VB.Net, VB.NET is a step backward - Just a code generator

VB.NET is a step backward - Just a code generator

Author	Message
Ian Elbur #1 / 25	VB.NET is a step backward - Just a code generator I have been reviewing the Beta 1 release and was very impressed with the Web development but am quite disapointed with the new VB development environment (Code generator). NOTE: I am probably restating issues that everyone understands but I am hoping that Microsoft is reading these posts and it's not to late. As a consultant that guides customers with making the best Business decisions reagrding their development projects, I am going to find it real hard suggesting to a customer that they use VB.Net for any future developments. One of my mantras is that you use the appropriate tool for the right job. If that means that VC++ is required, then use it, if VB makes sense then use it ... this is not a religious excercise, its business !!!!. The bottom line is the efficiency whether it be a speed, resourcing or long term maintanance. One of the characteristics of VB was that it was very easy to learn and as such programming resources are easier to find. It may have had shortcoming's from a technical point of view, but these could be resolved with a little C++ code. In a lot of ways it is good that VB has limitations, it stops the programmers from getting carried away. For simplicity, I break programmers into two breed's, the "System" programmers and the "Application" programmers. The system programmers are programming to an API/SDK requirement and the application programmers are programming to an end user's requirement. Application programmers generally don't do a system programmers job well and vice versa. IMO, VB as a development tool fit the application developers role nicely, easy to use, easy to maintain, rapid development and the system developers could plug in their stuff easily (COM/ActiveX etc). One of the reasons why I have not been real keen on Java is that it is an "Academic" language and whilst it is was very powerful and academically correct, it is not an easy language for the average person to learn. This means that we are not going to see the penertration of the language that we have seen with VB. Implementing solutions for end users using Java require a different type of programming resource where the resource has to have system as well as application programming skills (IMO) + learn the accademic constructs of the language. VB was never an academically correct language, but it solved the problems of the real world VERY well. C# is Microsoft's attempt to create a Java like language with all of it's inherent benefits ... but why was the decision to make VB like Java ... it absolutely behooves me !!! What we now have with VB.NET is an IDE that is effect a code generator that generates VB code for all of it's RAD functions (Form design, Menu design etc). Looking at this from someone starting out, this not only looks daunting but the metaphor is going to be a steep one to learn for the average guy out there. Microsoft needs to realize (as it's taken me awhile to learn) that the vast majority of programmers are more focused on solving problems and NOT solving or learning technology. This product was developed by Techies for Techies (system developers) and I think the mark has been missed by a wide distance. I think this is going to be a good opportunity for tool developers such as Borland and Sybase to capitilize and reclaim the Application development market. Regards, Ian Elbury Senior Consultant Innomega Technologies Inc
Wed, 14 May 2003 02:05:34 GMT

Bob Lehman #2 / 25	VB.NET is a step backward - Just a code generator You are absolutely right! I use VB exactly as you have described and I am not relishing the fact that I am basically going to be starting over if I am going to use the new VB. Bob Lehmann Quote: > I have been reviewing the Beta 1 release and was very impressed with the Web > development but am quite disapointed with the new VB development environment > (Code generator). > NOTE: I am probably restating issues that everyone understands but I am > hoping that Microsoft is reading these posts and it's not to late. > As a consultant that guides customers with making the best Business > decisions reagrding their development projects, I am going to find it real > hard suggesting to a customer that they use VB.Net for any future > developments. One of my mantras is that you use the appropriate tool for the > right job. If that means that VC++ is required, then use it, if VB makes > sense then use it ... this is not a religious excercise, its business !!!!. > The bottom line is the efficiency whether it be a speed, resourcing or long > term maintanance. > One of the characteristics of VB was that it was very easy to learn and as > such programming resources are easier to find. It may have had shortcoming's > from a technical point of view, but these could be resolved with a little > C++ code. In a lot of ways it is good that VB has limitations, it stops the > programmers from getting carried away. > For simplicity, I break programmers into two breed's, the "System" > programmers and the "Application" programmers. The system programmers are > programming to an API/SDK requirement and the application programmers are > programming to an end user's requirement. Application programmers generally > don't do a system programmers job well and vice versa. IMO, VB as a > development tool fit the application developers role nicely, easy to use, > easy to maintain, rapid development and the system developers could plug in > their stuff easily (COM/ActiveX etc). > One of the reasons why I have not been real keen on Java is that it is an > "Academic" language and whilst it is was very powerful and academically > correct, it is not an easy language for the average person to learn. This > means that we are not going to see the penertration of the language that we > have seen with VB. Implementing solutions for end users using Java require a > different type of programming resource where the resource has to have system > as well as application programming skills (IMO) + learn the accademic > constructs of the language. VB was never an academically correct language, > but it solved the problems of the real world VERY well. > C# is Microsoft's attempt to create a Java like language with all of it's > inherent benefits ... but why was the decision to make VB like Java ... it > absolutely behooves me !!! What we now have with VB.NET is an IDE that is > effect a code generator that generates VB code for all of it's RAD functions > (Form design, Menu design etc). Looking at this from someone starting out, > this not only looks daunting but the metaphor is going to be a steep one to > learn for the average guy out there. Microsoft needs to realize (as it's > taken me awhile to learn) that the vast majority of programmers are more > focused on solving problems and NOT solving or learning technology. This > product was developed by Techies for Techies (system developers) and I think > the mark has been missed by a wide distance. I think this is going to be a > good opportunity for tool developers such as Borland and Sybase to > capitilize and reclaim the Application development market. > Regards, > Ian Elbury > Senior Consultant > Innomega Technologies Inc
Wed, 14 May 2003 04:08:11 GMT

