Vulcan .Net and VO 2.8 - yeah right....
in [Visual Objects]
|
From: Geoff Schaller on 3 Oct 2006 22:40 I don't understand your point Phil. (Graham and I aren't pushing any code.) Are you suggesting that learning the framework is not useful or necessary? "Sherlock" <sherlock(a)sherlock.com.au> wrote in message news:1159922257.014058.243950(a)h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com: > Geoff > > The issue of .NET is an object model wrapper around the WINAPI and an > MSIL allows you to intermix other languages libraries. So VULCAN has > the VisualStudio IDE and all the .NET code and libraries that exist. > > Therefore VULCAN code which Graham and you push does more with less > code is going to be fine. > > snip[ Vulcan is thoroughly aimed at folks who don't want to learn the > framework and its very > > > existence encourages that thinking.] > > > It is a .NET language which operates using the framework so how can > anybody using not learn the framework ? > -- > snip[ And you keep glossing over the resource issue. The stuff for C# > out there (samples, tutorials, books, forums, 3rd party tools and > libs) is just enormous. Vulcan will never match this, never ever ] > > It does not have to..... you can call and use it from VULCAN anyway. > -- > snip[ For VO (and obviously Vulcan), I would have to train them. This > won't worry the individual or contractor but it is of concern to the > workshop. ] > > If I was trained by Geoff this would worry me too.. <BG> > > Phil McGuinness
From: Graham McKechnie on 3 Oct 2006 23:29 Geoff, I'm glad you made some sense about what Phil was on about in his message, because I had no idea. He had a point to make?? I thought he may have been testing his spelling and grammar checker and pressed the wrong button. Graham "Geoff Schaller" <geoff(a)xxxsoftwareobjectives.com.au> wrote in message news:45231f2b$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au... >I don't understand your point Phil. > (Graham and I aren't pushing any code.) > > Are you suggesting that learning the framework is not useful or necessary? > > > > > "Sherlock" <sherlock(a)sherlock.com.au> wrote in message > news:1159922257.014058.243950(a)h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com: > >> Geoff >> >> The issue of .NET is an object model wrapper around the WINAPI and an >> MSIL allows you to intermix other languages libraries. So VULCAN has >> the VisualStudio IDE and all the .NET code and libraries that exist. >> >> Therefore VULCAN code which Graham and you push does more with less >> code is going to be fine. >> >> snip[ Vulcan is thoroughly aimed at folks who don't want to learn the >> framework and its very >> >> > existence encourages that thinking.] >> >> >> It is a .NET language which operates using the framework so how can >> anybody using not learn the framework ? >> -- >> snip[ And you keep glossing over the resource issue. The stuff for C# >> out there (samples, tutorials, books, forums, 3rd party tools and >> libs) is just enormous. Vulcan will never match this, never ever ] >> >> It does not have to..... you can call and use it from VULCAN anyway. >> -- >> snip[ For VO (and obviously Vulcan), I would have to train them. This >> won't worry the individual or contractor but it is of concern to the >> workshop. ] >> >> If I was trained by Geoff this would worry me too.. <BG> >> >> Phil McGuinness >
From: Ron Polak on 4 Oct 2006 00:40 Hey Grum > Is there a point to all this fluff - Is PHP your favourite term this > month? - more garbage Phil. Are you knocking php? <g>
From: Graham McKechnie on 4 Oct 2006 01:56 Ginny, >>So although that wasn't my choice or yours, I think better late than never >>is the right attitude. Yes, but I'd hate to be starting now, that's a lot of catch up. >They'll love .NET and Visual Studio once they're into it, and they won't >find learning the Framework hard at all - they'll just learn what they need >as they need it. I'm sure they will too, as long as don't waste anymore time looking for a dream. > Although I do hope that 2.8 is the last version of VO that I use, I have > it on good authority that it will not be the last version that Grafx > produces. Maybe it will be like Clipper 5.3... Well that will make Geoff happy if VO development continues. I guess Phils out of the loop these days re Brian and Grafx and the latest info then<g> >They would be better Vulcan developers if they know C# though. Well, I think, that is the way it is going to work anyway - but that's double the work. > Some VO developers are hoping they can retire before they have to make a > decision, I suppose there is a fair chance of that happening, considering the speed at which things happen around here. Surely you're not ready to hit the golf course full time yet - have they put it back together for you yet? Graham "Ginny Caughey" <ginny.caughey.online(a)wasteworks.com> wrote in message news:4ogiu4Fee53hU1(a)individual.net... > Graham, > >> Yeh, but that was four years ago. We've had the luxury of time to digest >> two versions of the framework - these guys here don't have that luxury >> anymore. They have left it far too late, despite all the warnings from >> you and others etc.. believing that VO or Vulcan would save the day. > > I don't think the later adapters really felt any need for .NET until > perhaps recently, and during those four or more years the framework has > matured a bit and Visual Studio has matured a lot. So although that wasn't > my choice or yours, I think better late than never