VB6 easier than VB.NET?

[Cor Ligthert]

Re: VB6 easier than VB.NET?

Keith,

In past there were sail ship companies, some of them changed to steam ships
and after that too transport companies, from the last many still exist.

In past in the US there were stagecoach companies some of them changed to
transport, from the last many still exist.

Do these samples fit better?

Cor

[Cor Ligthert]

Re: VB6 easier than VB.NET?

Herfried,
[color=blue]
>
> I don't think that this is true for most VB6 users, at least not for them
> using VB6 in a professional manner.[/color]

Certainly not, are you afraid for VBNet. An inventive professional will
maybe wait a while; however not rely on an old product from Microsoft
anymore. He does not even know if the bugs created by the new updates can
harm his old product and has to work again to repair that.

While he is with that loosing a lot of time and can spend better his time
with migrating it to VBNet.

Just my 2 Ecents

Cor

[smith]

Re: VB6 easier than VB.NET?

fix: "and deadlines that *are far tighter than* they were 9 years ago." :)

-s
"smith" <rcsTAKEOUT@smi thvoiceTAKEOUT. com> wrote in message
news:DiW0e.4221 $H06.1726@newsr ead3.news.pas.e arthlink.net...[color=blue]
> "Keith Seeley" <kseeley@worldn et.att.net> wrote in message
> news:mJV0e.7280 $cg1.623@bgtnsc 04-news.ops.worldn et.att.net...[color=green]
>> Hi Stephany,
>>[color=darkred]
>>>. In this respect, companies WILL be FORCED to spend more[/color]
>> money to keep up with the "latest and greatest", even though the RESULTS
>> produced will be no different than before.[/color]
>
>
> :) I recall that these were exactly the words being yelled in VB3 user
> groups when VB4 was released (there wasn't much of an internet back then
> to it was human to human and a few BBSes). So much anger so much fear and
> in the end so untrue. We all thought - Including ME - that VB3 was the
> perfect tool and that nothing could beat it and that ActiveX was a scam.
> We were "FORCED" to move up to VB4.
>
> Now look how we hang on the same way to VB5/6.
>
> VB3 fit the needs of the day but the day moved on and we had to start
> working with the enterprise and the internet ... things that VB3 didn't
> understand because it was made before those things were important.
>
> VB5/6 was made with the things we thought were important in 1996. 10
> years later there are features that users want that we didn't know about
> in 1996 ... and deadlines that were no way as tight as they were 9 years
> ago. So the tool was re-made to fit the needs of the developer today.
>
> In 5 years we'll all be right back here pissing and moaning that MS is
> destroying the world because we don't like VB10. (But I'm lookng foreward
> to VB9 for Refactoring, a JAVA helper that VBers today simply aren't aware
> that they can't live without)
>
> This is nothing new. .Net is 3 years old, if you haven't yet come up with
> your company plan for migration and maintenancne then you've got
> management problems, not technical problems. Techncally it's just code,
> like VB3 was just code three years after VB4 came out ... it's not that
> hard to port or keep for developers who realize that porting and
> maintaining have always been, and will always be, over 70% of the job for
> a tech person. (I find porting to to be a more cost effective result in
> the end based on my VB3 > VB456 experience but that's my experienced
> opinion. Some folks don't like to work late to grow their careers so
> maintenance of legacy code more fits their lifestyles)
>
> All the best
>
> Robert Smith
> Kirkland, WA
> www.smithvoice.com
>[/color]

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

Re: VB6 easier than VB.NET?

"Cor Ligthert" <notmyfirstname @planet.nl> schrieb:[color=blue]
> However telling with that, as you do now with this message agreeing with
> Richard, that all my messages are gibberish (Kauderwelsch) is a little bit
> going too far in my opinion.[/color]

I didn't agree with Richard!

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>

[Cor Ligthert]

Re: VB6 easier than VB.NET?

Herfried,[color=blue]
>
> I didn't agree with Richard!
>[/color]
That was all I wanted to see.

:-)

Cor

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

Re: VB6 easier than VB.NET?