Vincent Tripod #3 / 25	VB.NET is a step backward - Just a code generator One thinga for sure ...my 9 year old will be coding in VB6 for some years to come. VB isn't for armchair programmers anymore. .NET will weed out the riff-raff. Hopefully I won't regret committing all the time and $$ I'm planning on investing in .NET - I don't want to look back on 2001 as the year I should have learned Java. Quote: > I have been reviewing the Beta 1 release and was very impressed with the Web > development but am quite disapointed with the new VB development environment > (Code generator). > NOTE: I am probably restating issues that everyone understands but I am > hoping that Microsoft is reading these posts and it's not to late. > As a consultant that guides customers with making the best Business > decisions reagrding their development projects, I am going to find it real > hard suggesting to a customer that they use VB.Net for any future > developments. One of my mantras is that you use the appropriate tool for the > right job. If that means that VC++ is required, then use it, if VB makes > sense then use it ... this is not a religious excercise, its business !!!!. > The bottom line is the efficiency whether it be a speed, resourcing or long > term maintanance. > One of the characteristics of VB was that it was very easy to learn and as > such programming resources are easier to find. It may have had shortcoming's > from a technical point of view, but these could be resolved with a little > C++ code. In a lot of ways it is good that VB has limitations, it stops the > programmers from getting carried away. > For simplicity, I break programmers into two breed's, the "System" > programmers and the "Application" programmers. The system programmers are > programming to an API/SDK requirement and the application programmers are > programming to an end user's requirement. Application programmers generally > don't do a system programmers job well and vice versa. IMO, VB as a > development tool fit the application developers role nicely, easy to use, > easy to maintain, rapid development and the system developers could plug in > their stuff easily (COM/ActiveX etc). > One of the reasons why I have not been real keen on Java is that it is an > "Academic" language and whilst it is was very powerful and academically > correct, it is not an easy language for the average person to learn. This > means that we are not going to see the penertration of the language that we > have seen with VB. Implementing solutions for end users using Java require a > different type of programming resource where the resource has to have system > as well as application programming skills (IMO) + learn the accademic > constructs of the language. VB was never an academically correct language, > but it solved the problems of the real world VERY well. > C# is Microsoft's attempt to create a Java like language with all of it's > inherent benefits ... but why was the decision to make VB like Java ... it > absolutely behooves me !!! What we now have with VB.NET is an IDE that is > effect a code generator that generates VB code for all of it's RAD functions > (Form design, Menu design etc). Looking at this from someone starting out, > this not only looks daunting but the metaphor is going to be a steep one to > learn for the average guy out there. Microsoft needs to realize (as it's > taken me awhile to learn) that the vast majority of programmers are more > focused on solving problems and NOT solving or learning technology. This > product was developed by Techies for Techies (system developers) and I think > the mark has been missed by a wide distance. I think this is going to be a > good opportunity for tool developers such as Borland and Sybase to > capitilize and reclaim the Application development market. > Regards, > Ian Elbury > Senior Consultant > Innomega Technologies Inc
Wed, 14 May 2003 05:47:50 GMT

