|
Christian Graus wrote:
Garbage. The truth is that versions of .NET runtime can live side by side, and run side by side. I can still write code for .NET 1.0 and my client can have the 1.0, 1.1, 1.2 and 2.5 runtimes intalled, no problems.
I recommend the Richter book on the .NET framework, it explains all of this.
Your reference is your books. My reference is the blocking message boxes I see in front of me.
.config files can help. But the end-user experience prevails. Thanks.
Hope the future tells those message boxes were just an imagination of me...
Back to real work : D-19.
|
|
|
|
|
.S.Rod. wrote:
Your reference is your books. My reference is the blocking message boxes I see in front of me.
I'm sorry, but if Richter says it works, and you say it's not working for you, then as far as I'm concerned, you're doing it wrong. We're not just talking any writer here, the man has earned the right for me to presume he is right.
Christian
No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002
Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002
During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Graus wrote:
I'm sorry, but if Richter says it works, and you say it's not working for you, then as far as I'm concerned, you're doing it wrong. We're not just talking any writer here, the man has earned the right for me to presume he is right.
I have mentioned .config files, I guess this says it all.
Leave Richter where he is.
I am saying the configuration required to make sure a .NET application works on end-user machines is by far as buggy and fuzzy as were the former MS run-times. As long as you can't afford a full-time employee testing all possible environments, you'll end up with applications popping a message box (GPF, simple error, ...). That said, I am customer obsessed, and as such I don't care that MS marketing saying developers that : Oh you are a f***, the latest PDC showed developers how to handle that issue, you'd better attend it next time.
In addition, you can't have been testing VB.NET apps. Do you know that some required interop assemblies are not installed by the .NET run-time : you'll have to install them by hand ?
Back to real work : D-19.
|
|
|
|
|
.S.Rod. wrote:
As long as you can't afford a full-time employee testing all possible environments, you'll end up with applications popping a message box (GPF, simple error, ...
I don't believe ANY environment requires a full time employee testing every possible configuration. Anyone who doesn't do SOME testing obviously hates their customer though.
.S.Rod. wrote:
In addition, you can't have been testing VB.NET apps. Do you know that some required interop assemblies are not installed by the .NET run-time : you'll have to install them by hand ?
It's pretty clear that MS is shooting the old nag that is VB. They had no need for C# excepting that the VB name is beyond redemption, it will always be associated with bad progams and bad programmers.
Christian
No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002
Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002
During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Graus wrote:
I don't believe ANY environment requires a full time employee testing every possible configuration. Anyone who doesn't do SOME testing obviously hates their customer though.
The environment you mention is standard QA procedure where I work. We have vmWare, a library of images for every MS OS, in every language, with every permutation of IE, OE and/or Office, and every QA-released build we do gets tested against this library. As our product is internationally distributed, it is the only way to go.
But generally, every place I've worked at so far had a somewhat similar setup -- at the very least, we'd test English 98, ME, 2K, XP.
As far as full time employee testing this... yes, it's called a QA engineer... that's why they get paid the big bucks to click on those buttons.
Christian Graus wrote:
It's pretty clear that MS is shooting the old nag that is VB. They had no need for C# excepting that the VB name is beyond redemption, it will always be associated with bad progams and bad programmers.
Actually I thought MS was shooting the old nag that was Java?
----------------------------------------
----I said my name wasn't important
---------------------------SlartiBartFast
|
|
|
|
|
Eugene Polonsky wrote:
Actually I thought MS was shooting the old nag that was Java?
That one isn't theirs to shoot. But you're right, the other reason for C# is to annoy Scott McNealy.
Christian
No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002
Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002
During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
|
|
|
|
|
I am quite delighted to see at last someone from a real software company underlines the simple yet often underestimated testing and redistribution issues.
I know nobody should ever trust the so-called senior software developers here in Codeproject, claiming there is almost no need to test applications, and your answer comforts my feelings about the actual lack of value of Codeproject when it comes to real world issues.
Back to real work : D-19.
|
|
|
|
|
.S.Rod. wrote:
and your answer comforts my feelings about the actual lack of value of Codeproject when it comes to real world issues.
Why wastin' your time than?
Cheers
Martin
PS: I know if you don't have to say anything constructive you should shut up, but I couldn't resist....
"Situation normal - all fu***d up"
Illuminatus!
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Graus wrote:
They had no need for C# excepting that the VB name is beyond redemption, it will always be associated with bad progams and bad programmers.
All right, Christian, I've always respected you for being a man with a lot of knowledge, which you are. But this hatred for VB is getting old, and while I can understand your devotion to C++ (it's a fantastic language, after all), the above comment insults anyone who programs in VB, by choice or not. As I've mentioned before, I myself am a programmer who works with VB AND C++, so I know the strengths and weaknesses of both languages. I also know how to program using proper object orientated methods. It's never been about the language you choose to write with. I've seen some pretty shi**y, poorly written C++ programs. It's about HOW you program. Did prior versions of VB allow for easier, and frankly sloppy coding? Absolutely. But blame the lazy programmer for not taking the time to learn how the language works, and how to make it work effectively, not the language itself. Again, you can screw up a C/C++ program just as easily as a VB program. OK, maybe not as easily, but it's certainly doable.
