DevSource has another article Will VB 9 Win Over the VB 6 Faithful? where the .NET advocates sing the praises of VB9 and the VB6 faithful bemoan how VB9 will be even worse for them than VB7 and VB8. Problem is, this entire issue has been clouded with emotion, like so many other issues as of late (For example can you say "Iraq War" or "Gay Marriage?" I thought you could.)
What I’d like to know is this: What are the real reasons why VB6ers feel they still need a new VB6 five+ years later? What tangible problems are they having that they can’t get solve by continuing to use the old VB6 for one set of problems and the new VB.NET for everything else?
BTW I’m not taking sides here; I honestly want to see if I can spawn a productive dialog per change to identify viable solutions Microsoft might consider implementing to make everybody happy. FWIW!
P.S. And please don’t say "I don’t want to/have time to learn it" because that’s just unrealistic in the technology industry. Welcome to the real world, after all.
2 Replies to “Why Exactly Do We Still Need a New VB6?”
I’ve thought about this question a lot – why VB6 and not VB.NET?
Why did Microsoft bypass VB6 (COM/DCOM) for .NET? Some would say, it’s obvious that Microsoft wanted to make all their development platforms network/Internet centric, plus this was a way to generate more revenue through application sales.
But really, one has to ask if the mercantilism viewpoint is the only valid reason for using either VB6 or the .NET version. I tend to think this is not true, because when you look at, say, what the Gates Foundation is doing with all the money generated from software sales (e.g., social control, population control, new energy source development, etc.), you could make a case for the uncomfortable conclusion that VB6 had to be discontinued because it was too easy for the social and scientific/engineering community to use it to actually dictate terms of social control. Of course, this is perhaps unplanned and the result of incompetence or lack of ‘systems engineering’ insight in order to achieve short term goals/thinking.
So you can see that government and philanthropic foundations would lose control of the narrative if knowledge transfer through continuity would be promoted by the IT sector – thus the constant changing of the platforms to prevent accumulation of knowledge and capability among people who believe that if we band together, we can affect the future.
So, VB6 was a product like that – you could do all sorts of things like model electro/mageto-dynamics, easily implement linear algebra equation solving for multivariable problems, create consciousness space based on modern ether models, perform critical thinking of newspaper and other media stories/articles, resolve your own health issues (within constraints), affect psychological development without coercion, etc. – many important aspects of life that we are currently not able to address (or at least gather together as a social group) in a consistent cumulative, positive way.
So the mercantilism model of constantly changing operating systems and development platforms only hurts local social development in particular, and humanity overall.
Why not continue to support or even turn over old software to willing social groups, such as retirement communities who have tons of capable technical people who don’t really care so much about income, but rather being part of something – being in a social interaction mechanism at the least, without the stress of the marketplace. The VB6 community is like this, and personally I think it’s a good thing.
Hi @Greg Brylski — Thanks for the comment.
Interesting theory. But I don’t buy it. I believe Hanlon’s razor is more apt to apply instead:
As for the potential of a conspiracy, I spent a lot of time on the Microsoft campus in Redmond in the 90s and I can conclusively say that your theory would have taken a lot more coordination among the departments in Microsoft than I witnessed was possible. There I met people who were universally talented, and to a person they all believed they were working to improve humanity. I cannot believe any of them would have sat idly by doing their jobs if that was the evil master plan of Bill Gates.
You also have to remember that Microsoft is a corporation with shareholders, most of whom are not Gates, and the Gates Foundation is a completely separate entity. To intertwin the two into a conspiracy would IMO require far to many people to be complicit and of the people I know from Microsoft, I can’t see them being complicit in such as scheme.
OTOH if you want to envision impure motive it would be much easier for the Gates Foundation to execute on an impure motive than in conspiracy with the Microsoft corporation. That said, I personally think the Gates Foundation is doing what it is doing for the right reasons, i.e. to improve the human condition in 3rd world countries.
Now this is a sentiment I can concur with. I often lamented that decisions were made in Redmond than affected a huge percent of the population but that they were not incented to care about how it negatively affected the population if that negative affect did not hurt sales or their share price.
Unfortunately the incentives for a US corporation are to constantly increase the share price for the benefit of the shareholders — who are typically within the top 10% of the net worth in this country — and not worry about how it helps or hurts humanity overall. IMO that is the challenge of the 21st century; either we make reforms to society that create incentives for corporations — and elected officials — to care about humanity, or I fear were are destined to descend into a second dark ages.
That is definitely an interested proposal.
But I fear a corporation like Microsoft would see it as too much trouble with very little gain, and one that could potentially cannibalize their sales. At the very least some type of organization would need to be set up to manage the process and I doubt a corporation like Microsoft would want set that up internally.
Maybe that is a great idea for a non-profit? First confirm that you can get older developers to work on the software, and then approach companies like Microsoft to open-source their older software.
BTW, one of the few people who I have stayed connected with from my early days in the industry is now project manager for VB.NET, but I was friends with her for decades before she joined Microsoft. If you want to create this non-profit organization, I will promise to put the idea in front of her. I know that she feels the same that I do, that the “occupational programmer” has long been forgotten by Microsoft and so my guess is she would at least be open to hearing about your plan.