Michael Flanakin's Web Log

I have no problem with developers who want to do OOP (going forward) with a VB-like language; I do have a probelm with the fact that existing VB6 developers have no choice about their future programming efforts, and who now have to absorb the cost of re-writing and re-bug-proofing their existing code inventories when this cost has no clear payback. Whatever you think of the worthiness of VB6 as a language, it costs a lot when your entire skill set and existing code inventory is obsoleted unilaterally with no recourse on your part...

That's the cost of evolution. And, nobody said you can't use VB. You just won't get support for it. This happens with all out-dated tools and technologies. It's to be expected. Upgrade or find support within the community.

- Having looked at the .NET "Framework" to some extent, I would agreee that we are seeing "evolution", but I am not clear that it is "progress".
- It is, certainly, different, and thus a profit-making opportunity for Micro$oft - but from what I see, there are nowhere near enough benefits to offset the costs mentioned above; it seems to be a case of "adapt or die"...which makes the only winner here Micro$oft.
- Please correct my ignorance in this regard, as I have no clear reason why so many programmers are so anxious to jump onto the bandwagon of a new, unproven framework which is not yet stable and is evolving rapidly in ways that tend to break apps you can write today! Reminds me of the old saw about being on the "bleeding edge"...

You are completely wrong in your assumptions. First off, it's not "adapt or die" - it's "adapt or lose support." There's a big difference. Nobody is forcing anyone to upgrade from VB6 to .NET. Most VB users don't even get support from Microsoft for their apps, so it's not a big deal. They just won't get bug fixes and feature upgrades. Actually, that's only partially true. There is a bug fix and feature upgrade - .NET. Second, the move to .NET is most definitely evolution AND progress. There are a lot of great things .NET solves that VB6 fell victim to. It's not just a marketing scheme as you're trying to make it sound. You're also wrong in the assumption that the only winner is Microsoft. You obviously don't know much about .NET and sound like you're anti-Microsoft. I suggest you do a little digging into .NET from a less biased standpoint before boasting too many claims on the topic.

- So you close your blog to avoid having to see my response? You are a very small person - all arrogant front and no substance!
- Ahh, so anyone who does not agree with your point of view must be ignorant, is that the gist of your argument? I'm surprised you are not stamping your foot and making faces...or maybe you are.
- In the real world, re-writing and re-debugging code is a real business expense, not something to be absorbed unless there is good reason. I asked for your reason(s), and got a bunch of abuse...is that your idea of a convincing argument?
- I have been using .NET for approx 12 months, and have yet to answer this question. I was asking you to see if maybe there was something I was overlooking...didn't get anything worth hearing.
- If you don't have time to answer in any detail, how about a link to a website or two that might help?
- But not a Microsoft website, please. I have been using Microsoft tools for over 22 years, and I am very familiar with the fact that their marketing claims do not match reality.
- Also, the lack of stability of the V1.1 of .NET is well documented, as are the issues involved in moving from V1.1 to V2.0
- Got anything non-insulting to say, or should we just agree to part company here and now? I'm in need of info, not attitude.

I never rejected you from posting anything. If you can't figure out how to post, that's not my problem. I may be arrogant, but I do have the experience and skills to back it up. I am not so arrogant to admit when I'm wrong, tho. Unfortunately, your claims for "seeking advice" come off as biased Microsoft bigotry. Perhaps that isn't your intention; but that's exactly how you sound. First off, you made a comment that didn't ask any real questions in a post that wasn't about converting VB6 apps to .NET. If you can't figure out the benefits on your own, then you should just stick with VB6, as far as I'm concerned. You don't need the extra horsepower. One of my favorite quotes was by Juval Lowy when he said, "Giving VB programmers VB .NET is like giving razorblades to babies." It's so true. If you're offended by that, you probably should be. You need to read into it - if you don't understand what .NET is and why it's necessary, then you shouldn't play with it. This doesn't necessarily refer to all VB6 developers, tho.

Like I've continually said, nobody says every VB6 app has to upgrade. If you can't find the advantages, then you obviously aren't getting much out of your work with .NET and must not completely understand the benefits of a properly implemented OO system. Every app must decide when the time is right to upgrade. For some, that may never happen. But, you can't expect a company to support legacy technologies forever. There comes a time when cost outweighs the benefit. Microsoft is a for-profit corporation, just like Sun. Of course they're going to make moves that ensure profits. They both do - as do all other for-profit corps. That's what being an entrepreneur is all about.

It doesn't matter how long you've been working in a technology. If you don't grasp the true meaning and purpose of the technology beyond the hype, you never truly "learn" it. Perhaps you'll need another 22 years to get there. Marketing hype is a fact of life. It's not a Microsoft-only thing. Deal with it. We all do.

Yes, I know there are issues with 1.1, but that doesn't mean it's not enterprise ready. There are issues with J2, too. Every technology has it's problems. And, as far as backwards compatibility is concerned, I don't care if 1.1 apps won't work in 2.0 without changes. Just like moving from VB6 to .NET, you have to weigh your cost-benefit. If it's worth it, do it; if not, don't. It's that simple. I personally like the fact that Microsoft is not afraid to break backwards compatibility for the sake of progression. That's one major fault as far as J2 is concerned, in my opinion.

I'm not here to argue. If you have a question, ask it. I'm just not going to let you continually boast invalid claims regarding the technology.

- Well, if I don't know how to post, how did this and the others get here? The fact remains that the previous posting was in fact rejected multiple times. Rather than try to help by explaining why (I have since found out why, and I know that you also knew), you chose to be offensive.
- I happen to have 30 years programming AND real world experience on you, so get ready for a shock: the fact that I do not always agree with you is NOT due to stupidity nor ignorance on my part.
- No, believe it or not (and I'm sure you won't) even a "properly implemented OOP system" is not the 100% panacea you so obviously believe it is. It's really just that simple. Try to wrap your head around it so you don't get burned later on.
- You are certainly entitled to your beliefs, but they are still only your own opinions, not universal truths no matter WHO told you so - and you do not yet have enough meaningful experience to back up your opinions.
- And whether or not your arrogance matches your skill set, there is still no excuse for obnoxiousness and rudeness to visitors to your blog. That just shows a complete lack of respect for other people with differing opinions and life experiences, not any particular level of skill or brilliance on your part.
- So, as I said above, it's time to part company. While I am willing to respect your technical abilities, I hope that, at some point, you learn to extend that same courtesy (ie, benefit of the doubt) to others - even those you do not happen to agree with.
- As a better man than I once wrote: "Never argue with a fool. He'll only drag you down to his level and then beat you with experience."
- Respond only if you feel the need to have the last word. This is, of course, your blog. I will not be back.