Home > Archive > Visual Basic > November 2005 > For Your Amusement
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
For Your Amusement
|
|
| Stefan Berglund 2005-11-25, 6:55 pm |
| I wasn't sure how to proceed as far as a title was concerned but I wanted to get
this out.
Microsoft has seen fit to ignore its VB developer base. My reaction has been to
move to another platform and begin re factoring my bread and butter app back
into C++ where it existed originally before a friend (?) convinced me to move it
into VB about ten years ago.
The first paragraph of the foreward of "C++ GUI Programming With Qt 3" (I'm
using Qt 4) reads like this:
"Why Qt? Why do programmers like us choose Qt? Sure, there are the obvious
answers: Qt's single-source compatibility, its feature richness, its C++
performance, the availability of the source code, its documentation, the
high-quality technical support, and all the other items mentioned in Trolltech's
glossy marketing materials. This is all very well, but it missed the most
important point: Qt is successful because programmers like it."
There it is. The word ~like~ is in italics and for a good reason. Before I
received the book I had been playing with examples and actually found myself
having fun and enjoying it. To the point that I remarked about the phenomena to
my wife.
And that's the point of this post, I guess. Microsoft in all its wisdom has
missed the boat completely. VB was so remarkably popular because it was fun.
I'll just laugh silently at anyone who tries to convince me that the point and
click .NET wonderland is anywhere near as much fun as trashing (yes trashing not
thrashing) around in good old VB. Ballmer, baby, you blew it. Ya coulda had it
all...
---
Stefan Berglund
| |
|
|
"Stefan Berglund" <keepit@in.thegroups> wrote in message
news:4sleo19vlo8lidc3piog6m9l4rtq0gjgtl@
4ax.com...
> I wasn't sure how to proceed as far as a title was concerned but I wanted
to get
> this out.
>
> Microsoft has seen fit to ignore its VB developer base. My reaction has
been to
> move to another platform and begin re factoring my bread and butter app
back
> into C++ where it existed originally before a friend (?) convinced me to
move it
> into VB about ten years ago.
>
> The first paragraph of the foreward of "C++ GUI Programming With Qt 3"
(I'm
> using Qt 4) reads like this:
>
> "Why Qt? Why do programmers like us choose Qt? Sure, there are the
obvious
> answers: Qt's single-source compatibility, its feature richness, its C++
> performance, the availability of the source code, its documentation, the
> high-quality technical support, and all the other items mentioned in
Trolltech's
> glossy marketing materials. This is all very well, but it missed the most
> important point: Qt is successful because programmers like it."
>
> There it is. The word ~like~ is in italics and for a good reason. Before
I
> received the book I had been playing with examples and actually found
myself
> having fun and enjoying it. To the point that I remarked about the
phenomena to
> my wife.
>
> And that's the point of this post, I guess. Microsoft in all its wisdom
has
> missed the boat completely. VB was so remarkably popular because it was
fun.
> I'll just laugh silently at anyone who tries to convince me that the point
and
> click .NET wonderland is anywhere near as much fun as trashing (yes
trashing not
> thrashing) around in good old VB. Ballmer, baby, you blew it. Ya coulda
had it
> all...
>
> ---
> Stefan Berglund
Various authors have tried to verbalize this feature of VB - all under the
heading of the "Spirit of Basic". I have attempted to verbalize it to fellow
C/C++ programmers with little success.
My first, and some might say my only language is C/C++, as I have been using
it for almost 30 years. I enjoy piddling about with some of the nuances,
compiler idiosyncrasies, and new techniques like boost, but for pure 'fun'
there is nothing like firing up VB and spending an afternoon rolling out a
prototype - and you can do it simply, ugly, complex, clunky, smooth,
elegant, procedural, OO, brute-force, or Rick's one-liners, ... don't
matter, the damn thing always seems to work.
I get none of that feeling when piddling with VB.net.
-ralph
| |
| Mike Williams 2005-11-25, 6:55 pm |
| "Ralph" <nt_consulting64@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rdidnZojj8Tz8xrenZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@ar
kansas.net...
> but for pure 'fun' there is nothing like firing up VB and spending an
> afternoon rolling out a prototype - and you can do it simply, ugly,
> complex, clunky, smooth, elegant, procedural, OO, brute-force,
> or Rick's one-liners, ... don't matter, the damn thing always seems
> to work. I get none of that feeling when piddling with VB.net.
