Josh McFarlane
darsant at gmail.com
Fri Dec 9 17:27:30 CST 2005
On 12/9/05, Shamil Salakhetdinov <shamil at users.mns.ru> wrote: > looks like an exaggeration here. I don't know, he makes alot of sense in many of his arguments. > But VB6 incompatibility with VB.NET is a bad move IMO, which would have been > avoided with not that much efforts. Definately. The move away from backwards compatibility scares me. > And the technology race lead(?) by MS looks really crazy(expensive) from > here for many years now... > > The "safe" combinations of programming languages a' la MS(i.e. if you still > decide to keep up going with MS like I do because I don't have/I don't see > any other opportunities) looks like pure C++ programming, with ATL/WTL > and .NET wrappers and ASP.NET... It sort of worries me, because the MFC application I develop today could be changed and completely useless when Avalon comes along. I happen to dislike .NET due to some core reasons. While Microsoft has made strides in being more conforming to standards in C++, I'm going to be disgrunted if they don't provide a new unmanaged interface for their Avalon system, but I may be forced to grin and bear it in the end. > P.S. Easy to say not easy to do, as well as easy to blame not easy to make > it better - that's is clear - this my e-mail is not a "blame attempt" - it's > an invitation to talk how to make things better(less expensive, more > effective, backward compatible) in IT if possible at all.... Easiest way I've found so far: Don't fix what's not broken. I think that will be a big losing point for them. If I make a non-Win application in C++, I know it will work until the end of time if done correctly to spec. Making a GUI application now, I'm severely hesitant to invest any time in any advanced GUI features, as they may be destroyed 6 months down the line, so instead I focus on what matters, the backend. -- Josh McFarlane "Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding." -Albert Einstein