Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Southack
"Dear child"

Your continuing narcissistic use of "child", and your continuing references that you are the older, wiser person among us really don't do much for your credibility, considering that you are neither.

Now for a lesson in reality. Visual Basic .NET is a NEW Visual Basic. Perhaps Microsoft could have called it another name, but, once again, let us educate you, dear "child". See, many things in life are given names for marketing purposes that are the same for prior, and accepted, products. Cars are a good example. Does the 1972 Nova really have interchangeable parts with the 1986 Nova? Nope. The latter is a Toyota product. Visual basic .NET shares many traits with Visual basic 6.0 more than it doesn't. Even ADO.NET is not compatible with ADO 2.7, but they share significant similarities.

There are far better reasons to continue the naming of a product more than there are to change it. There are business reasons that trump your personal, and ignorant, technical desires. grow up.

68 posted on 05/05/2002 2:07:40 PM PDT by PatrioticAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies ]


To: PatrioticAmerican
"There are far better reasons to continue the naming of a product more than there are to change it."

Sadly, your post was a complete non-sequitur. No one was arguing about the name.

What started my posts on this thread was that I responded to someone who claimed that VB.Net was backwards compatible.

You took issue with my response and claimed that it was my VB 6 code that sucked, rather than a compatibility issue. You went on to cite your own 25,000 LOC VB 6 program that "converted" easily to VB.Net.

But both you and the original poster are in error. VB.Net is NOT backwards compatible with VB 6. Conversions don't qualify as backwards compatibility, contrary to your uninformed cries to the contrary. The forms properties in VB 6 are not 100% supported by VB.Net. Various language commands in VB 6 are not supported in VB.Net.

Note that I did not say that VB.Net was bad, only that it was not backwards compatible with VB 6.

And that has nothing to do with a name change or your program successfully "converting," as any serious programmer will tell you.

Perhaps if you were able to pay more attention to what was said, you'd be taken more seriously yourself.

70 posted on 05/05/2002 2:18:07 PM PDT by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson