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. 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.

[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.


--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Telemark: If it was easy, they'd call it snowboarding.

"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.

Jinn Wins wrote:
>
[snip]

> 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.

The problem is that VB.NET doesn't appear to 'break' old, bad VB code.

I used to work with a group of people who supported an old, crusty VB
app. It had been 'rescued' from one of the old MS Basic systems that
supported GOTOs, global variables and spaghetti code. The app had grown
and grown over the years and nobody could figure out how the damned
thing worked. Nobody dared touch it anymore.

About a year or so ago, they moved the source into VB.NET. Guess what?
It still works.

> They invented VB quite early, and it was bad for a long time.

What do you mean 'was'? It still supports spaghetti code.

--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Happily doing the work of 3 Men ... Moe, Larry & Curly

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message news:43BC9786.75BC2E1F@Hovnanian.com...
> Jinn Wins wrote:
>>
> [snip]
>
>> 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.
>
> The problem is that VB.NET doesn't appear to 'break' old, bad VB code.

I confess that I have run their conversion wizard only a few times.
It seems to mark most of the constructs that need marking.

>
> I used to work with a group of people who supported an old, crusty VB
> app. It had been 'rescued' from one of the old MS Basic systems that
> supported GOTOs, global variables and spaghetti code. The app had grown
> and grown over the years and nobody could figure out how the damned
> thing worked. Nobody dared touch it anymore.

People say that by default. People are whiners.
In numerous cases, a well placed and commented GOTO
is clearer than the alternatives.
There is no code that a bright programmer can't
figure out. People are lazy.

>
> About a year or so ago, they moved the source into VB.NET. Guess what?
> It still works.
>
>> They invented VB quite early, and it was bad for a long time.
>
> What do you mean 'was'?

I mean that at this point it is completely compiled, very fast,
very bug-free, a full ActiveX source and sink, plenty of
everything necessary to create fully articulated Windows programs.
Plenty of third party products, free code, examples, tutorials, etc.

> It still supports spaghetti code.

So does C++, so does Java.
Poorly formed code assemblies can be created in any language.

Most programmers will scream spaghetti the minute
they have to look at another programmer's code.
So what? Comb out the spaghetti. People are lazy whiners.

In .NET, VB is fairly equal with C#, seems,
and they've taken the hard path of actually fixing things.

I really think MS deserves some credit for that.
They could have been less bold, but I feel they took
the high road on most of those decisions.

The thing I don't get about .NET is:
"Why doesn't MS port it to other pizza boxes"

Clearly it could be ported to any processor
and hardware configuration.

The whole architecture would support transparently
running /your-app/ on any toaster it was ported to.
With optimized JIT compiled machine code on
every platform.

Architecturally, quite elegant.
I suggest reading some of the white papers if you haven't.

--
AJ - http://clitin.com
(the biggest clit in pornetry)


>
> --
> Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Happily doing the work of 3 Men ... Moe, Larry & Curly

Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:

> Jinn Wins wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> The problem is that VB.NET doesn't appear to 'break' old, bad VB code.
>
> I used to work with a group of people who supported an old, crusty VB
> app. It had been 'rescued' from one of the old MS Basic systems that
> supported GOTOs, global variables and spaghetti code. The app had grown
> and grown over the years and nobody could figure out how the damned
> thing worked. Nobody dared touch it anymore.
>
> About a year or so ago, they moved the source into VB.NET. Guess what?
> It still works.
>
>
>>They invented VB quite early, and it was bad for a long time.
>
>
> What do you mean 'was'? It still supports spaghetti code.
>

Thass okay. So does Tommy.

http://scrawlmark.org/g/arrlines.jpg

--
-------(m+
~/)_|
If a pome falls in the middle of a library and
the Bishop can't read it, does it still say, "Iamb"?
http://scrawlmark.org