"Mitchell S. Honnert" <news@honnert~R ~E~M~O~V~E~.com > schrieb:[color=blue][color=green]
>> "If you spend the money to upgrade to VB.NET, well, you just spent a lot
>> of money to stand still."[/color]
> I admit that I haven't read the entire article, but this particular quote
> is patently ridiculous. Even if you only duplicate existing functionality
> in the new VB.NET application, you have gained the ability to take
> advantage of all of VB.NET's features.[/color]

It seems that you missed the point. Code which has been tested for more
than one decade will rarely be changed or extended. It just works. There
is no need for VB.NET's features (which are in many cases limited and
different compared to VB6's features, for example, the lack of arbitrary
array bounds in .NET), a rewrite would cost a lot (about 60 percent of
original development cost) and would introduce new bugs, which cannot be
accepted in real-world application. There actually are valid reasons why
COBOL code which is decades old is still used in banking and for financial
transactions. A rewrite would hold a risk.
[color=blue]
> For any future development, you have the new IDE, you have the ease of
> extending an OO application, you have all of the other myriad of benefits
> that VB.NET has over VB6. (Not to mention, all of the benefits that would
> come from redesigning the underlying code.)[/color]

For new projects it's always a good idea to use state-of-the-art tools.
However, this doesn't imply that it's always the best solution to rewrite
the existing code. That's rarely a good solution because of cost and risk,
and should be avoided whenever possible.

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>

[Mitchell S. Honnert]

Re: VB6 easier than VB.NET?

>Companies shouldn't have to care about the technology, only the[color=blue]
> results that are produced.[/color]
If you are referring to an indifference to what the underlying code at the
expense of the end result (say, from the end-users perspective), I would
have to disagree. I think that what a purely results-focused model does not
properly account is maintenance. Yes, you may have a VB6 system and a
VB.NET system that are functionally identical, but I believe that the VB.NET
code would be much easier to maintain and support. If for no other reason
than today it's more likely you'll be able to find a programmer who can (and
wants to) program in VB.NET. So, to be cost-effective, a company *does*
have to be concerned with the technology, at least in this respect.
[color=blue]
> The main point I was trying to make is that classic VB was (sorry, is) a
> tool that creates solutions rapidly (RAD), and a degree in computer
> programming was not required. Thus it allowed people to produce RESULTS
> for
> their company quickly and inexpensively (sorry again, cost effectively)
> even
> if the METHOD (the actual code) used wasn't optimal.[/color]
This brings up the distinction inexpensive and cost-effective again. I
think that VB6, in may ways, gave a false sense of empowerment to the
dilettante programmer. It made them think they were easilly (there's that
word "easy" again) creating a working program, but what they were really
creating was the worst kind of program there is, one that looks like it's
working properly but isn't. On the other hand, I personally believe that
the same thing could be said of VB.NET. I don't think this condition is
particular to VB6. The point is that just because something is inexpensive,
doesn't mean that it's cost-effective. If the guy in accounting whips out a
quick little intra-office app which turns out to have been giving incorrect
data for a year, is that really inexpensive in the long run?

It's interesting to note that many C# developers think that any form of
Visual Basic is for the dilettante programmer and that we "know just enough
to get in trouble". They are apparently of the mindset that it's better to
obfuscate the language itself to discourage the "unwashed masses" from
interfering in "their" realm.