I agree. I'm sure that Micro$haft have done their homework on this and
figured out how much money they get from professional coders in comparison
to how much they get from pure hobbyists (such as myself) but I really can't
imagine anyone taking up VB.net (or whatever they are calling it now) as a
hobby. That's probably why Billy is mucking about with the product name in
an attempt to pretend to potential customers that his new fangled monster
actually has something to do with Classic VB. I'm sure most people won't be
taken in by his little marketing ploy though. VB6 is really good fun. Such a
shame that Micro$haft have dumped it.
Mike
| |
|
| Do you think VB.net is going to have as much public
support as VB ?
"Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> wrote in message
news:%239WJJ1f8FHA.1248@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> "Ralph" <nt_consulting64@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:rdidnZojj8Tz8xrenZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@ar
kansas.net...
>
>
> I agree. I'm sure that Micro$haft have done their homework on this and
> figured out how much money they get from professional coders in comparison
> to how much they get from pure hobbyists (such as myself) but I really
> can't imagine anyone taking up VB.net (or whatever they are calling it
> now) as a hobby. That's probably why Billy is mucking about with the
> product name in an attempt to pretend to potential customers that his new
> fangled monster actually has something to do with Classic VB. I'm sure
> most people won't be taken in by his little marketing ploy though. VB6 is
> really good fun. Such a shame that Micro$haft have dumped it.
>
> Mike
>
>
| |
| Bob Butler 2005-11-25, 6:55 pm |
| "Stefan Berglund" <keepit@in.thegroups> wrote in message
news:4sleo19vlo8lidc3piog6m9l4rtq0gjgtl@
4ax.com
> And that's the point of this post, I guess. Microsoft in all its
> wisdom has missed the boat completely. VB was so remarkably popular
> because it was fun. I'll just laugh silently at anyone who tries to
> convince me that the point and click .NET wonderland is anywhere near
> as much fun as trashing (yes trashing not thrashing) around in good
> old VB. Ballmer, baby, you blew it. Ya coulda had it all...
Couldn't agree more. I've often tried to pin down what it is about VB that
made it so much fun. Part of it was surely that it was always amazing how
much could be done with what was essentially a pretty simple tool. Part of
it was the way that you could find so many different ways of accomplishing
teh same task. Part of it is that there are so many nuances in the language
that you can still learn things about it after years of use (and that's a
big part of why these newsgroups are still so valuable -- just yesterday I
learned that Nov/24/2005 is a valid date!)
VB was always so much more than the sum of it's parts and was fun to work
with from the first day I picked it up so many years ago. OTOH, working
with VB.Net felt like wading through treacle and C# is simply a chore to
deal with. The creativity is stifled and coding in it feels like a matter
of rote memorization and quickly becomes a dull, boring process.
MS never understood what they had in VB; their users did. Too bad they only
listened to the fringe element that was embarassed by using "basic" instead
of looking at the language for what it was.
--
Reply to the group so all can participate
VB.Net: "Fool me once..."
| |
| Robert Berman 2005-11-25, 9:55 pm |
|
"Ted" <2000@xxxmsn.com> wrote in message
news:%23l3D$Hh8FHA.608@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Do you think VB.net is going to have as much public
> support as VB ?
>
I think the answer to that question is already known. Count the number of
net questions appearing in this newsgroup. The simple fact is that this
number is growing daily. The fact that we deliver standardized replies to
post to "dotnet" groups is generally ignored, Unfortunately Net is now
becoming the "choice" of the new collegiate wave, and professors are
cramming it down their students collective throats. Whilesome professors are
still teaching Visual Basic 6 and not NET, I suspect that number will shrink
as long as MS makes it difficult to almost impossible to get even
educational copies of VB 6.
In the end, I think MS will seriously regret their decision although they
will never publicly decry their actions.
The introduction of NET has moved me into the ranks of the semi-retired. I
continue using VB 6, and from time to time I use C++, but after having
looked very closely at the NET groupings, I have decided to leave it to the
new college crowd and those pushed into liking it. After a great deal of
introspection I finally understand my own decision in this matter. VB 6 is
fun. Net is professional drudgery.