michk #4 / 25	VB.NET is a step backward - Just a code generator One issue woth considering here. The NEXT version of VB.NET and VSA.NET (after the one that is being worked on now) is the same one that will be in Office. There will undoubtably be significant and powerful forces at Microsoft to make that version easier to use. It is worth thinking about the fact that it will get easier if you wait until you have half of Microsoft's revenue leaning on the issue (talk about having powerful allies!). -- MichKa a new book on internationalization in VB at http://www.i18nWithVB.com/ Quote: > One thinga for sure ...my 9 year old will be coding in VB6 for some years to > come. VB isn't for armchair programmers anymore. .NET will weed out the > riff-raff. Hopefully I won't regret committing all the time and $$ I'm > planning on investing in .NET - I don't want to look back on 2001 as the > year I should have learned Java. > > I have been reviewing the Beta 1 release and was very impressed with the > Web > > development but am quite disapointed with the new VB development > environment > > (Code generator). > > NOTE: I am probably restating issues that everyone understands but I am > > hoping that Microsoft is reading these posts and it's not to late. > > As a consultant that guides customers with making the best Business > > decisions reagrding their development projects, I am going to find it real > > hard suggesting to a customer that they use VB.Net for any future > > developments. One of my mantras is that you use the appropriate tool for > the > > right job. If that means that VC++ is required, then use it, if VB makes > > sense then use it ... this is not a religious excercise, its business > !!!!. > > The bottom line is the efficiency whether it be a speed, resourcing or > long > > term maintanance. > > One of the characteristics of VB was that it was very easy to learn and as > > such programming resources are easier to find. It may have had > shortcoming's > > from a technical point of view, but these could be resolved with a little > > C++ code. In a lot of ways it is good that VB has limitations, it stops > the > > programmers from getting carried away. > > For simplicity, I break programmers into two breed's, the "System" > > programmers and the "Application" programmers. The system programmers are > > programming to an API/SDK requirement and the application programmers are > > programming to an end user's requirement. Application programmers > generally > > don't do a system programmers job well and vice versa. IMO, VB as a > > development tool fit the application developers role nicely, easy to use, > > easy to maintain, rapid development and the system developers could plug > in > > their stuff easily (COM/ActiveX etc). > > One of the reasons why I have not been real keen on Java is that it is an > > "Academic" language and whilst it is was very powerful and academically > > correct, it is not an easy language for the average person to learn. This > > means that we are not going to see the penertration of the language that > we > > have seen with VB. Implementing solutions for end users using Java require > a > > different type of programming resource where the resource has to have > system > > as well as application programming skills (IMO) + learn the accademic > > constructs of the language. VB was never an academically correct language, > > but it solved the problems of the real world VERY well. > > C# is Microsoft's attempt to create a Java like language with all of it's > > inherent benefits ... but why was the decision to make VB like Java ... it > > absolutely behooves me !!! What we now have with VB.NET is an IDE that is > > effect a code generator that generates VB code for all of it's RAD > functions > > (Form design, Menu design etc). Looking at this from someone starting out, > > this not only looks daunting but the metaphor is going to be a steep one > to > > learn for the average guy out there. Microsoft needs to realize (as it's > > taken me awhile to learn) that the vast majority of programmers are more > > focused on solving problems and NOT solving or learning technology. This > > product was developed by Techies for Techies (system developers) and I > think > > the mark has been missed by a wide distance. I think this is going to be a > > good opportunity for tool developers such as Borland and Sybase to > > capitilize and reclaim the Application development market. > > Regards, > > Ian Elbury > > Senior Consultant > > Innomega Technologies Inc
Wed, 14 May 2003 07:02:17 GMT