- Mitchell S. Honnert


"Keith Seeley" <kseeley@worldn et.att.net> wrote in message
news:mJV0e.7280 $cg1.623@bgtnsc 04-news.ops.worldn et.att.net...[color=blue]
> Hi Stephany,
>[color=green]
>>
>> The same type of situation occured early last century when companies were
>> dragged kicking and screaming from using horse-drawn transport to[/color]
> motorised[color=green]
>> transport. Regardless of the rights, wrongs or indifferences of it, it
>> happened. Those that embraced motorised transport tended to propsper and
>> those that didn't saw their profits dwindle until they did. Did the world
>> stop turning? No!
>>[/color]
>
> Pespective. Companies shouldn't have to care about the technology, only
> the
> results that are produced.
> Motorized transport produced better results than horse drawn carriages and
> as such replaced the older technology. Will VB.net produce better RESULTS
> for the customer? AFAIK VB.net changes the METHOD to produce software,
> not
> the results PRODUCED by the software. And that METHOD requires a greater
> skill set than classic VB. 1+1= 2 and in any language.
>
> The main point I was trying to make is that classic VB was (sorry, is) a
> tool that creates solutions rapidly (RAD), and a degree in computer
> programming was not required. Thus it allowed people to produce RESULTS
> for
> their company quickly and inexpensively (sorry again, cost effectively)
> even
> if the METHOD (the actual code) used wasn't optimal. Classic VB
> accomplished this by hiding much of the underlying technical details from
> the programmer. VB.net may fit this bill (not from what I've seen yet),
> but
> it appears that the product requires a lot MORE knowledge of what goes on
> under the hood than classic VB. And as I stated previously, this isn't
> necessarily a bad thing but what it does is take the tool away from casual
> programmers ("bad" programmers according to some).
>
>[color=green]
>>
>> In your penultimate paragraph you allude to 'VB Classic' being phased
>> out.
>> I'm interested as to what inside information you have that the rest of us
>> aren't privy to. We are all aware that mainstream for VB6 ceases as at
>> the
>> the end of this month but I have not seen any information about VB6 being
>> phased out any earlier than planned. The whole point is that VB6 is NOT
>> being taken away, anyone who uses it today will still be able to use it[/color]
> next[color=green]
>> month, and that nobody is being FORCED to change. Those that want to[/color]
> change[color=green]
>> can and those that don't, (having been made aware of the situation and
>> therefore making their decision on an infomed basis), can continue on as
>> they do now.
>>[/color]
>
> Perspective. MS chose to stop development of an excellent tool for casual
> programmers that allowed them to "cost effectively" produce results for
> their employer. The replacement tool requires more in-depth knowledge of
> "real" programming and I suspect it will not be as accessible as classic
> VB.
> The result is that more companies will have to hire professional
> developers
> to do their work, which is an expenditure that previously didn't exist.
> VB.net will mean more $$$ to small businesses who DO want to keep up with
> current technology. In this respect, companies WILL be FORCED to spend
> more
> money to keep up with the "latest and greatest", even though the RESULTS
> produced will be no different than before.
>
> Perspective. It's about the RESULTS for the CUSTOMER, not about the
> details
> of being a professional programmer. I realize it's tough for the
> participants of this group to understand, but there are many people who do
> NOT program for a living yet do so anyway to achive results for their
> employers. It's these people and their companies who are losing big
> time -
> their tool is being phased out and they will have to hire someone to do
> the
> work for them. Good for you folks, bad for them.
>
>
>[/color]

[Mitchell S. Honnert]

Re: VB6 easier than VB.NET?

> It seems that you missed the point. Code which has been tested for more[color=blue]
> than one decade will rarely be changed or extended. It just works. There
> is no need for VB.NET's features[/color]
How does the above statement relate to my critisism of the "stand still"
quote? As I stated in my post, I know that it does not make economic sense
in all cases to convert VB6 code to VB.NET code. But what the quote
indicates is that it NEVER makes sense. My point is that and upgrade could
make sense in the case where you would have to do any kind of enhancement or
perhaps even very regular maintenance.

- Mitchell S. Honnert


"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hirf-spam-me-here@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:OxwFhAWMFH A.568@TK2MSFTNG P09.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> "Mitchell S. Honnert" <news@honnert~R ~E~M~O~V~E~.com > schrieb:[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> "If you spend the money to upgrade to VB.NET, well, you just spent a lot
>>> of money to stand still."[/color]
>> I admit that I haven't read the entire article, but this particular quote
>> is patently ridiculous. Even if you only duplicate existing
>> functionality in the new VB.NET application, you have gained the ability
>> to take advantage of all of VB.NET's features.[/color]
>
> It seems that you missed the point. Code which has been tested for more
> than one decade will rarely be changed or extended. It just works. There
> is no need for VB.NET's features (which are in many cases limited and
> different compared to VB6's features, for example, the lack of arbitrary
> array bounds in .NET), a rewrite would cost a lot (about 60 percent of
> original development cost) and would introduce new bugs, which cannot be
> accepted in real-world application. There actually are valid reasons why
> COBOL code which is decades old is still used in banking and for financial
> transactions. A rewrite would hold a risk.
>[color=green]
>> For any future development, you have the new IDE, you have the ease of
>> extending an OO application, you have all of the other myriad of benefits
>> that VB.NET has over VB6. (Not to mention, all of the benefits that
>> would come from redesigning the underlying code.)[/color]
>
> For new projects it's always a good idea to use state-of-the-art tools.
> However, this doesn't imply that it's always the best solution to rewrite
> the existing code. That's rarely a good solution because of cost and
> risk, and should be avoided whenever possible.
>
> --
> M S Herfried K. Wagner
> M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
> V B <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>[/color]

[Cor Ligthert]

Re: VB6 easier than VB.NET?

