Vulcan .Net and VO 2.8
in [Visual Objects]
|
From: Patrick Vletter (Prive) on 22 Sep 2006 14:00 Ed, > I sure am enjoying myself here ;-) Good to hear that! > I'm not convinced the editor and vss alone will justifiy it for us here > we'll see. There is more than just that, but of course this is up to you to decide. It will be funny to say to you and Geoff that they have to upgrade to the latest version though<g>... Patrick
From: Geoff Schaller on 22 Sep 2006 21:39 Ginny, I am not suggesting it wouldn't but whether this might be the common trend or not could be the issue. I see several application environment scenarios that would require a different outlook: (1) - Application Factories Apps that actively use code chunks and classes to construct a variable executable outcome would certainly need wholesale conversion. Of that there is no dispute from me but I do not think this is the majority style amongst VO'ers. They do tend to be substantial users in the VO community and therefore have an important influence but I expect Vulcan might be a reasonable choice because they are locked into VO intricacies. (2) - Dynamic Executables Apps that continually undergo change or adaptation may certainly need to be migrated or benefit from migration if there is a substantial effort in continual redesign. However, if change is fast enough, it may be that a dual development plan is possible thus mitigating the need for wholesale migration. I do know of quite a few VO companies in this category, including ourselves. The whole migration process needs careful thought but Vulcan offers nothing much over C# because there is little point sharing code or libraries. Our solution therefore does not need Vulcan but we will, as I have promised, review it in case it does. (3) - Utility apps and box products If the utility works then migration is simply not on the radar and doesn't have to be. Unless a facelift is wanted, new features can easily be grafted on without migrating the underlying code. For those unwilling to investigate C# or VB, Vulcan may be the perfect answer but for the smaller player, this could be an expensive step. It also potentially isolates them from the wider Dot net community if they don't engage one of the key Dot net languages. I am not suggesting exclusivity here but inclusion. To me, this is a balanced approach. I am totally sceptical that Vulcan will migrate large applications conveniently or easily but I am aware that certain scenarios would adapt to the Vulcan model quite well. I am perhaps more sceptical than ever that GrafX will support Vulcan adequately and this colours my attitude. I am willing to discuss my scepticism if anyone wishes to engage me in an honest and open debate otherwise I will leave it at that. I hope this satisfies Juergen and others about my intentions and style. Geoff "Ginny Caughey" <ginny.caughey.online(a)wasteworks.com> wrote in message news:4nhv2oFagmh9U1(a)individual.net: > Geoff, > > I agree that rewriting a big app is very expensive, and I don't plan to do > that either. But migrating an entire big app to .NET makes sense to me > rather than always having legacy code and runtimes I'm dependent on. > > -- > Ginny > > > "Geoff Schaller" <geoff(a)xxxsoftwareobjectives.com.au> wrote in message > news:45139175(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au... > > > We consider a re-write too expensive. And in practical terms, it will > > never happen. We have 4 major platforms and each has about 200,000 unique > > lines of code. Most of the functionality is stable so integration with new > > stuff is my only concern and we are achieving that quite nicely. > > > > "Patrick Vletter (Prive)" <NoWay(a)spam.org> wrote in message > > news:45131323$0$10943$e4fe514c(a)dreader30.news.xs4all.nl: > > > > >> Hi Ginny, > >> > >> I know that Geoff has said that, but i would like to know HOW he plans to > >> do > >> this in a way that is beneficial compared to a total rewrite or any other > >> VO32-> .NET conversion (like the VO->Vulcan conversion we plan). > >> As long as the discussion stays away from Grafx-, Brian-, Robert-, Don-, > >> VO- > >> or whatever bashing I'll be happy to participate... > >> Hopefully you will be too...<g> > >> > >> CU > >> > >> Patrick > > >
From: Geoff Schaller on 22 Sep 2006 21:40 Now you are being insulting. "Ginny Caughey" <ginny.caughey.online(a)wasteworks.com> wrote in message news:4nhv0jF725qtU1(a)individual.net: > Geoff, > > It was a real question since you apparently don't understand how it works. > > -- > Ginny
From: Geoff Schaller on 22 Sep 2006 21:49 Gee Eric, you have now stepped into the bounds of the ridiculous. You've asked for evidence - I will give you some. Graham has been in business since you were in nappies. You could easily google him out and find out how long he has been involved in the computer business. You could ask almost any Australian (Paul Piko, Duncan McIntosh, Gary Stark, me, Phil McGuiness... just to name the noisy ones) and we could tell you about his history back to the Clipper days. His business was instrumental in managing Clipper into mainstream in Australia and he has supported user groups 100 times the size of yours and many times the size of SDGN. Since then he has been involved in several substantial VO projects and now with hand held devices. These apps have been demonstrated publicly to user groups, VO conferences and at trade stands. Take him seriously. > That is not what i am saying and of course you know that, but it is more > convient for you to try to ridicule my point that answering the question. > But if that is what you want, i can ask the question different. You (might) > know on the internet everybody can have the identity he chooses. You can say > you are a softwaredeveloper voor 40 years, but is there any easy way to > prove that is correct? Or can you show you have ever contributed somethnig > else than your negative moaning? Cause if you do, i could take you a little > more serious in what you are trying to tel us, than i do right now. > > Erik
From: Ginny Caughey on 23 Sep 2006 09:30
Geoff, > Apps that continually undergo change or adaptation may certainly need to > be migrated or benefit from migration if there is a substantial effort in > continual redesign. This is exactly where my major apps fall, and I suspect that this is true for many vertical market apps like mine. So perhaps now you understand why Vulcan is so important to me. I've been working in C# for 5 years now, so it's not that I don't like C#. I can't think of any sessions I've presented at VO conferences in the last several years that didn't have some C# samples! However, if change is fast enough, it may be that > a dual development plan is possible thus mitigating the need for wholesale > migration. This is simply not an option without adding more staff and much more expense. I know because I maintained dual development paths while I was working on my SQL version, and it was very tough to find enough hours in the day to do all that. I also introduced new bugs even though I was migrating from VO to VO, so a total rewrite while maintaining an old version would entail even more risk of this. In the end, the SQL version took a lot longer than I planned. If skilled developers were readily available and cheap, and if I didn't have spend a lot of time supervising them, then perhaps I would see things differently, but in the US skilled developers are hard to find and expensive, and you still have to manage the development process. I do know of quite a few VO companies in this > category, including ourselves. The whole migration process needs careful > thought but Vulcan offers nothing much over C# because there is little > point sharing code or libraries. I don't see the point of sharing code libraries between Vulcan and VO either, but what Vulcan offers over C# is the ability to quickly get a lot of code into .NET, thus greatly shortening the dual development effort. Our solution therefore does not need > Vulcan but we will, as I have promised, review it in case it does. I certainly think you should and believe that you will. It's just good business. > If the utility works then migration is simply not on the radar and doesn't > have to be. Actually this is an area where I am writing more code in C# than in VO. > that certain scenarios would adapt to the Vulcan model quite well. I am > perhaps more sceptical than ever that GrafX will support Vulcan adequately > and this colours my attitude. I think any of us who are honest with ourselves have to be concerned with VO's history, even though the current VOPS build I'm using is very, very stable. This is one of the reasons that I'm very keen to move my apps to Vulcan, because moving a Vulcan app to C#, should I choose to do that, is quite simple. I routinely show that at conferences, and I can't think of a better insurance policy for my valuable legacy code. Ginny |