VB.NET is a HUGE improvement over prior versions, and between it finally beeing an OOP language, and everything being strictly typed, it really is no longer the "toy" language that it used to be.
Jamie Nordmeyer
Portland, Oregon, USA
|
|
|
|
|
Jamie Nordmeyer wrote:
the above comment insults anyone who programs in VB, by choice or not.
That is so only if you choose to read it that way. If that were my intent, I would be insulting myself.
Jamie Nordmeyer wrote:
As I've mentioned before, I myself am a programmer who works with VB AND C++
Take a number. I don't use VB much, but I *do* have to use it. I use VBScript a LOT.
Jamie Nordmeyer wrote:
I also know how to program using proper object orientated methods.
Funny you mention that, a workmate did a .NET course recently, and all the VB programmers who attended the course ( everyone there bar him ) could not understand why you would want to do that, ever. Or did I already tell that story, thus eliciting this response ? In either case, I think you're missing my point. Far more code is written in VB than C++, but who runs it ? How much of the code you buy/run is VB ? Close to none. Like the sig says, VB has made it easy for idiots to code. I have never claimed that all VB programmers are idiots, and my comment about the name being beyond redeption is easy to prove. How many different people have I quoted making negative comments about VB ? How much CRAP code is available to download on the web in VB ? How much VB code has been the nucleus of a successful commerical product ? I have no doubt that it's possible to write good apps if they are of a generic nature in VB, especially VB.NET ( hell, with the CLR I doubt there is any difference between C# and VB.NET byte code ), but that's not my point. My point is too many bad programmers have muddied the NAME of VB, hence the need for a new language if Microsoft are to be taken seriously.
Jamie Nordmeyer wrote:
It's never been about the language you choose to write with.
Yes, it is, to a degree. Otherwise why have VB, C#, C++ at all ? Why not code in C ? Or assembler ?
Jamie Nordmeyer wrote:
I've seen some pretty shi**y, poorly written C++ programs.
Hell, I've written some.
Jamie Nordmeyer wrote:
It's about HOW you program. Did prior versions of VB allow for easier, and frankly sloppy coding? Absolutely. But blame the lazy programmer for not taking the time to learn how the language works, and how to make it work effectively, not the language itself.
The core problem is this. If I start programming and I ask 'whats the most powerful language, the one that will give me everything I need to write quality Windows programs', the answer is C++. If I ask 'whats the easiest language to learn, the one that requires me to think the least', the answer is VB. By and large, as yourself what sort of person is likely to ask either of those questions.
Jamie Nordmeyer wrote:
VB.NET is a HUGE improvement over prior versions, and between it finally beeing an OOP language, and everything being strictly typed, it really is no longer the "toy" language that it used to be.
So that brings us full circle. There is no doubt you can do pretty much the same job in VB.NET and C#. So why do we have C# ? Because VB has always been a toy language, as you say, and the name is now beyond redemption, right or wrong there will always be people who won't take anything seriously if it's written in VB.
Christian
No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002
Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002
During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Graus wrote:
My point is too many bad programmers have muddied the NAME of VB
OK, excellent point, and I agree. More code is written in Visual Basic, yet most of the professional apps on the market are written in C++, because the quality of code tends to be much better in the C++ written apps. But there are a lot of people out there that will completely shun something (take racism, for example) before they've really taken the time to understand it. It sounds as though you have. Many haven't, and thus, the source of my frustration with this whole VB vs. C++ war.
Christian Graus wrote:
So why do we have C# ? Because VB has always been a toy language, as you say, and the name is now beyond redemption, right or wrong there will always be people who won't take anything seriously if it's written in VB.
Maybe they should have just given it a new name. B#? (Basic Sharp?) Um. Maybe not.
Christian Graus wrote:
Funny you mention that, a workmate did a .NET course recently, and all the VB programmers who attended the course ( everyone there bar him ) could not understand why you would want to do that, ever. Or did I already tell that story
I'm afraid I missed this one. Do you have a link to it on CodeProject, if it's in here? Sounds like a funny read.
Jamie Nordmeyer
Portland, Oregon, USA
|
|
|
|
|
Jamie Nordmeyer wrote:
I'm afraid I missed this one.
That's pretty much the gist of it, anyhow.
Jamie Nordmeyer wrote:
Many haven't, and thus, the source of my frustration with this whole VB vs. C++ war.
Although I do complain about VB often enough, in this case it seems you agree with what I was saying, no matter how good VB becomes, it's beyond being marketable because of the perception that goes with it.
Christian
No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002
Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002
Again, you can screw up a C/C++ program just as easily as a VB program. OK, maybe not as easily, but it's certainly doable. - Jamie Nordmeyer - 15-Nov-2002
|
|
|
|
|
I'm honored to have been included in a sig.
Yeah, the clout is there, I definately cannot, and will not, argue that. Thanks for a great debate.