Herfried,
[color=blue]
>There actually are valid reasons why COBOL code which is decades old is
>still used in banking and for financial transactions. A rewrite would hold
>a risk.
>[/color]
Good point, what I did not expect from you (that very positive meant) ,
however see my other message at the end of this thread.
[color=blue]
> For new projects it's always a good idea to use state-of-the-art tools.
> However, this doesn't imply that it's always the best solution to rewrite
> the existing code. That's rarely a good solution because of cost and
> risk, and should be avoided whenever possible.
>[/color]

I agree as well, see the same message.

Cor

[Michael C#]

Re: VB6 easier than VB.NET?

"Mitchell S. Honnert" <news@honnert~R ~E~M~O~V~E~.com > wrote in message
news:%232ZyhPWM FHA.1436@TK2MSF TNGP10.phx.gbl. ..[color=blue]
> It's interesting to note that many C# developers think that any form of
> Visual Basic is for the dilettante programmer and that we "know just
> enough to get in trouble". They are apparently of the mindset that it's
> better to obfuscate the language itself to discourage the "unwashed
> masses" from interfering in "their" realm.[/color]

I come from a very strong background in C-style languages (C, C++, etc.),
and to be honest the only work I did with VB6 was for Quick & Dirty
throwaway applications that had to have a cute little interface. That's not
to say that others haven't developed great programs with VB6, I just didn't
feel like fighting it to get the performance I needed for the apps I was
developing, or distributing the VB6 Run-Time library DLL's with each and
every app.

Personally, I find the C-style syntax of C# to be simpler without all the
extraneous reserved words and special keyword combos to begin and end
decision and looping structures. I also find it to be more precise, which I
think helps avoid errors. My feelings have nothing to do with discouraging
the "persecuted masses" from learning anything they care to learn. In fact,
I think that .NET presents a great opportunity for VB programmers to learn
C-style syntax (those who want to anyway), since VB.NET and C#.NET are
virtually interchangeable . If you understand how a routine works in VB.NET,
you can easily transpose that knowledge to a smiliar C#.NET routine.

So interfere in the realm! And if you want true obfuscation, write Perl.

[Keith Seeley]

Re: VB6 easier than VB.NET?

[color=blue]
>
> :) I recall that these were exactly the words being yelled in VB3 user
> groups when VB4 was released (there wasn't much of an internet back then[/color]
to[color=blue]
> it was human to human and a few BBSes). So much anger so much fear and in
> the end so untrue. We all thought - Including ME - that VB3 was the[/color]
perfect[color=blue]
> tool and that nothing could beat it and that ActiveX was a scam. We were
> "FORCED" to move up to VB4.
>[/color]

Sorry, but that's not what I'm saying. Let me try to clarify once more.
I believe that:
- VB.net, as a programming environment, IS better than VB6.
- .Net unifies the world of MS Windows programming to a level not previously
available.
- Productivity will increase in .Net for the professional developer.
- Keeping up with technology is fine as long as there are definite benefits.

OK. Can we move on? Just try to understand what I wrote is from the
perspective of your customers - not as a developer. Way back in the good
ol' days, a typical company's IT budget was minimal and productivity was
"low". As MS Windows took hold, the technology matured and software
solutions increased productivity to levels never seen before. Access to
company information stored in databases made life infinitely easier. But
with this improvement came a large jump in the IT budget. No problem,
better productivity costs more so the higher costs were justified.

Good. Technology improved a company's bottom line. Now, what about .Net?
What improvements does it give a company? What will a program written in
..Net do that previous languages won't? Web-enabled apps? Maybe, but that
certainly won't produce increased profits for every type of business. As I
see it, the only thing .Net does well is improve the developers experience
and, in the end, may make software developement a little quicker.