Robert Berman
V.S.S.
| |
| Mike Williams 2005-11-26, 3:55 am |
| "Ted" <2000@xxxmsn.com> wrote in message
news:%23l3D$Hh8FHA.608@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Do you think VB.net is going to have as much public
> support as VB ?
No. In fact it isn't really going to have any "public support" at all. Those
that have moved over to the new fangled net stuff are obviously currently
very vociferous in their support of it, but personally I think that they are
really trying to persuade themselves that they have made the right choice,
rather than persuade others to join them. Microsoft is of course an
extremely powerful organisation and they are currently the main driving
force in the dotnet market. They will almost certainly be able to persuade
most major organisations and most education authorities that dotnet is the
future (until they pull the plug on that too, of course!). But dotnet won't
have any "public support" in the way that Classic VB has. It will merely be
"the tool that people have to use to get jobs". VB used to have that "tool
to get jobs" position, but it also had a lot more than that in a way that
dotnet will never have. Most of the people extolling the virtues of dotnet
are really extolling the virtues of the external tools that it uses (such as
GDI+ for example). But that's not really a "dotnet" thing. VB could just as
easily have been modified, with very little work on the part of Micro$haft,
to use GDI+ and all the other little goodies. I have a feeling that one day
Micro$haft will reget not going that way. The  thing for the people who
have moved to dotnet of course is that many of them moved in order to gain
some kudos by getting away from the word "Basic", and now Micro$haft have
shot them in the foot and put the word "Basic" back into dotnet! Where are
those people gonna go now ;-)
Mike
| |
|
| On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:58:05 -0800, "Bob Butler"
<tiredofit@nospam.com> wrote:
>"Stefan Berglund" <keepit@in.thegroups> wrote in message
> news:4sleo19vlo8lidc3piog6m9l4rtq0gjgtl@
4ax.com
>
>Couldn't agree more. I've often tried to pin down what it is about VB that
>made it so much fun. Part of it was surely that it was always amazing how
>much could be done with what was essentially a pretty simple tool. Part of
>it was the way that you could find so many different ways of accomplishing
>teh same task. Part of it is that there are so many nuances in the language
>that you can still learn things about it after years of use (and that's a
>big part of why these newsgroups are still so valuable -- just yesterday I
>learned that Nov/24/2005 is a valid date!)
>
>VB was always so much more than the sum of it's parts and was fun to work
>with from the first day I picked it up so many years ago. OTOH, working
>with VB.Net felt like wading through treacle and C# is simply a chore to
>deal with. The creativity is stifled and coding in it feels like a matter
>of rote memorization and quickly becomes a dull, boring process.
>
>MS never understood what they had in VB; their users did. Too bad they only
>listened to the fringe element that was embarassed by using "basic" instead
>of looking at the language for what it was.
All these replies remind me of a cartoon I first saw while working for
Ford Motor Co in Germany:
http://www.uoregon.edu/~ftepfer/Sch...SwingTable.html
MM
| |
|
| On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:58:05 -0800, "Bob Butler"
<tiredofit@nospam.com> wrote:
>VB was always so much more than the sum of it's parts and was fun to work
>with from the first day I picked it up so many years ago. OTOH, working
>with VB.Net felt like wading through treacle and C# is simply a chore to
>deal with. The creativity is stifled and coding in it feels like a matter
>of rote memorization and quickly becomes a dull, boring process.
Yep. Yesterday, I finally got fed up enough with a particular app that
loses data without warning if you inadvertently hit the ESC key to do
something about it. So I fired up VB6, read for a while in various
books and on the net, and wrote me a keyboard hook that traps the ESC
key system wide and pops up a warning, "Keep or Discard?". Then I
thought, now I wonder whether I can narrow it down to the one
particular app in question? A bit more searching, and digging though
some of my own code from six years ago, and I got the Exe name of the
app in which the Esc key had been pressed, and the rest, as they say,
was easy.
I wouldn't begin to know where to start on the same mini project in
VB.Net.
MM
| |
| J French 2005-11-26, 7:55 am |
| On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 22:37:16 -0500, "Robert Berman"
<BermanRL@NOSPAM.earthlink.net> wrote:
<snip>
> Unfortunately Net is now
>becoming the "choice" of the new collegiate wave, and professors are
>cramming it down their students collective throats. Whilesome professors are
>still teaching Visual Basic 6 and not NET, I suspect that number will shrink
>as long as MS makes it difficult to almost impossible to get even
>educational copies of VB 6.
