Visual
> > > C#T or Microsoft Visual C++?..."

> > > Ask the average VB programmer this question: How important is it to
you
> > that
> > > your VB code be fully interoperable with other languages such as C++
and
> > C#?
> > > I did some preliminary polling on this question and found that
language
> > > interoperability is number 217 on the average VB programmer's priority
> > list.

> > > They want it bad. We don't care about it. Who gets what they want? I
> guess
> > > we'll see.

> > > In theory I ought to be happy. This new language has just about
> everything
> > I
> > > ever asked for. Inheritance, data initialization, a real language
> > library...
> > > It's all there. They even changed Integer to mean 32-bit integer
> > (something
> > > I begged for in 32-bit VB4).

> > > But this victory feels as hollow as my victory in this year's
election.
> > This
> > > is the first time I ever picked a winner. I voted for none of the
above,
> > and
> > > he won. But now they're trying to strip my guy and hand the presidency
> > over
> > > to one of those two impostors. Alas, the new president isn't going to
be
> > the
> > > only one with legitimacy problems. I predict Microsoft is going to
have
> as
> > > much trouble getting acceptance for its new languages as the congress
> will
> > > have passing legislation.

> > > Oh, well. At least the language part isn't my problem.

> > > Bruce McKinney



Sat, 10 May 2003 02:07:36 GMT  
 The End of Visual Basic -- Bruce McKinney
Which introduces all kinds of problems with word size, etc...

I do prefer True being 1.


Quote:
> > I understand how this will
> > break some code, but I do not think the majority of languages define
True
> > as -1.

> Actually they do.

> True is normally represented as all 1's.
> In binary, all 1's (FF FF FF FF) = -1

> Personally I like the current shift because it puts C++, VB, and SQL on
> equal footing. (Besides, I hated having to use -1*B to populate
checkboxes.)

> --
> Jonathan Allen



> > I would argue that defining True as -1 is not a feature, and is goofy in
> any
> > event.  VBA does this, and it leads to no end of confusion when
converting
> > things to SQL Server, which has a bit type that is used to implement
> > booleans, and those bit types allow 1 or 0.  I understand how this will
> > break some code, but I do not think the majority of languages define
True
> > as -1.




> also
> > > belonged here since many of you don't travel over to the DevX
> newsgroups.

> > > +++++++++++++++++

> > > ----- Original Message -----

> > > Newsgroups: vb.vb7
> > > Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 12:56 AM
> > > Subject: The End of Visual Basic

> > > > Although I don't use Visual Basic anymore, I have a sentimental
> > attachment
> > > > to it and I try to check in once in a while to see what's happening.
> > > Imagine
> > > > my feelings this time when I checked in to find...it's gone. No such
> > > thing!
> > > > Instead I find this new language that might be called Basic #.

> > > > This language appears to have been invented in the following way.
> > Somebody
> > > > designs a new C-based language sort of like Java but with a few new
> > > features
> > > > and some style changes to fit the langauge designer's coding style
and
> > pet
> > > > peeves. Once this perfect language is designed, it is separated into
> two
> > > > parts: a language engine containing the core functionality and a
> syntax
> > > > parser that recognizes C-style keywords and expressions. Next they
> > create
> > > a
> > > > second parser that recognizes a Basic-style syntax instead of the
> > C-style
> > > > syntax. And there you have it! Basic #. It's a simple step to create
a
> > few
> > > > more parsers. Cobol #. Pascal #. Ada #. Fortran #. Eiffel #.

> > > > The only problem is that all these parsers depend on the language
> > engine,
> > > > and this engine appears to have too much C-style stuff in it. For
> > example,
> > > > the definition of True and False seems to be in the language engine
> > > instead
> > > > of the parser, so languages that define True as -1 rather than 1
(most
> > > > languages) are out of luck. They can't be compatible. The definition
> of
> > > > arrays seems to be in the language engine, and since C arrays are
> > 0-based,
> > > > all other languages must have 0-based arrays even though no
civilized
> > > > high-level language would put such a stupid limitation on users by
> > choice.
> > > > (In fact, aspiring high-level languages like Java and C# should be
> > > imitating
> > > > VB and Pascal arrays, not the other way around.)

> > > > Of course this is only an outsider's theory. There's another more
> > sinister
> > > > possibility. The definition of features such as array syntax and the
> > > > definition of True may not be in the language engine at all. They
may
> be
> > > in
> > > > the parser. Perhaps they could have made the language look any way
> they
> > > > wanted. But the designers of Basic #, being C programmers, may
simply
> be
> > > > saying "#$!%& you, Basic scum. We're not bowing to your stupid
> > prejudices
> > > > just because there are ten times more of you than of us." They may
be
> > just
> > > > breaking thing that are unfamiliar to them because they don't
> understand
> > > or
> > > > care about our language history and culture.

> > > > In any case, it's clear they don't have the Basic spirit. Not one
word
> > of
> > > my
> > > > book (or any other VB book) will be true of this new language. This
> > isn't
> > > > quite what we asked for. We asked them to fix Visual Basic, not
throw
> it
> > > > away.

> > > > I can't see any reason why anyone would use VB.NET rather than C#.
If
> > > you've
> > > > got to learn a new language, why not start with a really new
language
> > > rather
> > > > one that has just enough similarities to be confusing. You could
> > probably
> > > > write a VB to C# translator that would be more accurate and less
> > confusing
> > > > than the promised VB to VB.NET translator.

> > > > Of course that remains to be seen. Perhaps they'll have the first
> > language
> > > > update tool in history that actually works. On second thought,
there's
> > not
> > > > much chance of that if they change:

> > > > Dim a(1 To 10) As Integer

> > > > to:

> > > > Dim a As Object = New VB6.Array(GetType(Short), 1,10)

> > > > Seeing something like that in your converted code may be enough to
> make
> > > you
> > > > think about going to a different language vendor rather than a
> different
> > > > language. Java or Delphi or Eiffel or Python may start to look
> > > interesting.