is the right attitude. > >> From my point of view, I can't see Vulcan being of any use to a VOer >> looking to move to .Net because they are screwed on day 1 because they >> have no knowledge of the framework. Ironically, the only people, I can >> see that would benefit from Vulcan are guys like you and me - we did our >> homework<g> > > People who do their homework always have an advantage, but I can't imagine > which VOer you might be thinking of that is screwed because he didn't > bother to learn something new. I see VO developers at conferences several > times a year - I see some at Microsoft conferences too - and they're all > there to learn new things. From my point of view, if they could learn to > produce great apps using VO 1, or even VO 2, they're some of the most > resourceful developers in the world. They'll love .NET and Visual Studio > once they're into it, and they won't find learning the Framework hard at > all - they'll just learn what they need as they need it. > >> Well you can count me out, because I certainly don't need it anymore, but >> I can see the advantage to you, because you do already know the >> framework. I can also partially understand why you don't want to convert >> your apps to C# directly. I didn't share your concern re rewriting my >> apps and saw a rewrite as the correct decision at the time. I also >> wasn't prepared to wait for some unknown product that still doesn't >> exist. > > Understood. It's not an emotional decision for me - it's a business one, > as perhaps you understand now. You made a business decision too I assume. > >> I'd also accept, you can probably justify your case in waiting - doing it >> on the drip just may work out well for you, but I'd bet you would have >> preferred to have started just a touch earlier and from what you said >> yesterday re wanting it all in the same solution, I presume you and the >> other "exclusive club" members are still waiting and therefore Vulcan is >> going to be a long time off yet. > > On the one hand it would have been nice to move everything to .NET sooner, > but on the other I feel fortunate that my business continues to keep me so > busy. It's no secret that Vulcan isn't released yet, but I don't think > it's "a long time off". It's not of critical importance to me when Vulcan > is released though as long as Grafx gets it right. I just need it > eventually. Whatever I've needed in .NET already, I've done in C#. > >> and of course we all now know 2.8, when it eventually arrives will be the >> last version of VO as uncle Phil annouced a few days back > > Although I do hope that 2.8 is the last version of VO that I use, I have > it on good authority that it will not be the last version that Grafx > produces. Maybe it will be like Clipper 5.3... > >> You surely wouldn't argue that they should learn C#, so that they can >> convert their code to Vulcan, but in effect that is what they will have >> to do just to use Vulcan. I got yelled at for using the word "insane" a >> couple of weeks ago, but its shrieking out at me again. > > Nope, they don't have to learn C# to use Vulcan. They would be better > Vulcan developers if they know C# though. Similarly spending time with > Petzold and working some in C made me a better VO developer. Perhaps the > same was true for you and others as well, and I don't think that's insane > at all. > >> More and more developers are going to come to the same conclusion that >> Craig did. > > I don't think we'd be having this discussion if that were really the case. > Some VO developers are hoping they can retire before they have to make a > decision, and many more expectVulcan to ease the path for them when > they're ready. A few like you have actually rewritten VO apps in C# (and > I've rewritten a couple of smaller ones myself which is part of the reason > I'm not doing more of it), but not many people are rewriting big ones that > I'm aware of. If you're busy with other work, there just isn't the > business justification. > > Ginny > > >
From: Geoff Schaller on 4 Oct 2006 02:19
Ginny, > Although I do hope that 2.8 is the last version of VO that I use, I have it > on good authority that it will not be the last version that Grafx produces. > Maybe it will be like Clipper 5.3... Interesting. Ok, Phil's misinformation aside, it was Brian who made the announcement to the VOPS forum that VO 2.8 was likely to be the last version for pure VO. Mind you he also simultaneously announce that the VOPS would not receive any more VO32 builds before the end of the year and we all saw how wrong that one was <g>. So the premise that VO is dead did come from Brian. Misinterpretation or not, it got the tongues wagging and that is not a good thing. That you have information to the contrary again jettisons you to the forefront of GrafX policy and information release and one wonders (again) why Brian feels a need to keep such important information secret. You seem to feel sufficiently confident it is true but you are not GrafX. Can you see the mixed signals here? Can you see why people lose confidence in Brian when they see information release being conducted by authorised leak? It gives you the impression that this allows Brian to change his mind and then claim he never said it anyway. So, if VO is to continue active evolution beyond 2.8 (and not just fix releases), I'd like to see some official confirmation of the fact. It would alter my attitude substantially. On the other hand, 18 months between drinks is as good as no drinks... Geoff |