Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.basic.visual.misc > #646

Re: Upgrading older VB programs (sans Project Files) to VB.NET

Cross-posted to 6 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Schmidt was thinking very hard :
> 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).
>

I don't know if youv'e been paying attention...  Win32 is pretty much 
deprecated.

>>> 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).
>
>

Well, in windows 8 and beyond - Metro is the native desktop.  WinRT is 
the api.  Win32 and the old dekstop are legacy.

I still fail to see your point...  Winforms/silverlight and all .net 
apps will continue to run and function just as they always have on the 
legacy desktop.  What is it that you are trying to get at here?

>> 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>).
>

Sorry - but, if that was the case we would all still be using COBOL and 
Fortran.

> And apparently C/C++ is such a wheel.

C/C++ are fairly close to the metal - and I love them both.  But, even 
they have evolved over the years.  Have you been looking at the new 
standards?  Lots of features we have in C# being added - lambdas, etc.

> 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).
>

C++ are just layers on top of assembly.  So what?

> 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.
>

Not in the new desktop.  And, not on ARM.  VB6 will continue to work on 
the legacy desktop, which we know will be phased out in the not to many 
versions hence.

In other words - the end is nigh.

> And it is "less far" from the current base-tech
> (C/C++ and COM) than .NET is - that's my whole point.
>

C/C++ will not be using COM directly in the new paradigm.  They, along 
with C#/VB/JavaScript will be using WinRT.  WinRT does use COM - in 
fact, it's very important for the internals of WinRT, but the average 
C++ dev developing for the new desktop is not going to care about that.

> 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.
>

You guys and your bloated VM thing are really getting tiresome.

First off - the runtime is not a thin layer over c/c++.  It is a layer 
over the win32 api - but, that is native code, ie machine code.  It is 
irrelavent that a lot of it was done in C (and I mean straigth C).

The framework, is a set of libraries - that is all. It doesn't all get 
loaded at runtime.  They don't all get used by any single application.  
The size on disk and the download time of said framework is pretty much 
irrelavent give modern broadband and disk sizes.  Both, of which are 
mostly irrelavent - since, like the VB6 runtimes - it is part of the 
base OS install now.

You act as if I have some problem with C/C++?  I do not.  In fact, I 
love C++.  It was my first programming language - I still do stuff in 
it on occasion.  It's the love for C++ and C style syntax, that made me 
move to C# when I had to move to .NET.

>  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".

That is simply the most ridiculous bunch of rubbish I have ever read.  
VB6 is simply irrelavent - and about to fade completely into the foot 
notes of history.  If you can't see that, than you simply aren't paying 
attention.  Smart tv's, smart camera's, tablets, phones, etc - they are 
becomming the center of the computing industry.  Which, basically means 
even MS is struggling to stay relavent right now, against the on 
slaught of Android/iOS.  And that means, java or C (well, objective-c 
for ios :) ).  At least, with C# there are tools for targeting android 
and even ios.  Haven't seen any for VB6...  And, worse case - it's not 
that difficult to port my C# libraries to Java (the major programming 
environment in the android echo system).

The fact, is the world has moved on and left you behind.

-- 
Tom Shelton

Back to comp.lang.basic.visual.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

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 GS <gs@somewhere.net> - 2012-01-05 14:57 -0500
  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 GS <gs@somewhere.net> - 2012-01-12 23:58 -0500
          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 GS <gs@somewhere.net> - 2012-01-13 14:31 -0500
              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
              Re: Upgrading older VB programs (sans Project Files) to VB.NET GS <gs@somewhere.net> - 2012-01-13 19:35 -0500
                Re: Upgrading older VB programs (sans Project Files) to VB.NET GS <gs@somewhere.net> - 2012-01-13 22:46 -0500
                Re: Upgrading older VB programs (sans Project Files) to VB.NET Tom Shelton <tom_shelton@comcast.invalid> - 2012-01-13 23:50 -0700
                Re: Upgrading older VB programs (sans Project Files) to VB.NET GS <gs@somewhere.net> - 2012-01-14 14:31 -0500
                Re: Upgrading older VB programs (sans Project Files) to VB.NET Tom Shelton <tom_shelton@comcast.invalid> - 2012-01-14 22:47 -0700
                Re: Upgrading older VB programs (sans Project Files) to VB.NET GS <gs@somewhere.net> - 2012-01-15 01:26 -0500
                Re: Upgrading older VB programs (sans Project Files) to VB.NET Tom Shelton <tom_shelton@comcast.invalid> - 2012-01-15 07:54 -0700
                Re: Upgrading older VB programs (sans Project Files) to VB.NET GS <gs@somewhere.net> - 2012-01-15 14:09 -0500
                Re: Upgrading older VB programs (sans Project Files) to VB.NET Tom Shelton <tom_shelton@comcast.invalid> - 2012-01-15 16:47 -0700
                Re: Upgrading older VB programs (sans Project Files) to VB.NET Tom Shelton <tom_shelton@comcast.invalid> - 2012-01-15 16:49 -0700
                Re: Upgrading older VB programs (sans Project Files) to VB.NET GS <gs@somewhere.net> - 2012-01-15 21:16 -0500

csiph-web