Gordon Muscrof #5 / 25	VB.NET is a step backward - Just a code generator Common paradigm; Dotnet will make bad "programming" easier, but will allow for excellence.. You can do bad stuff with any language. The previous versions of VB allowed people to do a good or bad job. As will the new version. We just have to shift into the new model. Drag me screaming and kicking into forgetting about implements and late binding, or accept the new reality, I can still write bad programs in dot net, but can write to the "oo" god with the correct syntax in the new nirvana of vb.net! Micheal---Great book IMHO with :) Gord Another corporate developer Quote: > One issue woth considering here. > The NEXT version of VB.NET and VSA.NET (after the one that is being worked > on now) is the same one that will be in Office. There will undoubtably be > significant and powerful forces at Microsoft to make that version easier > to use. It is worth thinking about the fact that it will get easier if you > wait until you have half of Microsoft's revenue leaning on the issue (talk > about having powerful allies!). > -- > MichKa > a new book on internationalization in VB at > http://www.i18nWithVB.com/ > > One thinga for sure ...my 9 year old will be coding in VB6 for some years > to > > come. VB isn't for armchair programmers anymore. .NET will weed out the > > riff-raff. Hopefully I won't regret committing all the time and $$ I'm > > planning on investing in .NET - I don't want to look back on 2001 as the > > year I should have learned Java. > > > I have been reviewing the Beta 1 release and was very impressed with the > > Web > > > development but am quite disapointed with the new VB development > > environment > > > (Code generator). > > > NOTE: I am probably restating issues that everyone understands but I am > > > hoping that Microsoft is reading these posts and it's not to late. > > > As a consultant that guides customers with making the best Business > > > decisions reagrding their development projects, I am going to find it > real > > > hard suggesting to a customer that they use VB.Net for any future > > > developments. One of my mantras is that you use the appropriate tool for > > the > > > right job. If that means that VC++ is required, then use it, if VB makes > > > sense then use it ... this is not a religious excercise, its business > > !!!!. > > > The bottom line is the efficiency whether it be a speed, resourcing or > > long > > > term maintanance. > > > One of the characteristics of VB was that it was very easy to learn and > as > > > such programming resources are easier to find. It may have had > > shortcoming's > > > from a technical point of view, but these could be resolved with a > little > > > C++ code. In a lot of ways it is good that VB has limitations, it stops > > the > > > programmers from getting carried away. > > > For simplicity, I break programmers into two breed's, the "System" > > > programmers and the "Application" programmers. The system programmers > are > > > programming to an API/SDK requirement and the application programmers > are > > > programming to an end user's requirement. Application programmers > > generally > > > don't do a system programmers job well and vice versa. IMO, VB as a > > > development tool fit the application developers role nicely, easy to > use, > > > easy to maintain, rapid development and the system developers could plug > > in > > > their stuff easily (COM/ActiveX etc). > > > One of the reasons why I have not been real keen on Java is that it is > an > > > "Academic" language and whilst it is was very powerful and academically > > > correct, it is not an easy language for the average person to learn. > This > > > means that we are not going to see the penertration of the language that > > we > > > have seen with VB. Implementing solutions for end users using Java > require > > a > > > different type of programming resource where the resource has to have > > system > > > as well as application programming skills (IMO) + learn the accademic > > > constructs of the language. VB was never an academically correct > language, > > > but it solved the problems of the real world VERY well. > > > C# is Microsoft's attempt to create a Java like language with all of > it's > > > inherent benefits ... but why was the decision to make VB like Java ... > it > > > absolutely behooves me !!! What we now have with VB.NET is an IDE that > is > > > effect a code generator that generates VB code for all of it's RAD > > functions > > > (Form design, Menu design etc). Looking at this from someone starting > out, > > > this not only looks daunting but the metaphor is going to be a steep one > > to > > > learn for the average guy out there. Microsoft needs to realize (as it's > > > taken me awhile to learn) that the vast majority of programmers are more > > > focused on solving problems and NOT solving or learning technology. This > > > product was developed by Techies for Techies (system developers) and I > > think > > > the mark has been missed by a wide distance. I think this is going to be > a > > > good opportunity for tool developers such as Borland and Sybase to > > > capitilize and reclaim the Application development market. > > > Regards, > > > Ian Elbury > > > Senior Consultant > > > Innomega Technologies Inc
Wed, 14 May 2003 11:58:01 GMT

<subscr2.. #6 / 25	VB.NET is a step backward - Just a code generator What is going to happen to the incremental interpreter feature in VB6 - change one or more lines of code & run it without any compiling. Will this feature be in the .NET version? Jacobus Terhorst
Wed, 14 May 2003 09:28:19 GMT