Jamie Nordmeyer
Portland, Oregon, USA
|
|
|
|
|
Jamie Nordmeyer wrote:
I'm honored to have been included in a sig.
I know it's not your first, I've quoted you before.
Christian
No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002
Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002
Again, you can screw up a C/C++ program just as easily as a VB program. OK, maybe not as easily, but it's certainly doable. - Jamie Nordmeyer - 15-Nov-2002
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Graus wrote:
it will always be associated with bad progams and bad programmers
You told the truth now!
Rickard Andersson@Suza Computing
C# and C++ programmer from SWEDEN!
UIN: 50302279
E-Mail: nikado@pc.nu
Speciality: I love C#, ASP.NET and C++!
|
|
|
|
|
Does this mean that those of us using VS .NET 2002 will have to pay for VS .NET 2003 in order to get bug fixes?
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
According to the Technology Roadmap MS has published Everett will be available to those who purchased VS.NET 2002 for $29. For those not wanting to pay an SP will be published containing the bug fixes shortly afterwards.
James
- out of order -
|
|
|
|
|
So there won't be a full new version, just a service pack ?
Christian
No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002
Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002
During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
|
|
|
|
|
Everett = VS.NET 2003 = new version = $29
VS.NET 2002 SP1 = the bug fixes from Everett but not the new features = just a service pack = $0
-Domenic Denicola- [CPUA 0x1337]
“I was born human. But this was an accident of fate—a condition merely of time and place. I believe it's something we have the power to change…”
|
|
|
|
|
So does that mean they will sell Everett as the only full price new version, but also as anupgrade for $29 ? Will all versions have the upgrade ( even Academic ) ?
Christian
No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002
Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002
During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
|
|
|
|
|
Academic, I don't known , but
and that owners of Visual Studio .NET will be able to upgrade for $29 (to cover the cost of media, postage and handling).
I have VS.NET Professional, and this price is unbeatable
Cheers,Joao Vaz
And if your dream is to care for your family, to put food on the table, to provide them with an education and a good home, then maybe suffering through an endless, pointless, boring job will seem to have purpose. And you will realize how even a rock can change the world, simply by remaining obstinately stationary.-Shog9
Remember just because a good thing comes to an end, doesn't mean that the next one can't be better.-Chris Meech
|
|
|
|
|
Joao Vaz wrote:
Academic, I don't known , but
I hope academic, too!
Please MS, please....
Cheers
Martin
"Situation normal - all fu***d up"
Illuminatus!
|
|
|
|
|
Martin Häsemeyer wrote:
I hope academic, too!
Please MS, please....
Lol, Yeah , it will nice for the academics , and yes I think that is fair enough that academic version should have the option to upgrade to Everett.
Joao Vaz for President (hint,hint ...)
Cheers,Joao Vaz
And if your dream is to care for your family, to put food on the table, to provide them with an education and a good home, then maybe suffering through an endless, pointless, boring job will seem to have purpose. And you will realize how even a rock can change the world, simply by remaining obstinately stationary.-Shog9
Remember just because a good thing comes to an end, doesn't mean that the next one can't be better.-Chris Meech
|
|
|
|
|
Of course, like a lot of other developers I am in hunger to know what Everett provides me, but I don't like this PR. It hides the most obvious things people upgrading to Everett will suffer from in a couple of months.
Again, enforcing C++ standard where it's more and more to the 100% theoretical limit point is fine, even if it should have been done a several years ago already (Outlook 11 to be released next year will block ruled html emails : I am so delighted to hear that it requires 11 major releases before they get any clue about what's going on...).
What makes me angry is that, already with VS.NET 1.0, MS has changed the prototypes of a lot of MFC/ATL class methods without notice, with the result that the code does not compile without significant API maintenance changes (WHICH IS A LOT OF MONEY).
Here is a straight forward example :
The CStringArray::GetAt accessor is defined as :
in VC6, CString GetAt(int nIndex) const;
in VC7, const CString& GetAt(INT_PTR nIndex) const;
Obviously, with such change, I can't do what I did earlier, hence my code has to change, may be the API has to change, ...
What I'd like to see, whenever MS paves the way for standard enforcement (which already in itself is a total contradiction, since MS enforces their own standards, not others), is tools bundled with upgrade wizards to do exactly this work. I believe it is an insult to leave the developer with a new tool, and no user-friendly "versioning" tool at all.
May be that's a rant, and all these tools do exist, but I don't want to have to subscribe MSDN Universal, buy 20 books, and be involved in all MS conferences just to know that.
Back to real work : D-21.
|
|
|
|
|
.S.Rod. wrote:
The CStringArray::GetAt accessor is defined as :
in VC6, CString GetAt(int nIndex) const;
in VC7, const CString& GetAt(INT_PTR nIndex) const;
My goodness. Why on earth are they maintaining this code ? Surely these classes remain just a stepping stone before people find out about STL ?
.S.Rod. wrote:
which already in itself is a total contradiction, since MS enforces their own standards, not others
Another good reason to prefer standard C++ and use only Microsoft specific code when there is a reason to.
Christian
No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002
Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002
During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
|
|
|
|
|