I just want to make it clear that I am one MVP that does
NOT intend to sign this
petition
about VB.
And by the way, my background is mostly VB, with some
Delphi thrown in, although I prefer C# now.
18 Comments
Good call. Come on, guys, grow up and move on. People
like old country dirt roads until a big rain comes and
washes the road away. Pave your applications with .NET
asphalt.
I've seen some appalling MVPs too (especially MVPs in
Server software where the advice was just plain wrong).
The fact that some MVPs are signing the petition
shouldn't give it any more credibility. Unfortunately,
it might convey some credibility to the untrained eye.
Perhaps that's an argument for MS to re-axe the MVP
program.
> although I prefer C# now.
Which is kind of the point. One of the major side
effects of this change is that VB is no longer the
largest development community in the world, because so
many devs switched to C#. And that's a big change from
the Way Things Used To Be. It's why there is (currently)
no version of Resharper for VB.NET.
If you want to be a part of the largest, most popular
development community in the world, you don't pick VB.
Not any more.
The point your blog misses is that Microsoft has not
only dropped VB6, but also hasn't provided a usable
upgrade path.
To ask for one is not either pro- or anti-NET. It has
nothing to do with .NET at all.
To accept that Microsoft can get away without providing
an upgrade path should be a worry to you. The key people
in the developer tools division at Microsoft seem to
have lost sight of the concept that a language and a
platform are two separate things.
Platforms come and go. What will you do with the code
you have written and need to maintain when the .NET
platform goes and Microsoft abandons the languages that
formerly targeted it? Of course, it will still be
available for a while even after Microsoft stops selling
it, so people will tell you "C# hasn't gone
away, carry on coding in C#". But the time will
come when modern platforms no longer support the latest
version of the framework you can still compile to. At or
before that point, you will be faced with abandoning all
your code and starting again in a new language.
If anything, as a programmer in a new and untried
language without any track record in long-term
stability, it would be in your interest for the petition
to succeed, simply to concentrate the minds of the
people at Microsoft on the need to allow developers and
application owners to preserve and manage their code
assets, lest Microsoft pull the same trick on you in
some years time.
So how about a signature from you?
I disagree that there is no usable upgrade path. I can
only assume that you think a usable upgrade path means
that you will not have to make any modifications to your
code, but that's just not realistic. So get over it --
no signature from me.
I agree with Paul's statement above on this. I had no
problems converting my apps from VB6/ASP to
VB.NET/ASP.NET and now that I have learned .NET there is
no way you could get me to go back to using VB6. If it's
that important to you guys that you don't have to write
any code to upgrade your apps, then quit bitching about
it and write a migration tool.
I'm not suggesting that there should be no rewriting at
all. But the claim that the migration wizard can do 95%
of the work is a sick joke. If it could do 95% of the
work, then adoption would have been higher. There's not
reason in principle why it couldn't.
As for building a migration tool myself, I have a
business to run and code to write. Building a migration
tool is probably more of a cost than doing it all by
hand. If you think it is so easy, write it yourself and
give it away to enoucrage people to migrate!
Why would I build something I don't need? I'm not the
one complaining about having to migrate my code. And it
wouldn't make good business sense for me to encourage
people to migrate, the less people that do, the more
work there is for people like me that already did.
Are these VB6 guys still writing NEW applications in
VB6? If so, why? If they are just talking about
migrating old code to VB.Net, then why? Doesn't the old
VB6 version still work? Do they still have clients on
Windows 3.1?
Applications have a limited life. They need to be
replaced from time to time - or at least substantially
updated. This is the time to make the switch. The whole
argument just doesn't make any sense to me.
If they want to stay in the 80's with bad hair and
shoulder pads then let them. I see no reason to sign.
I'd like to start an MVP petition for MS to NOT continue
working on VB6. It's wasted money that could be better
used on more modern and useful technology.
Sometimes I just wish a platform will die a dignified
death. Windows 3.11 was such a beast, and later, I
looked forward to not having to support Windows 98
versions of software.
I feel the same way about Visual Basic 6.0.
I suppose that around 2010 I'll be greatful to drop
support for Windows 2003. Of course, there'll still be
the "Windows 2010 VB/COM+ Virtual
Machine" to deal with.
