MVP Award...
in [MFC]
|
Prev: CMenu class and menu object
Next: need some class help
From: Hector Santos on 23 Feb 2010 05:58 Giovanni Dicanio wrote: > "Ajay Kalra" <ajaykalra(a)yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > news:d7f80260-4e46-43fd-b8cb-b38cb3cb595e(a)o16g2000vbf.googlegroups.com... > >> Certainly. VB, even after almost a decade is still popular. > > Francesco Balena (an Italian VB guru) confirms what you wrote: > > http://www.vbmigration.com/Blog/post/2009/11/Programming-Visual-Basic-6-10-year-anniversary-edition.aspx > > > <cite> > In fact, I still receive royalties from this book, which is truly > unbeliavable given that Microsoft discontinued VB6 seven years ago. > </cite> > >> VB.Net is >> totally different animal and really has nothing to down with VB. They >> just called it VB.Net to attract those who fell for the name. > > You are right. > VB.NET has the complexity level similar to C# (i.e. more complex than > classic VB), but a VB-like syntax (i.e. If...End If, Sub...End Sub..., > etc.) > I would define VB.NET something like a C# in a VB-syntax. > The CLI is common to all .NET languages so its just a different high level language. I personally find C# an awkward language. The problem with .NET is that Microsoft has yet to "stabilize" it. Its a moving target and MS is not done yet with continued development of managed languages, and what adds to the problem is that the OS itself is a moving target with increase WIN32 backward compatibility problems. In addition, IMV, the complexity at many levels has sky-rocketed, especially in the area of security. What happens overall is that long term product development becomes very different to manage, cost increases and whats critical, at least for us, where we had a huge investment in marketing and packaging, we can no longer say "Runs on all WIN32 Compatible Windows Operating Systems." In all, its become a very expensive and more complex development and upkeep process under Windows. The good thing about .NET is that the CLI is common to all .NET languages, so this helps to single source application development on the OS itself. Here are some other subtle things that I personally had issues with: - Visual Studio "Spyware" behavior In my view, MS made a major mistake to add what is basically spyware and monitor in the IDE. I was totally flabbergasted to see how it called home and loaded the "Support Network" when you start the IDE. I found this utterly EHTHICAL and completely mind blogging that someone at MS allowed this to happen. This was obviously a decision made based on the new GENERATION who have no feel for privacy and have a mindset that its OK to "Share" and be connected like this. It wasn't even an OPT-IN for god sake. I ended up deleting the "optional" DLL that does this. The propensity for BI (Business Intelligence) is growing with all vendors, unfortunately its done by default. I can't see enough how MS adding this to VS really hurt my confidence in MS. If I have to blame someone, I blame Ray Ozzie. Adding Shared networking for a Development tool? Its unexcusable and I really wonder how much realize how negative this is for their developer customer base in all segments. I wonder if people apathy is part of the problem. I do recall people are first were complaining but unfortunately its short window, and MS just has to wait until the complaining stops. Maybe at first, networking developers for a NEW system where people need help has some justification, but its really just a bad idea to do this. Do it separately in a different Support tool - not in the IDE! - MSDN help SUCKS! Again, the propensity to network users, made this problem bad. Now you had to be connected to the net some how. Old fashion API reference HELP is desired. I got the sense MS did provide MSDN like the old way, but I never pursue this to see. - Lack of Migration for established ISV product lines Microsoft did not help migration with lack of Class Wizard support for MFC. This itself instantly put VS 2005 development on the back burner for us. There was no need to upgrade to 2008. Now, I heard VS2010 is the "new VC6" and whether that is just marketing or not, it did keep my interest to update to 2010 but not if its doesn't support MFC development for our flag ship product lines. I did see the PDC video and it looks like it does support MFC so I am anticipating getting 2010. So its not that we didn't want to us the newer VS, but