Now, back to the classic VB issue. My contention is that many companies
utilize their existing personel (non-programmers) to write custom apps that
benefit the company. Unless VB.net (or some other tool) can be used by the
same group of non-professional programmers these companies will have to
increase their IT budget to offset. For the non-accountant types out there,
this is BAD.

Now, this is largely based on my exposure to .Net. I've looked at it and my
impression is that it doesn't hide enough of the low-level stuff to make it
usable to someone who just wants to get the job done quickly.
[color=blue]
>
> This is nothing new. .Net is 3 years old, if you haven't yet come up with
> your company plan for migration and maintenancne then you've got[/color]
management[color=blue]
> problems, not technical problems. Techncally it's just code, like VB3 was
> just code three years after VB4 came out ... it's not that hard to port or
> keep for developers who realize that porting and maintaining have always
> been, and will always be, over 70% of the job for a tech person. (I find
> porting to to be a more cost effective result in the end based on my VB3 >
> VB456 experience but that's my experienced opinion. Some folks don't like
> to work late to grow their careers so maintenance of legacy code more fits
> their lifestyles)
>[/color]

Boy, I really hope your 70% figure isn't correct. What company would want
to spend 70% of their IT salaries just to migrate code that produces the
SAME results? Seems like that's great for keeping IT people employed but
not so good financially for the company. You say "cost effective", but from
what perspective? Re-writing an app from the ground up to take advantage of
newer technology vs. porting code from one software version to the next?
Either way, at some point I'd hope that there are improved RESULTS for the
company otherwise programmers are simply spending money to "keep up with the
Jones'".

[Cor Ligthert]

Re: VB6 easier than VB.NET?

Michael,

I have done many program languages. They are evaluating.

In my opinion does the perfect program languages not yet exist. When you
create it today there are (luckily) better ideas tomorrow.

C# has a lot of not anymore needed legacy. (Don't forget that C is a
language originally from the typewriter and the derived ones have all things
that behaves like that).

However VB has that as well. There are parts in VBNet that are for me a
cruel. (By instance the IIF and the needles "then" word and things as OrElse
while it had been in my opinion easy to change that in the VB6 to VBNet
upgrade).

In my idea are we still not yet on the right program language. If it will be
a C# kind or a VBNet kind. I think that most people who are thinking that,
did not often look after the horizon and will change there minds in future.

I like your contributions in this newsgroup by the way.

Cor

[Mitchell S. Honnert]

Re: VB6 easier than VB.NET?

I'm won't deny there are examples where some specific functionality was made
more difficult in the converson of VB6 to VB.NET. In my experience,
however, I've found that the vast majority of functions to be easier in
VB.NET. "Experience s may vary" as they say.

- Mitchell S. Honnert


<g9u5dd43_nospa m@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42441c45.6 181338@msnews.m icrosoft.com...[color=blue]
> Look at one specific application, serial I/O.
>
> In VB6 there was the MSComm control that handled the OnComm events.
> In VB.Net, there is nothing built in. You can shoe-horn the MSComm
> control in; or more recently you could use some of the posted
> solutions, but none of the posted solutions are as easy to use as the
> MSComm control, in my opinion. Most of the posted solutions that I
> have seen only do polling, ...no event generation, which greatly
> limits the responsiveness. I've resorted to mixed VB.NET and C
> programming for my solution. If I were to write a class, I'd do it in
> C++, not VB.NET.
>
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 17:04:23 -0500, "Mitchell S. Honnert"[color=green]
>>So, are there people out there that really think VB6 is easier than
>>VB.NET?
>>Why? Do you think it depends on the size of the project? Are there other
>>factors? Help me understand because I just don't get this attitude.
>> - Mitchell S. Honnert[/color]
>[/color]

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

Re: VB6 easier than VB.NET?

"Mitchell S. Honnert" <news@honnert~R ~E~M~O~V~E~.com > schrieb:[color=blue][color=green]
>> It seems that you missed the point. Code which has been tested for more
>> than one decade will rarely be changed or extended. It just works.
>> There is no need for VB.NET's features[/color]
>
> How does the above statement relate to my critisism of the "stand still"
> quote? As I stated in my post, I know that it does not make economic
> sense in all cases to convert VB6 code to VB.NET code. But what the quote
> indicates is that it NEVER makes sense. My point is that and upgrade
> could make sense in the case where you would have to do any kind of
> enhancement or perhaps even very regular maintenance.[/color]

I think that there are no clear borders when conversion makes sense or not,
and the decision depends on each individual project. There are projects
which are 100 % complete and which won't be extended, and there are projects
which are in an early state of development. My comments apply to "perfectly
working systems".

