"William Meyer" <meyer.wil> wrote in message
news:ee91
> Dan Barclay wrote:
>
>> They did throw it away, not that it's a good thing though.
>
> I used VB 1.0 -- briefly. As I recall, the code was so attached to the
> controls that you could *only* see it by double clicking on a control,
> and that made it very hard to discover which controls on a busy form
> might yet be in need of code.
>
> What I do remember clearly is that it didn't stay on my machine very
> long ;)

1.0? Hehe. That was a concept release<g>

It got much better, and worse, depending on what part you want to talk
about. I'm very familiar with both ends of that.

Dan

"I.P. Nichols" <NoSpan> wrote in message
news:ea51
> "Dan Barclay" wrote...
>>
>> He did OK on that VB thing though. It was nice while it lasted.
>
> In one version or another VB like the Energizer Bunny® keeps going and
> going...
> [..]
>

Danger Will Robinson!

1. That's not VB... it's vFred. http://vb.mvps.org/vfred/breaks.asp
2. The guys that broke code to create vFred are still running the joint
and they have NOT learned their lesson. Those using VB.Net will get a
release one day that "fixes" more things that these C coders think need
fixing (you read right, the team does not use VB).
3. When they broke code at VB4 we (MVP's and other users) raised hell.
They brought us to Redmond and promised they wouldn't do it again. They
didn't, until VB7 http://vb.mvps.org/vfred/Trust.asp You'd think, with as
many VB users as they had you'd be safe from that kind of thing. Not so, at
all.

I don't have a problem with the new language, but I'm serious when I say I
wouldn't put code I intend to keep in there. You'll be rewriting it in a
few years, which isn't what library building is all about.

Code libraries are a business asset. When you have somebody trash them it's
a BadThing:

http://vb.mvps.org/tips/stability.asp

FWIW, the usage they quote is actually a sad commentary on how well .Net has
done. They say VB.Net is the #1 .Net language... yet the number pales in
comparison to users of ClassicVB.

Ya'll be careful out there.

Dan

"Dan Barclay" <Dan> wrote:
> "I.P. Nichols" wrote:
>>
>> In one version or another VB like the Energizer Bunny® keeps going and
>> going...
>> [..]
>>
> 1. That's not VB... it's vFred. [..]
> 2. The guys that broke code to create vFred are still running the joint

I see you still got that fire in the belly. ;>)

"I.P. Nichols" <NoSpan> wrote in message
news:d455
> "Dan Barclay" <Dan> wrote:
>> "I.P. Nichols" wrote:
>>>
>>> In one version or another VB like the Energizer Bunny® keeps going and
>>> going...
>>> [..]
>>>
>> 1. That's not VB... it's vFred. [..]
>> 2. The guys that broke code to create vFred are still running the joint
>
> I see you still got that fire in the belly. ;>)

I'm still converting code! Fortunately I can move it on an opportunistic
basis to a Delphi DLL and call it from there. One day there will be nothing
left to convert<g>.

Things like that will make you remember<g>.

I'm still astonished at how easy it would have been to put VB.Net together
in a compatible way (and, yes, I do know what it would have taken). Then I
think of how pervasive .Net would have been by now, by virtue of the hordes
of existing apps that could have been brought forward.

The market MS has with .Net is nowhere near what they envisioned, or what
they could have had.

Dan

"Dan Barclay" wrote:
"I.P. Nichols" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In one version or another VB like the Energizer Bunny® keeps going and
>>>> going...
>>>> [..]
>>>>
>>> 1. That's not VB... it's vFred. [..]
>>> 2. The guys that broke code to create vFred are still running the joint
>
> I'm still astonished at how easy it would have been to put VB.Net together
> in a compatible way (and, yes, I do know what it would have taken). Then
> I think of how pervasive .Net would have been by now, by virtue of the
> hordes of existing apps that could have been brought forward.

What's to become of that horde of VB developers with their existing apps,
aging toolset and legacy code libraries? Considering the argument you keep
making I wonder why hasn't someone made their fame and fortune by building a
VB for .NET compiler that would meet the requirements of VB developers who
wish to bring their existing (and new) VB apps forward. The Delphi for .NET
and Chrome compilers provide innovative examples of ways to approach the
problem.

I.P. Nichols wrote:

> What's to become of that horde of VB developers with their existing
> apps, aging toolset and legacy code libraries?

I rather suspect that a great number of them are still hanging on to
VB 6 at the moment.

"I.P. Nichols" <NoSpan> wrote in message
news:42c1
> "Dan Barclay" wrote:
> "I.P. Nichols" wrote:
>
> What's to become of that horde of VB developers with their existing apps,
> aging toolset and legacy code libraries?

Most are still hanging on to VB6. The investment to move elsewhere is
significant in both dollars and lost development time. If you do a "stop
development and convert" you'll be dead meat in most vertical markets.

That will change as they face more and more problems. I know, for example,
that VB add ins to Outlook (that is, most Outlook add ins) are now a problem
to iPhone users. iTunes will crash Outlook during sync if one of these add
ins is installed. The problem is in the VB6 runtime from what we can tell.

