[Southack]

"programmers who coded properly (instead of those who wrote GWBASIC-style sphagetti) can continue to use their code. That's the nature of contemporary reusability. Code is reusable in its compiled form."

No, that's incorrect. FUNCTIONALITY is reuseable when one uses the compiled version of old code, but code is only reuseable when it can be imported into a new project directly.

That is a fundamental programming misunderstanding that you hype above. You have clearly failed to learn the distinction between "code" and "functionality," relatively basic concepts for professional programmers (of which you do not appear to be).

[Dominic Harr]

So to sum up:

• MS 'Strategic Partners' posting to this thread trying to sell .NET solutions won't address the known issues of .NET, won't give any specifics of successful .NET implementations and won't even admit that the lack of backwards compatability in VB is a problem.

• Java developers posting here have tried .NET and found a nice start with some critical problems that need to be worked out.

• Existing VB developers posting here have tried .NET and found a nice start with some critical problems that need to be worked out.

When the only people who say .NET is without problems are it's salemen, I find it's pretty easy to draw a conclusion.

Heck, the very title of the piece is a spin line right up there with 'The Comeback Kid' -- the story says no one is using it but the headline says it "Strikes a chord with programmers".

I love FR.