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>

[Richard Myers]

Re: VB6 easier than VB.NET?

> He did not understand the message[color=blue]
> from Stephany, which is for me very clear. That he than tells that he[/color]
does[color=blue]
> not understand my messages tells more about his ability with the English
> language than about my.[/color]

Being able to read English is not the same as being able to understand it.
The fact that you can agree with anything she wrote suggests you have
merely read the text but haven't actually thought about any of it. If you
could "understand " English rather than just "read" English Cor, you might
have noticed that she contextualises her message with "COMFORT ZONE", and
then with this statement
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> As a species (homo sapien), we are comfortable with what we know. The
> >> inverse is also true - we are NOT comfortable with what we DON'T know.[/color]
> > This truism has been proved again and again throughout the course of[/color][/color]
history.

she suggests what follows is going to back her so called truism.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> Because of this, change tends to resisted, (especially in the early[/color]
> > stages),until such time as there is a widespread understanding of the[/color][/color]
'technology'[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> behind the change.[/color][/color][/color]

Change does not "tend to be resisted". It simply isn't always immediately
accepted until its benefits have been sufficiently communicated, witnessed
and understood.
Shes suggesting that Homosapians are Anti-Technology which when given the
world we all live in is a ludicris proposition. Even if her statement were
true it has nothing to do with "comfort zone" and laziness as it does with
an information gap.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> In the end, those who 'change' prosper and those who resist, don't. This[/color][/color]
is the nature of the evolution of the species and the evolution of
technology.

This is complete bullocks. In much the same way as the victor in war tends
to rewrite history to suit themselves, those who do change and fail as a
result of this "early adoption" are simply discarded and forgotten.
Therefore only those who experience success thru change prosper. Change
itself is no guarantee for success. Stephanie seems to be completely blind
to all the change "failures" of which there would be many many more than
change successes..
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> A case in point is the rise of 'Cro Magnon' as the dominant species[/color][/color][/color]
which became modern humans and the demise of 'Neandethal' man. The[color=blue][color=green]
> > Neanderthal's were, for what ever reason, unable to change and[/color][/color]
consequently the species did not survive.

What has biological evolution got to do with "comfort zones", vb6 or
vb.net? Can a duck tap play guitar? No. According to Stephanie this makes
the duck "lazy". Its simply staying within its comfort zone. More likely
its because its... just a duck. Being "unable to change" has nothing to do
with being not willing to change even after a better alternative has been
communicated, witnessed and understood.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, we saw a movement, known as[/color][/color][/color]
the[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> Luddites, who bitterly resisted industrialisati on of the weaving[/color][/color][/color]
industry.[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> Not only were they vociferous in their opposition, they went as far as[/color][/color][/color]
vandalising and destroying the 'modern' weaving machines that were[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> being developed at the time. Can you really imagine where we would be[/color][/color][/color]
without the range of textiles that we take for granted in our everyday life
if[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> they had succeeded?[/color][/color][/color]

Again most of this is just unneccessary dribble. Her whole post reeks of
someone who spent the morning @ a doctors waiting room reading time
magazine/natures journal and now decided that she will tell us all what she
thinks she knows regardless of what the actual topic is. All so she can
make this point
[color=blue][color=green]
>>The word 'luddite' has since entered our language to mean someone who[/color][/color]
unreasonably resists change.

Which is completely out of context. "Unreasonab ly resists change". Whats
unreasonable about a company with a VB6 library developed over 10 years
using 100s' if not 1000's of man hours to produce, a library which is
*fully* debugged, in production, one that is perhaps even considered a sub
platform for their products and services not converting to dotNet? Sounds
like common sense business logic to me. Sounds very reasoned and well
thought out. As for "comfort zone"....try "livelihood " = mortgage paid,
food in their kids mouths. If they dont need dotNet, or haven;t yet had the
benefits of some dotNet related technologies explained to them, then they
can hardly be called a "Luddite".
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> More recently we have also seen a trend towards a way of thinking that
> >> kmakes the rights of the individual sacrosant. Don't get me wrong[/color][/color][/color]
here,[color=blue][color=green]
> > the rights of the indivuadual are important! I do, however, find this[/color][/color]
trend[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> disturbing because the rights of the individual are being attributed a
> >> higher importance than the good of the whole. My view is that being[/color][/color][/color]
able to[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> enjoy indivdual rights brings obligations that the individual owes to
> >> society as a whole. The latin phrase 'quid pro quo' translated as[/color][/color][/color]
'something[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> for something' springs to mind as being appropriate here.[/color][/color][/color]

