"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message news:43BC33F7.8C64919@Hovnanian.com...
> Leonardo da Jinn wrote:
>>
>> Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> >
>> > In the final analysis, languages don't make much difference to
>> > experienced developers. Its the functionality of the underlying APIs
>> > that make the difference.
>>
>> In general yes.That is /THE/ main argument *FOR* VB.
>
> But VB is notorious for its inconsistent object architecture and screwey
> side effects.
If you say so.
> Millions (billions?) of lines of code have been written
> that depends on these bugs. So, when VB goes to .NET there ar two
> possibilities:
>
> The .NET classes will incorporate these bugs so that existing VB code
> will continue to run as originally designed., or
>
> The .NET classes will be written in a clean, logical manner. This will
> break many existing VB apps, requiring vendors to either rewrite their
> products or just port them as is and wait for the sh*t to hit the fan.
I've looked at .NET a bit. What they did with VB, point by point,
I agree with, but decided to not bother porting since there are too many
differences.
They invented VB quite early, and it was bad for a long time.
>
> [snip]
>
>> > .NET has shortcomings on two levels: It allows people that can't advance
>> > beyond stuff like VB to stay in business,
>>
>> You think that is a real shortcoming?
>> But you just said that VB was just another language.
>
> That depends on what Microsoft does with all he VB inconsistencies when
> it gets ported to .NET. If they save the syntax but clean up the class
> libraries, they are going to put thousands of spaghetti coders out of
> business.
This is all old news... .NET is what? 5 years old.
IMO, MS made the right decisions with VB.NET, but
it really is a big change to merge all the languages
under a single runtime.
>
>
> --
> Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Telemark: If it was easy, they'd call it snowboarding.