> > > > Stranger yet, it's almost as if Microsoft is making their whole
> > operating
> > > > system strategy dependent on their language tools. If .NET is the
wave
> > of
> > > > the future, and the only way to create .NET tools is with
Microsoft's
> > .NET
> > > > languages, then the whole company will be in trouble if nobody buys
> into
> > > C#
> > > > and Basic #. But from what I hear, some other departments at
Microsoft
> > are
> > > > also looking skeptically at the new language tools. Don't hold your
> > breath
> > > > waiting for the new version of Office written completely in C#, much
> > less
> > > > the one written in Basic #.

> > > > So why are they making these risky changes? They state it right up
> > front:

> > > > "One of our major goals was to ensure Visual Basic code could fully
> > > > interoperate with code written in other languages, such as Microsoft
> > > Visual
> > > > C#T or Microsoft Visual C++?..."

> > > > Ask the average VB programmer this question: How important is it to
> you
> > > that
> > > > your VB code be fully interoperable with other languages such as C++
> and
> > > C#?
> > > > I did some preliminary polling on this question and found that
> language
> > > > interoperability is number 217 on the average VB programmer's
priority
> > > list.

> > > > They want it bad. We don't care about it. Who gets what they want? I
> > guess
> > > > we'll see.

> > > > In theory I ought to be happy. This new language has just about
> > everything
> > > I
> > > > ever asked for. Inheritance, data initialization, a real language
> > > library...
> > > > It's all there. They even changed Integer to mean 32-bit integer
> > > (something
> > > > I begged for in 32-bit VB4).

> > > > But this victory feels as hollow as my victory in this year's
> election.
> > > This
> > > > is the first time I ever picked a winner. I voted for none of the
> above,
> > > and
> > > > he won. But now they're trying to strip my guy and hand the
presidency
> > > over
> > > > to one of those two impostors. Alas, the new president isn't going
to
> be
> > > the
> > > > only one with legitimacy problems. I predict Microsoft is going to
> have
> > as
> > > > much trouble getting acceptance for its new languages as the
congress
> > will
> > > > have passing legislation.

> > > > Oh, well. At least the language part isn't my problem.

> > > > Bruce McKinney



Sat, 10 May 2003 03:36:52 GMT  
 The End of Visual Basic -- Bruce McKinney
Jonathan,

Quote:
> As a trainer, I see this
> leading to many more headaches.

Does that mean you don't make your living from an established code
base, but from staying current with whatever the flavour of the
month/year is?

Just wondering.

--
Regards, Tim Jones, http://www.aquatee.com



Sat, 10 May 2003 06:55:10 GMT  
 The End of Visual Basic -- Bruce McKinney


Quote:
> Personally I like the current shift because it puts C++, VB, and SQL on
> equal footing

Not really. C++ is still not "visual". Why is C++ not Visual? Who can tell?
You can write "managed" .NET code and create little windows and things to
your heart's content in code, but it's still not RAD. Why is it not RAD? I
don't know.

Personally I like the new Visual Studio better than the old one because you
can stop using the crappy SQL Server Enterprise Manager, and not only that,
but double-clicking a table SHOWS YOU THE DATA IN IT! Whoo-hooo! No more
right click, down one, right one, left click!

Graspee



Sat, 10 May 2003 07:06:26 GMT  
 The End of Visual Basic -- Bruce McKinney
No, my company believes in live training exercises. In my current
assignment, training consists of collecting various related technologies,
revising or rewriting them, and re-packaging them as one coherent unit. By
the same token, the program I was trained with is on it's way to becoming a
commercial application.

On a side note, being the first in my company to actually understand VS.Net
may lead to a raise or a promotion when it's out of beta. I'm looking at the
long run here.

--
Jonathan Allen


Quote:

> Does that mean you don't make your living from an established code
> base, but from staying current with whatever the flavour of the
> month/year is?

> Just wondering.

> --
> Regards, Tim Jones, http://www.aquatee.com



Sat, 10 May 2003 10:20:53 GMT  
 The End of Visual Basic -- Bruce McKinney
Why is C++ not Visual? Who can tell?

No time. They will be visual in VB.Net 2.

--
Jonathan Allen


Quote:



> > Personally I like the current shift because it puts C++, VB, and SQL on
> > equal footing

> Not really. C++ is still not "visual". Why is C++ not Visual? Who can
tell?
> You can write "managed" .NET code and create little windows and things to
> your heart's content in code, but it's still not RAD. Why is it not RAD? I
> don't know.

> Personally I like the new Visual Studio better than the old one because
you
> can stop using the crappy SQL Server Enterprise Manager, and not only
that,
> but double-clicking a table SHOWS YOU THE DATA IN IT! Whoo-hooo! No more
> right click, down one, right one, left click!

> Graspee



Sat, 10 May 2003 10:22:01 GMT  
 
 [ 27 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2]

 Relevant Pages 

1. Hardcore Visual Basic (Bruce McKinney)

2. Hardcore Visual Basic (Bruce McKinney)

3. Bruce McKinney

4. Problem to end Excel from Visual Basic.NET

5. Visual Basic front end to Access2000

6. Visual Basic Front Ends For Access Databases

7. Using Visual Basic to front-end an Oracle Database

8. Connecting Sun database to Visual Basic front end

9. ending visual basic after you bring MS Access up

10. Visual Basic & Lotus Notes Back-End Classes

11. Visual Basic as Front End to Acad LT

12. Visual Basic uses as Front end Application to Mainframe Data Entry

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software