What has any of this passage got to do with anything? If its supposed to
set up some argument that its better for everyone if we move to dotNet then
it failed.
"The rights of the indivdual sacrosanct". Just more my waffle that
completely misses the point that someone using VB6 does not prevent someone
from using dotNet. The greater good is not at all comprimised which should
be very obvious to Stephanie considering that she early postulated that
"those who dont change, wont survive anyway". So shes basically just
contridicting herself.

I dont what shes trying to paraphase here but its just another ridiculous
inclusion that serves no purpose and has nothing to do with vb6, vb.net or
"comfort zones".
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> During this debate I have seen a lot of hand-wringing, roughly[/color]
> > paraphrased[color=darkred]
> >> and reading between the lines as "How dare Microsoft take a business
> >> decision that, in my view, puts the longevity of my personal library[/color][/color][/color]
of[color=blue][color=green]
> > VB6 code at risk" and "How dare Microsoft NOT provide (for free) a[/color][/color]
mechanism[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> that will automatically convert my personal library of esoteric VB6
> >> procedures into perfect VB.NET code". To those for whom the cap fits -[/color][/color][/color]
all I[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> can say is "Get off your backsides and join the real world."[/color][/color][/color]

Well first off...im not sure of the ergonomics of Stepahines working
environment but it seems a little ambitious to be telling the developer
community to "get off their backsides" and expect a result. Whats more they
are in the "real world", not some Microsofty wet dream whereby everyone
works in some completely standardised homogeneous environment and
immediately upgrades every tme Microsoft releases a new version of product
xxx. You see in the real world Stephanie we have constraints.... the biggest
one is more generally referred to as "economics" .

Her paraphrasing and reading between the lines is biased. Another way of
looking at it is from Microsoft point of view. "How dare ISVs, etc, take a
business decision, that in my view, puts the long term revenue projections
of our developer suite of products at risk. How dare they question they
value of a platform shift. How dare they be happy with the technology they
already have. How dare they not be open to us selling them more stuff."

And as for [personal libraries of esoteric VB6 code], maybe Stephanies'
doodlings fit into those catagories but some companies *in the real world*
actually have those libraries in production, running bug free, and they
dont want to have to redevelop and redeploy. Since we're talking about the
"real world" and all.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> I believe that the late John F. Kennedy put it quite succinctly when[/color][/color][/color]
he[color=blue][color=green]
> > said "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what can you do for[/color][/color]
your[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> country." (Apologies for any misquote.) In this case I doon't think he[/color][/color][/color]
would[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> have minded a small bit of plagarism: Ask not what your industry can[/color][/color][/color]
do for you, ask what can you do for your[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> industry.[/color][/color][/color]

What? Is this yet another random inclusion? I dont work for my industry, i
work for my company and my company works for its customers...mor e of that
*real world* stuff again. Beyond that my "industry" is a damn sight bigger
than just Microsoft and its offerings but again VB6 *ease of use* vrs
VB.net / *comfort zone*.
??? Relevance please?What is she on about?

Maybe in your particular dialect Cor, simply saying/writing words gives
them meaning, but in English the idea is to think about what you're saying
or going to say before you say it. And its genrally a good idea if what
your saying actually makes sense and supports itself. Another good tip when
communicating in English is not to confuse length of response with depth of
response nor relevance of response; its also a good idea to try to maintain
"context". i.e when someone asks how your day went, you dont respond..."I
'll have six please".

The choice whether or not to follow these rules is ultimately yours and
your alone, but if you dont follow these basic rules AND ALSO include
random facts in some vain attempt to sound authoritative then chances are
someone will postulate that you are a either "drunk" or a "shithead".

Richard