Title Image

Don Xml's Grok This

The home of Don Demsak
Welcome to Don Xml's Grok This Sign in | Help
in Search

This Blog

Syndication

Site Sponsors

DonXml's All Things Techie

VB6’ers Need a Hug (Well That And Maybe To Learn COBOL)

Well you got to feel sorry for those that can’t accept that a love one is dying.  No matter how much voodoo they try, they are not going to revive the body.  COM was fundamentally flawed and Don Box published an article on that topic in MSDN Mag back in Dec. of 2000 and his final paragraph says it all:

So, Is COM Dead?
As this column has shown, the CLR provides significant benefits to developers who are using COM today. Virtually all aspects of the COM programming model have survived (interfaces, classes, attributes, context, and so on). Some may consider COM dead simply because CLR objects don't rely on IUnknown-compliant vptrs/vtbls. I look at the CLR as breathing new life into the programming model that I've spent the last seven years of my life working with, and I know there are other programmers out there who share this sentiment.

Well, it’s been 4 years since that article, and the grieving period should be over, and they should get on with their lives.  If you want to stick with something that doesn’t change, go learn Mainframe COBOL.

But, there are some parts of the VB6 Petition that I do (sort of) agree with.  Microsoft has not come forward with a public strategy on a replacement scripting language for .Net (and especially XAML).  That is what I see as the underlying issue behind the problem.  Microsoft does not have a replacement for the VB6 niche.  Something that is more then a scripting language, but not as complex as OOP or .Net.  Being able to code in an object oriented fashion would be nice, but should not be a must (for this niche).  This new (or rehashed old language) should be able to be used within XAML docs without having to compile them to run (which is currently not the case in the early bits of XAML).  I’ve been saying to base this language on ECMAScript and call it E Flat.  A language that doesn’t have access to all of the .Net framework, and that runs only in partial trust mode.  Maybe I’ll get around to writing up the details of what I’m thinking about, but for now, I just don’t have the cycles.

Oh, for those of you that don't know my history, I have coded in VB since VB3, and also worked as a mainframe COBOL programmer for about 7 years (in the mid to late 90's).

Update: Hansleman's killer statement: Set VB6 = Nothing

Update: (so everyone understands that support isn't ending) Microsoft's Product Family Life-Cycle Guidelines for Visual Basic 6.0

Published Thursday, March 10, 2005 11:55 AM by donxml

Comment Notification

If you would like to receive an email when updates are made to this post, please register here

Subscribe to this post's comments using RSS

Comments

Sahil Malik said:

I think I agree with you, but I still wish there was an easier managed upgrade path than the one that exists today.
March 10, 2005 1:58 PM

Scott said:

"Microsoft does not have a replacement for the VB6 niche. Something that is more then a scripting language, but not as complex as OOP or .Net. "


or do they?

http://ironpython.com/
March 10, 2005 3:01 PM

Don Demsak said:

Scott Hansleman points out that there is an ECMAScript based .Net language, JScript.Net, http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/jscript7/html/jsorijscript.asp but that isn't exactly what I was talking about, because it does let you work as if you were any other .Net language. I'm specifically looking to trim down what parts of .Net my proposed new langauge can access.
March 10, 2005 9:17 PM

Douglas Reilly said:

I think the biggest issues re: .NET deployment for the masses is that there is not a client OS that comes standard with .NET installed yet. While fat broadband pipes and DVD's make distributing .NET runtime easier than it might have been years ago, it is not ubiquitous yet, and so for a very widespread implementation of a smart client app, unless a corporate image has .NET preinstalled, it can be a bit of a hassle.

For me, I do mostly ASP.NET and Mobile apps, so this is not a terrible issue for me, but I think lack of .NET built into a client OS has hindered acceptance of .NET in general and VB.NET in particular for creating smart client apps. I find myself creating .NET CF applications, and by specifying Windows Mobile 2003 as the minimum OS, I can presume .NET installed, which makes .NET apps an easier sell.
March 12, 2005 10:45 AM

Leave a Comment

(required) 
(optional)
(required) 
Submit

About donxml

I’m an independent consultant, specializing in .Net solutions architecture, based out of New Jersey who also doubles as an evangelist for XML, Domain Driven Design, enterprise architecture and .Net. I do not work for Microsoft, the W3C or any other big company that you may know of (at least not yet). I’ve been an indie for over ten years, and although I’ve been tempted a couple times to take a job with companies like Microsoft, I’ve haven’t found something better than my current situation. I work mostly with the large pharmaceuticals that are based here in New Jersey, and usually find myself on long term contracts. Definitely not the prototypical indie consultant, but it lets me dedicate time to my non-income generating activities like the developer community stuff, plus financing open source projects like XPathmania and MVP-XML. If you would like to talk to me about doing some contract work, just contact me via the contact page. My rates vary widely, depending on lots of different variables, but mostly distance from Jersey, and type of work. Plus, I’ve been known to donate some of my code for various projects.
Powered by Community Server, by Telligent Systems