<snip>
I'm not convinced that the 'educational' bit is all that significant
- historically BASICs have been the language that people who have a
job to get done, grab and learn as they produce the App
- later, those people turn into 'proper' programmers, as they get
interested in coding itself
Sort of, the language for analysts who want to write their own code
VB.NET is not filling that gap
- it will probably be Ok for corporates, but they are not really the
people who produce the novel applications that make PCs useful
Nature abhors a vacuum, so it is very likely that something will fill
the gap
- my ideal would be a Delphi compiler that accepts BASIC syntax
| |
| J French 2005-11-26, 7:55 am |
| On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:58:05 -0800, "Bob Butler"
<tiredofit@nospam.com> wrote:
<snip>
>MS never understood what they had in VB; their users did. Too bad they only
>listened to the fringe element that was embarassed by using "basic" instead
>of looking at the language for what it was.
I think that Bill Gates and some of the old guard at MS understood
very well
In the early 1990's there was a scrap in MS, and BG sorted things out
by stating that BASIC was going to be the language for automation
The trouble is that the 'new bunch' at MS have forgotton where their
company came from
| |
| Galen Somerville 2005-11-26, 6:55 pm |
|
"MM" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:lqhgo1lmb5nhoeptu7iq45formp3q1f7om@
4ax.com...
> On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:58:05 -0800, "Bob Butler"
> <tiredofit@nospam.com> wrote:
>
that[color=darkred]
how[color=darkred]
of[color=darkred]
accomplishing[color=darkred]
language[color=darkred]
I[color=darkred]
matter[color=darkred]
only[color=darkred]
instead[color=darkred]
>
> All these replies remind me of a cartoon I first saw while working for
> Ford Motor Co in Germany:
> http://www.uoregon.edu/~ftepfer/Sch...SwingTable.html
>
> MM
I still have an old faded copy of that cartoon from the early 50's. It was
from and about AT&T/Western Electric.
Galen
| |
| Stefan Berglund 2005-11-26, 6:55 pm |
| On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 13:26:38 +0000 (UTC), erewhon@nowhere.uk (J French) wrote:
in <43885d84.186379426@news.btopenworld.com>
>On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 22:37:16 -0500, "Robert Berman"
><BermanRL@NOSPAM.earthlink.net> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>
><snip>
>
>I'm not convinced that the 'educational' bit is all that significant
>
>- historically BASICs have been the language that people who have a
>job to get done, grab and learn as they produce the App
>
>- later, those people turn into 'proper' programmers, as they get
>interested in coding itself
>
>Sort of, the language for analysts who want to write their own code
>
>VB.NET is not filling that gap
>- it will probably be Ok for corporates, but they are not really the
>people who produce the novel applications that make PCs useful
>
>Nature abhors a vacuum, so it is very likely that something will fill
>the gap
>- my ideal would be a Delphi compiler that accepts BASIC syntax
I really like the way you think! I agree that something will come along to fill
the void as Microsoft quietly takes its place alongside all of the other has
beens like DEC and IBM.
---
Stefan Berglund
| |
| Stefan Berglund 2005-11-26, 6:55 pm |
| On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 13:41:06 +0000 (UTC), erewhon@nowhere.uk (J French) wrote:
in <43886310.187799416@news.btopenworld.com>
>On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:58:05 -0800, "Bob Butler"
><tiredofit@nospam.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>
>I think that Bill Gates and some of the old guard at MS understood
>very well
>
>In the early 1990's there was a scrap in MS, and BG sorted things out
>by stating that BASIC was going to be the language for automation
>
>The trouble is that the 'new bunch' at MS have forgotton where their
>company came from
Yep. Got it in one.
---
Stefan Berglund
| |
|
|
"J French" <erewhon@nowhere.uk> wrote in message
news:43886310.187799416@news.btopenworld.com...
> On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:58:05 -0800, "Bob Butler"
> <tiredofit@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
only[color=darkred]
instead[color=darkred]
>
> I think that Bill Gates and some of the old guard at MS understood
> very well
>
> In the early 1990's there was a scrap in MS, and BG sorted things out
> by stating that BASIC was going to be the language for automation
>
> The trouble is that the 'new bunch' at MS have forgotton where their
> company came from
It is subtly even worse than just a case of memory loss. It is more like
they deliberately turned against their own product.