I don´t sign, because i don´t think
that it would make any sense to do it ;-) <the
VB6 aera ended, and i have to move on - if i enjoyed the
aera or not, and no petition in the world can bring me
that aera back. Same is happening right now with VBA
aera ...>
@Jonathan: If upgrading from a car, which has a motor
driven with firewood to a one driven with gasolin, there
are some changes for which you could´t and
wouldn´t want any migration tools.
What i mean is: there are some things which just
couldn´t be ported correctly and which are not
useful to port due to total different architecture. I
think that´s a general problem with evolution:
You´ve to move and learn and have to change
your thinking to follow it.
BTW If you think that you can do a better converter,
then try to find a sponsor and just do it. I as chief of
a company wouldn´t want to sponsor you, instead
i´d use the same amount of money for retraining
my stuff, that pays much better in the long run...
Here's my two cents. Those who are signing the petition
don't want to do a little work to migrate their code,
and don't want to invest in their knowledge portfolio.
Too bad! This is the field that your are in; it's always
changing. At one point, I belive that was what attracted
you to this field. If it doesn't anymore, find a new
field of work.
"I'm not suggesting that there should be no
rewriting at all. But the claim that the migration
wizard can do 95% of the work is a sick joke. If it
could do 95% of the work, then adoption would have been
higher."
See? Now THAT sounds like the start of a REASONABLE
petition for Microsoft: More upgrade support. That'd
would perhaps get Microsoft working on something
realistic instead of VB.COM4Life.
Quote: "To accept that Microsoft can get away
without providing an upgrade path should be a worry to
you."
Hmmm, once upon a time there was no Microsoft and all
accross the land used to have to write their own
drivers, their own languages, their own updates in
machine code...
If you are really "that" bothered,
"you" pay the money out to upgrade it!
Build yourself a compiler to compile your code. It is
really quite simple. This is a product we are talking
about - how would you cope if Microsoft had of gone
belly up?!
Languages come and go what really sets a programmer
apart from the rest are those that learn the new
languages. If you need to upgrade your product to a new
version then you are most likely lazy. Want the cheapest
way to get at the better technologies. What you fail to
realise is that to get the better technologies you need
better languages to cope.
Even more ammusing is that you could actually upgrade in
stages as VB is COM and COM is support by .NET (with a
small time hit)
I can't believe no one jumped on the statements made
above about "If anything, as a programmer in a
new and untried language without any track record in
long-term stability, it would be in your interest for
the petition to succeed..." is a complete joke!
At my company, we have seen huge improvements in
reliability and robustness of the applications that we
are creating in VB.NET and ASP.NET over ASP, VB6, and
COM/COM+. Just handling maintenance on some of the old
applications is more costly than a refactor of the COM+
objects to .NET assemblies.
Untried? Long-term stability? <*cough*> I
have been using .NET since July 2000 when they handed
out the BETA at the PDC in Florida. The stuff in BETA
then was good enough for deployment (albeit with some
parts I wished had more work). After more than *FOUR*
years, how long do we need to wait to accept it as tried
and true?
If anything, Microsoft has devoted too many resources
and time worrying about the last service pack to Visual
Studio 6.0. Not many other companies would have spent
the time to build that last service pack after release
of a new version. How many of you still actively
maintain the code base for your released product two
major revisions behind the current one?
Newbie developers that I know also seem to find
development with .NET more consistent and
straightforward, but here my opinion may be slightly
biased since most of our applications are web based and
not windows applications.
If anything, the death of COM itself is long overdue...
that statement should light a flame of messages. Are you
guys going to go off and build COM4EVER.com? Yes,
someday web services will be passe.
Bottom line... each generation of software brings with
it capabilities and efficiencies that allow us to build
more complex systems with more functionality than the
previous because of the greater reliability and richness
of the base software. We no longer spend large amounts
of time languishing over sorting algorithms and putting
bytes into and out of packets. Instead we worry about
implementing business logic specific to our vertical
(business). Why hold a gun to their head and require
them to spend millions of dollars to support or
construct something that will satisfy the needs of
dozens of people, and at the same time propagate forward
a code base that needs refactoring anyway?
Is this the Jason Hamby that used to work with me ? If
so, drop me a line.
Hey Paul,
This petition is a joke...correct?
-Mathew Nolton
Hey Matthew:
You know as much about as do I if you have read it. I
don't have any insider information about it beyond that.
It doesn't look like a joke in any way, although I think
most signers are making a statement more than expecting
change.