Erik Funkenbusc #7 / 25	VB.NET is a step backward - Just a code generator Quote: > One of the reasons why I have not been real keen on Java is that it is an > "Academic" language and whilst it is was very powerful and academically > correct, it is not an easy language for the average person to learn. This > means that we are not going to see the penertration of the language that we > have seen with VB. Implementing solutions for end users using Java require a > different type of programming resource where the resource has to have system > as well as application programming skills (IMO) + learn the accademic > constructs of the language. VB was never an academically correct language, > but it solved the problems of the real world VERY well. Actually, Java is very easy to learn. I know lots of people that gave up on C++ but picked up Java quite easily. Java's was not so much an academic language (like "standard" Pascal) as it is a solution to one companies problems (Sun's) without much regard for anyone else. The two biggest reasons for Java's lack of acceptance (compared to languages like VB or C++) is that 1) It was very slow during the time when most people took time to look at it.. first impressions are what count, no matter how things have evolved to. 2) Was marketed as Write once, run anywhere, which ended up being Write once, debug everywhere. JVM's were just not that compatible. It didn't work as advertised. Quote: > C# is Microsoft's attempt to create a Java like language with all of it's > inherent benefits ... but why was the decision to make VB like Java ... it > absolutely behooves me !!! What we now have with VB.NET is an IDE that is > effect a code generator that generates VB code for all of it's RAD functions > (Form design, Menu design etc). Looking at this from someone starting out, > this not only looks daunting but the metaphor is going to be a steep one to > learn for the average guy out there. Microsoft needs to realize (as it's > taken me awhile to learn) that the vast majority of programmers are more > focused on solving problems and NOT solving or learning technology. This > product was developed by Techies for Techies (system developers) and I think > the mark has been missed by a wide distance. I think this is going to be a > good opportunity for tool developers such as Borland and Sybase to > capitilize and reclaim the Application development market. One of Java's other problems was that it was a single language. .NET fixes that by providing lots of different languages that run under the same common runtime. C++, C#, and VB. Third party languages are already coming out of the woodwork. There's an Eiffel.NET already, and I believe a perl.net and others in the works. Unlike Java, .NET was not designed to be interpreted. Instead, it's compiled on the fly more like Smalltalk than Java. Yes, JIT compilers have been available for Java for years, but the language was not designed with them in mind. Also, .NET bytecode was designed to be easily translated to native applications as well. Your argument about the GUI generating code is largely irrelevant. One doesn't need to ever touch that code. It's all maintained by the IDE. Something you may not realize is that VB has always been a code generator. VB stores it's form definitions in either a binary or text format (the binary format is just a compiled version of the text format). That is a programming language of it's own really. The only difference between the two is that VB.NET stores the form definitions in VB code instead of an unpublished language.
Wed, 14 May 2003 09:39:02 GMT

Sjoerd Verwei #8 / 25	VB.NET is a step backward - Just a code generator Quote: > NOTE: I am probably restating issues that everyone understands but I am > hoping that Microsoft is reading these posts and it's not to late. Erm, no, you are restating one point of view in an ongoing discussion. Presenting it in this way, well... makes you no better than the average Bush spokesperson. Quote: > The bottom line is the efficiency whether it be a speed, resourcing or long > term maintanance. Okay, with you so far... Quote: > One of the characteristics of VB was that it was very easy to learn and as > such programming resources are easier to find. True, but as any project manager, tech lead or senior developer worth their respective monikers will tell you, about 80% of the VB "developers" that develop solely in VB are comparable to jumping under a guillotine to solve headache. They'll solve your problem (i.e., produce something that seems to work), but would you really want to? Quote: > In a lot of ways it is good that VB has limitations, it stops the > programmers from getting carried away. I'm so sick of this viewpoint. There are good programmers and bad programmers. Good programmers might choose VB because they can be really productive in it, bad programmers will choose VB because it is extremely adept at hiding how bad they really are. Good programmers will go with VB.Net. Bad programmers will not be able to. One more time: this is A Good Thing (TM). Quote: > For simplicity, I break programmers into two breed's, the "System" > programmers and the "Application" programmers. This is shortsighted, elitist and downright suicidal from a hiring viewpoint. Good application programmers could very well be system programmers, most system programmers could very well be application programmers... There are good programmers and bad programmers. Most bad programmers are application programmers, and more commonly VB programmers. That's why VB has a bad rep; not because of the language or environment, but because of the inordinate amount of morons professing to be proficient in it. And getting away with it. If VB.Net weeds out some of this chaff, I say BRING IT ON ALREADY. Quote: > C# is Microsoft's attempt to create a Java like language with all of it's > inherent benefits ... but why was the decision to make VB like Java ... it > absolutely behooves me !!! OH NO! VB is becoming a real object-oriented language without all of the inconsistent GW-Basic crap! NOW WHAT WILL WE DO? Quote: > I think this is going to be a > good opportunity for tool developers such as Borland and Sybase to > capitilize and reclaim the Application development market. Yeah, sure, like Delphi is easy to learn for a moron.
Wed, 14 May 2003 11:27:05 GMT