MS forced our hand to continue to use VS98. We really didn't have any choice. Porting MFC applications is out of the question. We are not going to lose the millions of dollars of development for NO REASON other than someone wants to change how things are done with the SAME end results but with higher overhead, technically slower (since its managed) and with a higher burden on distribution. - Missing Technology, Methods While the .NET library is very very very rich, it did have some missing features that is powerful in C/C++ WIN32 development. Off hand, the lack of memory map support didn't help us. I understand the ..NET 4.0 finally added supports for memory maps. This itself should help large data I/O application development under .NET languages. -- HLS
From: Cholo Lennon on 23 Feb 2010 08:07 Ajay Kalra wrote: > On Feb 22, 5:36 pm, Joseph M. Newcomer <newco...(a)flounder.com> wrote: >> Microsoft VB developers were once numbered 2,000,000 compared to VC++ 700,000. > > This is how I remember it. Although numbers I had was 700K vs > 1.4million. Regdless, it was clearly VB over C++. > This is confusing... Are we talking about VC++ or C++? It's not the same thing... > >> But several things have changed that, including internationalized markets in which VC++ is >> more popular, and the continuing non-MS C++ developers. > > I would have really expected it to go the other way, especially with > the advent of .Net. > > -- > Ajay -- Cholo Lennon Bs.As. ARG
From: Giovanni Dicanio on 23 Feb 2010 10:05 "Hector Santos" <sant9442(a)nospam.gmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:ePsgBdHtKHA.732(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > The CLI is common to all .NET languages so its just a different high level > language. I personally find C# an awkward language. I think that for a programmer with C/C++/Java background, the C# syntax seems more natural than the VB.NET syntax (at least, this is my feeling). Giovanni
From: Joseph M. Newcomer on 23 Feb 2010 11:23 For the 2M vs 700K, it was VB vs. VC++. For the overall popularity of C++ over all other languages, it is all C++ (including gcc, Microsoft's VC++, Intel's C++, etc.) compilers vs. all other languages from all other vendors. joe On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:07:17 -0300, Cholo Lennon <chololennon(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >Ajay Kalra wrote: >> On Feb 22, 5:36 pm, Joseph M. Newcomer <newco...(a)flounder.com> wrote: >>> Microsoft VB developers were once numbered 2,000,000 compared to VC++ 700,000. >> >> This is how I remember it. Although numbers I had was 700K vs >> 1.4million. Regdless, it was clearly VB over C++. >> > >This is confusing... Are we talking about VC++ or C++? It's not the same >thing... > >> >>> But several things have changed that, including internationalized markets in which VC++ is >>> more popular, and the continuing non-MS C++ developers. >> >> I would have really expected it to go the other way, especially with >> the advent of .Net. >> >> -- >> Ajay Joseph M. Newcomer [MVP] email: newcomer(a)flounder.com Web: http://www.flounder.com MVP Tips: http://www.flounder.com/mvp_tips.htm
From: Ajay Kalra on 23 Feb 2010 11:30
On Feb 23, 4:24 am, "Giovanni Dicanio" <giovanniDOTdica...(a)REMOVEMEgmail.com> wrote: > "Ajay Kalra" <ajayka...(a)yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggionews:d7f80260-4e46-43fd-b8cb-b38cb3cb595e(a)o16g2000vbf.googlegroups.com... > > > Certainly. VB, even after almost a decade is still popular. > > Francesco Balena (an Italian VB guru) confirms what you wrote: > > http://www.vbmigration.com/Blog/post/2009/11/Programming-Visual-Basic... > > <cite> > In fact, I still receive royalties from this book, which is truly > unbeliavable given that Microsoft discontinued VB6 seven years ago. > </cite> > > > VB.Net is > > totally different animal and really has nothing to down with VB. They > > just called it VB.Net to attract those who fell for the name. > > You are right. > VB.NET has the complexity level similar to C# (i.e. more complex than > classic VB), but a VB-like syntax (i.e. If...End If, Sub...End Sub..., etc.) > I would define VB.NET something like a C# in a VB-syntax. MSFT didnt need VB.Net. C# was enough. They had to give a carrot to VB crowd which turned out to be useless as core VB crowd couldnt really care less about .Net. Those guys are much worse than native C++ vs managed crowd :-) -- Ajay |