Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.basic.misc > #202
| From | Schmidt <sss@online.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | alt.comp.lang.vb, alt.comp.lang.visualbasic, comp.lang.basic.misc, comp.lang.basic.visual.misc, microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb, microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb.upgrade |
| Subject | Re: Upgrading older VB programs (sans Project Files) to VB.NET |
| Date | 2012-01-13 20:17 +0100 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <jepvvp$h89$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <elbng7hgfr19n3iogrj1t3hhv3gna0obel@4ax.com> <jehhcq$otj$1@dont-email.me> <jehrlu$nk4$1@dont-email.me> <jekpsc$e1c$1@dont-email.me> <jen22c$n55$1@dont-email.me> |
Cross-posted to 6 groups.
Am 12.01.2012 17:34, schrieb Tom Shelton: > Schmidt expressed precisely : >> Am 10.01.2012 18:14, schrieb Tom Shelton: >> >>> ... but, .net is not dead. >> >> It's now in the same way "not dead", as VB6 is... >> Welcome to the club! >> > > VB6 has been deprecated - .NET has not. The VB6-IDE is not *supported* anymore - the essential technology under the covers (an underlying C/C++ compiler and COM is by no means deprecated). On the other hand, Winforms are deprecated in the meantime, as is the usage of Silverlight... (more to come, just wait). >> Really funny, that we are back now, to the combination >> of 'C++ and COM' as the only recommended way to develop >> serious and new "native Desktop-Apps" (because any other >> (MS-)tools cannot be considered "future-proof" or >> "safe with regards to line-of-code-investments"). >> > > What I want to know is where you got that C++ and COM is > the only recommended way to develop metro apps. I was not talking about "Metro-Apps" - I was talking about "native Desktop-Apps" - and the only secure way (the word "recommended" was not that well-choosen) in terms of code-investments is apparently C/C++ (33 year old "technology" in the meantime). > You are living in some sort of dream world, where all > tech is good forever. Doesn't happen. That's what you try to sell us for years now. I say, tech *can* be "good forever", when there's not much left to optimize (just look at "the wheel" <g>). And apparently C/C++ is such a wheel. Everything on top of it (in case you want to construct a bicycle for example) - is just different shortcuts (e.g. if you use different frames (aka frameworks/libraries) in combination with a highlevel-language, to be able to build "customized cycles" a little bit faster). And the VBClassic-runtime-lib (in conjunction with the VBClassic language) does its job just fine at the moment - as well as in the near future. And it is "less far" from the current base-tech (C/C++ and COM) than .NET is - that's my whole point. It remains to be seen (I'd say, let's talk about it again in 10 years or so), whether a thin runtime-layer on top of C/C++ - or a bloated VM, will better survive over time. From my point of view, it is you who's living in a dream world, not acknowledging, that both approaches (from MS' point of view) were only temporary cash-cows, sold to "crowds of RAD-believers". The difference between .NET- and "still VB6"-users is, that the latter ones recognized "the pattern" much earlier (fool me once) - and didn't invest that much time again into "the next distraction". Olaf
Back to comp.lang.basic.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Upgrading older VB programs (sans Project Files) to VB.NET Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> - 2012-01-04 18:23 -0500
Re: Upgrading older VB programs (sans Project Files) to VB.NET "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-01-05 09:25 -0500
Re: Upgrading older VB programs (sans Project Files) to VB.NET "Thorsten Albers" <gudea@gmx.de> - 2012-01-05 16:33 +0000
Re: Upgrading older VB programs (sans Project Files) to VB.NET Helmut_Meukel <Helmut_Meukel@bn-hof.invalid> - 2012-01-05 22:32 +0100
Re: Upgrading older VB programs (sans Project Files) to VB.NET "Auric__" <not.my.real@email.address> - 2012-01-06 02:50 +0000
Re: Upgrading older VB programs (sans Project Files) to VB.NET Tony Toews <ttoews@telusplanet.net> - 2012-01-09 20:29 -0700
Re: Upgrading older VB programs (sans Project Files) to VB.NET "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-01-10 09:22 -0500
Re: Upgrading older VB programs (sans Project Files) to VB.NET Tom Shelton <tom_shelton@comcast.invalid> - 2012-01-10 10:14 -0700
Re: Upgrading older VB programs (sans Project Files) to VB.NET "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-01-10 17:04 -0500
Re: Upgrading older VB programs (sans Project Files) to VB.NET Schmidt <sss@online.de> - 2012-01-11 21:02 +0100
Re: Upgrading older VB programs (sans Project Files) to VB.NET "Henning" <computer_hero@coldmail.com> - 2012-01-12 15:33 +0100
Re: Upgrading older VB programs (sans Project Files) to VB.NET Tom Shelton <tom_shelton@comcast.invalid> - 2012-01-12 09:34 -0700
Re: Upgrading older VB programs (sans Project Files) to VB.NET Schmidt <sss@online.de> - 2012-01-13 20:17 +0100
Re: Upgrading older VB programs (sans Project Files) to VB.NET Tom Shelton <tom_shelton@comcast.invalid> - 2012-01-13 13:22 -0700
Re: Upgrading older VB programs (sans Project Files) to VB.NET "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-01-13 16:07 -0500
Re: Upgrading older VB programs (sans Project Files) to VB.NET Tom Shelton <tom_shelton@comcast.invalid> - 2012-01-13 14:14 -0700
Re: Upgrading older VB programs (sans Project Files) to VB.NET "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-01-13 20:58 -0500
Re: Upgrading older VB programs (sans Project Files) to VB.NET Tony Toews <ttoews@telusplanet.net> - 2012-01-19 19:10 -0700
Re: Upgrading older VB programs (sans Project Files) to VB.NET Schmidt <sss@online.de> - 2012-01-14 00:12 +0100
Re: Upgrading older VB programs (sans Project Files) to VB.NET "Henning" <computer_hero@coldmail.com> - 2012-01-14 00:24 +0100
Re: Upgrading older VB programs (sans Project Files) to VB.NET Schmidt <sss@online.de> - 2012-01-14 00:58 +0100
csiph-web