Friday, January 16, 2015

A comment by Phill W !

Anyone who blindly follows Fashion is gullible. 
Anyone who ties themselves to one, particular Fashion House (because it seemed like the best one when that decision was made) is even further up a creek without a paddle.
That's where an awful lot of long-term VB "Proper" developers found themselves in 2002/3 when VB.Net was released, elbowing aside its similarly-named (but otherwise totally-dissimilar) forebear.
IMHO, .Net is all about fashion. 
At least two versions of it are already obsolete, one of them (Fx1.1) having been killed off a full four years ahead of its mainstream product life cycle (because Our Friends in Redmond couldn't bend it any further in their attempts to implement an ever-evolving security standard).
It does strike me as just a little ironic that, in the latest versions of Windows, COM seems to be having something of a Renaissance and .Net just doesn't seem to fit with it all that well.
Veering dangerously back On-Topic;
VB6 is dead and buried; at least that what Microsoft would have you believe, but there are plenty of people around here still using (and learning) it, so I don't think it's gone quite yet.
VBA is still going strong, safe and secure inside Microsoft's flagship Office suite. It's showing no signs of disappearing any time soon, simply because .Net is too programmer-y; business users can run up "macros" in Word and understand them. Can you imagine them trying to get to grips with a .Net-ified, object-oriented replacement? There would be Personal Assistants rioting up and down the Land.
.Net languages abound, not just Visual Basic and C#, and are great for big, Enterprise-scale applications where you can hide everything on your own application/ web servers. For putting applications out onto people's own desktops/ laptops/ surfaces? Not so much. Windows Forms apps can be excellent (yes; I've written a few); I've yet to be convinced by the Xml-mania that is WPF.
Regards, Phill W.

No comments:

Post a Comment