Other issues will arise, and how long do you think MS is going to keep up
with fixes?

They're between a rock and a hard place. Some would like to move to .Net
but it's not worth the conversion effort. For others native deployment is a
better fit but MS has stopped development on any native version of VB.

> Considering the argument you keep making I wonder why hasn't someone made
> their fame and fortune by building a VB for .NET compiler that would meet
> the requirements of VB developers who wish to bring their existing (and
> new) VB apps forward. The Delphi for .NET and Chrome compilers provide
> innovative examples of ways to approach the problem.

There are several reasons.

1. The "new language supplier" has to be concerned about directly copying
VB. MS will nail their tail to the wall if that's tried. I've seen some of
silly patents, but you'd have to decide if you want to fight that. Of
course there is no need, in my opinion, to *directly* copy VB at this point.
2. Many of the subject apps are vertical, and are best suited for native
application deployment. Some want to take their apps toward .Net. You'd
need to do it in a way that would let them use a lot of their code in both
native and .Net (or at least have that as a possibility).
3. Even if somebody did get over the first hurdle, if they're not
already a solid developer tool vendor how would you convince a developer to
put his code there? There are other Basic vendors out there, and I know a
few guys going that way. The vendors don't have enough market acceptance to
make some of us comfortable, yet.

There is a big gap in supplying the Basic market.

There are few that could step in and pick up this gap. Codegear is one, but
I don't see any interest in running the priority up enough to make progress.

Dan

"Dan Barclay" wrote:
> "I.P. Nichols" wrote:
>>
>> What's to become of that horde of VB developers with their existing apps,
>> aging toolset and legacy code libraries?
>
> Most are still hanging on to VB6. The investment to move elsewhere is
> significant in both dollars and lost development time. If you do a "stop
> development and convert" you'll be dead meat in most vertical markets.
>
> That will change as they face more and more problems. I know, for
> example, that VB add ins to Outlook (that is, most Outlook add ins) are
> now a problem to iPhone users. iTunes will crash Outlook during sync if
> one of these add ins is installed. The problem is in the VB6 runtime from
> what we can tell.

The Windows version of iTunes is famous for these kinds of compatability
flukes, each newer version presents the Windows iTune user with new set of
PITA problems and Apple should better test each newer version of iTunes and
be responsible to prevent these problems but after all they sells Macs. ;-(

> Other issues will arise, and how long do you think MS is going to keep up
> with fixes?

Until the end of the Vista support cycle.

> They're between a rock and a hard place. Some would like to move to .Net
> but it's not worth the conversion effort. For others native deployment is
> a better fit but MS has stopped development on any native version of VB.

Their future is in their own hands, either learn, change, and move on or
become dinosaurs.

From the play "The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas", 'I feel like a country
dog in the city. If I stand still they try to screw me. If I run they bite
me in the ass.'

<snip>

> There is a big gap in supplying the Basic market.
>
> There are few that could step in and pick up this gap. Codegear is one,
> but I don't see any interest in running the priority up enough to make
> progress.

Well it can't be said that you haven't tried, but as they say, you can lead
a horse to water but you can't make him drink. :)

"I.P. Nichols" <NoSpan> wrote in message
news:02e3
> "Dan Barclay" wrote:
>> "I.P. Nichols" wrote:
>
> The Windows version of iTunes is famous for these kinds of compatability
> flukes, each newer version presents the Windows iTune user with new set of
> PITA problems and Apple should better test each newer version of iTunes
> and be responsible to prevent these problems but after all they sells
> Macs. ;-(

Perhaps, but the interface that appears to be the problem was written by MS
for Apple <shrug>.

>> Other issues will arise, and how long do you think MS is going to keep up
>> with fixes?
>
> Until the end of the Vista support cycle.

That long? You're an optimist. I wouldn't bet my business on it.

>> They're between a rock and a hard place. Some would like to move to .Net
>> but it's not worth the conversion effort. For others native deployment
>> is a better fit but MS has stopped development on any native version of
>> VB.
>
> Their future is in their own hands, either learn, change, and move on or
> become dinosaurs.

Or they ride their horse until it falls over and retire. I know some that
will do just that. The losers are the people who lost their business, and
lost the opportunity to get the apps on a platform.

> From the play "The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas", 'I feel like a
> country dog in the city. If I stand still they try to screw me. If I run
> they bite me in the ass.'

<chuckle>

> <snip>
>
>> There is a big gap in supplying the Basic market.
>>
>> There are few that could step in and pick up this gap. Codegear is one,
>> but I don't see any interest in running the priority up enough to make
>> progress.
>
> Well it can't be said that you haven't tried, but as they say, you can
> lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. :)

I hope it doesn't drown<g>. Lots of opportunity there. I keep bringing it
up, but the opportunity isn't for me. It's for Codegear. I'm writing
Delphi code. I'd rather be using Basic in Delphi, but I'm not going to mess
up a business on that issue by delaying work in OP. OTOH, a number of pals
just aren' going to leave Basic until it dies (though they'd change
flavors).

Dan