To use the "New Coke" analogy. The Coke Execs got into trouble when they
began to believe the Pepsi hype. They really became concerned that Pepsi
tasted better - therefore they had to come out with a new taste. Everything
else just flew past them.
In talking with the current crop of MS developers, you get the feeling that
they really believe Unix and Java 'tastes' better and therefore they have to
come out with a new taste. Everything else is just flying past them.
-ralph
| |
| BeastFish 2005-11-26, 6:55 pm |
| "Ralph" <nt_consulting64@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1oednUWdmoBsOhXeRVn-qA@arkansas.net...
>
> "J French" <erewhon@nowhere.uk> wrote in message
> news:43886310.187799416@news.btopenworld.com...
> only
> instead
>
>
> It is subtly even worse than just a case of memory loss. It is more like
> they deliberately turned against their own product.
>
> To use the "New Coke" analogy. The Coke Execs got into trouble when they
> began to believe the Pepsi hype. They really became concerned that Pepsi
> tasted better - therefore they had to come out with a new taste.
Everything
> else just flew past them.
>
> In talking with the current crop of MS developers, you get the feeling
that
> they really believe Unix and Java 'tastes' better and therefore they have
to
> come out with a new taste. Everything else is just flying past them.
>
> -ralph
You may be on to something there, Ralph. Let us hope that the VB thing
plays out the way the Coke thing did :-)
Also, one of my "theories" is... some folks at MS weren't happy that VB grew
from an "enterprise" solution for creating in-house business apps into
something more, something that folks can use to actually create apps for
general consumption (and make money with them), and vbNET is their attempt
to remedy that, reign it back into an "enterprise-only" tool.
| |
|
| >No. In fact it isn't really going to have any "public support" at all.
May be Microsoft intention is to remove all those small
companies, and give it all to big corporations.
For example now, if you can't afford to have your program
authenticated and MS certified, then XP prompts you that this
program is not certified before installation and suggests not
to install it.
Many novice users will listen to MS and not install the
program, looking at it as a virus of some kind.
"Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> wrote in message
news:uQ%23aGYm8FHA.3416@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> "Ted" <2000@xxxmsn.com> wrote in message
> news:%23l3D$Hh8FHA.608@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>
>
> No. In fact it isn't really going to have any "public support" at all.
> Those that have moved over to the new fangled net stuff are obviously
> currently very vociferous in their support of it, but personally I think
> that they are really trying to persuade themselves that they have made the
> right choice, rather than persuade others to join them. Microsoft is of
> course an extremely powerful organisation and they are currently the main
> driving force in the dotnet market. They will almost certainly be able to
> persuade most major organisations and most education authorities that
> dotnet is the future (until they pull the plug on that too, of course!).
> But dotnet won't have any "public support" in the way that Classic VB has.
> It will merely be "the tool that people have to use to get jobs". VB used
> to have that "tool to get jobs" position, but it also had a lot more than
> that in a way that dotnet will never have. Most of the people extolling
> the virtues of dotnet are really extolling the virtues of the external
> tools that it uses (such as GDI+ for example). But that's not really a
> "dotnet" thing. VB could just as easily have been modified, with very
> little work on the part of Micro$haft, to use GDI+ and all the other
> little goodies. I have a feeling that one day Micro$haft will reget not
> going that way. The thing for the people who have moved to dotnet of
> course is that many of them moved in order to gain some kudos by getting
> away from the word "Basic", and now Micro$haft have shot them in the foot
> and put the word "Basic" back into dotnet! Where are those people gonna go
> now ;-)
>
> Mike
>
>
| |
| J French 2005-11-27, 3:55 am |
| On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 14:08:34 -0500, "BeastFish"
<beastfish@for-president.com> wrote:
<snip>
>Also, one of my "theories" is... some folks at MS weren't happy that VB grew
>from an "enterprise" solution for creating in-house business apps into
>something more, something that folks can use to actually create apps for
>general consumption (and make money with them), and vbNET is their attempt
>to remedy that, reign it back into an "enterprise-only" tool.
You may well be right there
Did you know that MS wrote the BASIC on the Commodore PET, also on the
Apple - combine that with MS Basic on CP/M and they were everywhere
My view is that it was the BASICs on small machines combined with
Visicalc that made PCs take off and enticed IBM into the market
I liken MS's current approach to the delusion that airlines have about
the profitability of Business and First Class versus Economy
| |
| Stefan Berglund 2005-11-27, 6:55 pm |
| On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 14:08:34 -0500, "BeastFish" <beastfish@for-president.com>
wrote:
in <dmabsh$69a$1@domitilla.aioe.org>
>Also, one of my "theories" is... some folks at MS weren't happy that VB grew
>from an "enterprise" solution for creating in-house business apps into
>something more, something that folks can use to actually create apps for
>general consumption (and make money with them), and vbNET is their attempt
>to remedy that, reign it back into an "enterprise-only" tool.
There are obviously other mitigating factors (at least I hope there are some
other than utter stupidity) and I have pondered at length as to what they might
be. Yes, it's almost as though they are attempting to reign in what has become
an all too powerful tool. Perhaps the DOD is also involved in their long term
strategy. Most likely is that we'll never know and what's more, I can actually
say that I have a newfound sense of freedom in that I no longer care what they
do. They're no where near as important to your lives as their marketing
dullards would have you believe.
---
Stefan Berglund
| |
| nrford 2005-11-27, 6:55 pm |
| "J French" <erewhon@nowhere.uk> wrote in message
news:43885d84.186379426@news.btopenworld.com...
> On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 22:37:16 -0500, "Robert Berman"
> <BermanRL@NOSPAM.earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> VB.NET is not filling that gap
> - it will probably be Ok for corporates, but they are not really the
> people who produce the novel applications that make PCs useful
>
> Nature abhors a vacuum, so it is very likely that something will fill
> the gap...
Unfortunately, MS abhors competition. Remember
in the 1980's when MS charged hundreds of dollars
for their programming language and Borland came
out with Turbo Pascal and Turbo Basic for about $70?
All of a sudden, here came VB1 for the same price.
Things were great (price-wise) for a while until Borland
couldn't compete anymore and went away, and guess
what happened to the price of VB (not to mention to
VB itself)?
| |
|
|
"nrford" <nrfordmsvb@REMOVE_THIS_cardsharkgames.com> wrote in message
news:eWX$sg48FHA.3200@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
> "J French" <erewhon@nowhere.uk> wrote in message
> news:43885d84.186379426@news.btopenworld.com...
> Unfortunately, MS abhors competition. Remember
> in the 1980's when MS charged hundreds of dollars
> for their programming language and Borland came
> out with Turbo Pascal and Turbo Basic for about $70?
Seem to recall that after buying Borland's Turbo Basic I realised that
one should never to buy version 1 of anything.
:> )
Peter
| |
| nrford 2005-11-28, 7:55 am |
| "Peter" <augustREMOVE@THISgensol.com.au> wrote in message
news:ubBIvG68FHA.3200@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>
> "nrford" <nrfordmsvb@REMOVE_THIS_cardsharkgames.com> wrote in message
> news:eWX$sg48FHA.3200@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>
> Seem to recall that after buying Borland's Turbo Basic I realised that
> one should never to buy version 1 of anything.
> :> )
> Peter
Yeah, Turbo Basic wasn't good for much except
getting MS to lower their prices.
| |
| Paul Clement 2005-11-28, 6:55 pm |
| On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 14:45:55 -0800, "Ted" <2000@xxxmsn.com> wrote:
¤ Do you think VB.net is going to have as much public
¤ support as VB ?
¤
No because for years there were few RAD alternatives to Classic Visual Basic. This is no longer the
case.
In any event, after Java was released (with the demand for web development) Classic Visual Basic
usage began to decline.
Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
| |
| Karl E. Peterson 2005-11-29, 6:55 pm |
| Robert Berman wrote:
> collective throats. Whilesome professors are still teaching Visual
> Basic 6 and not NET, I suspect that number will shrink as long as MS
> makes it difficult to almost impossible to get even educational
> copies of VB 6.
Another nail in the coffin:
MSDN Subscriptions WebLog : Upcoming Content Changes
http://blogs.msdn.com/msdnsubscript.../18/494716.aspx
--
Working without a .NET?
http://classicvb.org/
|
|
|
|
|