Ray Collin #9 / 25	VB.NET is a step backward - Just a code generator You "professional" programmers aren't the only ones in the world (and you are most likely outnumbered :-)). Let me state up front that I have no problem with anybody who wants/needs to use VB.NET. My issue is that it is not Visual Basic anymore. Microsoft should call it something else and let that team get on with it. VB should have another team working on it and continue with its development for all the non "professionals" By way of example :- I can start up VB6 for my 6 year old and she can draw some stuff on the screen. By double clicking she can add some code to do something. VB6 doesn't care about case, it doesn't care if she makes up variables as she goes, it is very forgiving and the language relatively easy e.g if she wants to print something she types print. The idea is BEGINNERS get a taste for programming and an intro to computing, that's what BASIC was all about. My daughter may go on to program "correctly" in VB or some other language or not but her introduction to computing was not overloaded with rules. I believe this scenario applies equally to any beginner of any age. BASIC was designed to get people started in programming, the language has became powerful enough that some people never leave it. However I don't see that VB.NET can be called BASIC. As I said in previous posts a lot of people started with VB because it was easy to do stuff quickly and be self taught, I am sure a lot of people were introduced to BASIC programming at school. I don't believe that VB.NET is BASIC and I think a lot of people will never start in programming or will drop out because of this. Please do not start a flame war about these people not deserving to program if they can't adapt, NOT EVERYBODY programs as a profession.
Wed, 14 May 2003 13:19:56 GMT

michk #10 / 25	VB.NET is a step backward - Just a code generator Quote: > Common paradigm; > Dotnet will make bad "programming" easier, but will allow for excellence.. > You can do bad stuff with any language. The previous versions of VB allowed > people to do a good or bad job. As will the new version. We just have to > shift into the new model. Drag me screaming and kicking into forgetting > about implements and late binding, or accept the new reality, I can still > write bad programs in dot net, but can write to the "oo" god with the > correct syntax in the new nirvana of vb.net! Yes, this sums it up very well! Quote: > Micheal---Great book > IMHO with :) Thank you very much... :-) -- MichKa a new book on internationalization in VB at http://www.i18nWithVB.com/
Wed, 14 May 2003 20:26:21 GMT

michk #11 / 25	VB.NET is a step backward - Just a code generator Quote: > If VB.Net weeds out some of this chaff, I say BRING IT ON ALREADY. Of yes, I am sure Microsoft wants THIS -- fewer sales, less popularity, but they will know that the people who buy it will be more skilled. If you market your own products this way, then I would make sure to keep your options open after you run your business into the ground? :-) -- MichKa a new book on internationalization in VB at http://www.i18nWithVB.com/
Wed, 14 May 2003 20:42:49 GMT

Sjoerd Verwei #12 / 25	VB.NET is a step backward - Just a code generator Quote: > My issue is that it is not Visual BASIC anymore. Microsoft should call it > something else and let that team get on with it. I'm sorry, I should have been more clear on the fact that I would agree with that. My viewpoint is permanently skewed: all I see is a language becoming several orders of magnitude more powerful while preserving the same level of productivity -- albeit for experienced programmers only.
Thu, 15 May 2003 01:49:00 GMT

Sjoerd Verwei #13 / 25	VB.NET is a step backward - Just a code generator Quote: > > If VB.Net weeds out some of this chaff, I say BRING IT ON ALREADY. > Of yes, I am sure Microsoft wants THIS -- fewer sales, less popularity, but > they will know that the people who buy it will be more skilled. I was being wholly egotistical: more power in VB + harder to use VB = less bad programmers using VB = less VB projects run into the ground through incompetence = more respect for VB = more respect for VB programmers = more money for me. Quote: > If you market your own products this way, then I would make sure to keep > your options open after you run your business into the ground? :-) I don't market products. Hey, I don't think it's ALL good, just that it's good for me :-)
Thu, 15 May 2003 01:51:43 GMT

Sjoerd Verwei #14 / 25	VB.NET is a step backward - Just a code generator Quote: > Dotnet will make bad "programming" easier, but will allow for excellence.. Euh? How will it make bad programming easier? I'd say harder.
Thu, 15 May 2003 01:53:02 GMT

Sjoerd Verwei #15 / 25	VB.NET is a step backward - Just a code generator Quote: > What is going to happen to the incremental interpreter feature in VB6 - > change one or more lines of code & run it without any compiling. Will this > feature be in the .NET version? I don't know, but realize that most of the errors the VB6 incremental compilation allowed you to fix (unexpected Variant types, incorrect implicit conversions) will simply not happen in VB.Net.
Thu, 15 May 2003 01:54:58 GMT

Page 1 of 2

[ 25 post ]

Go to page: [1] [2]