home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: news-m01.ny.us.ibm.net!usenet
- From: stevez1@ibm.net (Steven R. Zuch)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.basic.visual.misc,comp.lang.pascal.delphi.misc,comp.lang.c++
- Subject: Re: "SHOULD I DUMP VISUAL BASIC?"
- Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 00:37:43 GMT
- Organization: Cogent Management Inc.
- Message-ID: <4flmu1$3498@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
- References: <4e9g08$3dp@maureen.teleport.com> <4e9oji$me5@news-2.csn.net> <4ebko9$8tn@hasle.sn.no> <4egdqm$app@shore.shore.net> <4eiogb$cas@hasle.sn.no> <310CFB3E.114B@mail.inett.no> <4etkm5$n3p@newshost.cyberramp.net> <4f63bc$97a@news.service.uci.edu> <4f92nd$1e3i@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <PpeGx0JfFqfF089yn@oslonett.no> <4fef2l$4sck@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <KZPHx0JfFizd089yn@oslonett.no>
- Reply-To: stevez1@ibm.net
- NNTP-Posting-Host: slip166-72-207-75.ny.us.ibm.net
- X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
-
- mobergru@oslonett.no (Rune Moberg) wrote:
-
- >In article <4fef2l$4sck@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>,
- >stevez1@ibm.net (Steven R. Zuch) wrote:
- >>>The sizemaniac aka VB 4.0 doesn't fit into that strategy.
- >>
- >>My point was that MS can, and IMHO will, incorporate more
- >>OLE2 and OCXs into their next operating system, and therefore,
- >>the need to distribute so much run time stuff with VB 4 will
- >>not be required. VB may even become bundled with the
- >>next OS, just like QBasic became bundled with DOS.
-
- >You're talking 3-10 years from now...
- >Win95 didn't come with any OCXs and the same is true for NT 3.51.
- >I doubt we'll see any in NT 4.0 either...
-
- Read differently from MS.
-
- >So, when you distribute your app two years from now, you'll most likely
- >include those OCXs anyway, because the oldtimers who run NT 3.51 (because
- >they never adapted to the Win95 UI) still haven't caught on...
-
- They better get use to the Win95 UI, because, based on what I read,
- MS plans to adopt it for the next version of Windows NT.
-
- [snip]
-
-
- >>My point was that if a third party has a nice software program,
- >>MS may be able to incorporate the best of such into the
- >>operating system. Development languages may fall into
- >>this area. MS has been incorporating disk defragmenters,
- >>backup software, compression, desktop file managers,
- >>fax software, etc ... into Windows, regardless how the
- >>developers felt.
-
- >No. They licensed disk defragmenter from Symantec and the backup software
- >from Central Point (or Arcada?). These are stripped down versions of the
- >full package, so the customer is encouraged to buy the whole package...
-
- How about the other items mentioned above. Yup, they license some,
- develope others. But, if they like it, they get it, and bundled it
- into the OS. Advantage of being a monopoly.
-
- >In any case, not one of the applications you mentioned was made with VB,
- >nor did they use any OCXs.
-
- Not even MS markets VB for such apps. They have other development
- tools.
-
- The point is that Gates loves Basic. In 1975, he and Paul Allen wrote
- a version of BASIC that ran on the MITS Altair 8800 Computer. They
- then founded MS and wrote BASIC version for other platforms. Gates,
- IMHO, is not goint to drop BASIC.
-
- It was bundled with MS DOS, and now is bundled in their Windows Office
-
- Suite. Next, IMHO, it will be bundled again, as part of the operating
- system. And even if they do not bundled all the OCXs and DLLs for VB
- in the near future, it will end up on a lot of PCs. How many PCs have
- VBRUN300 on it.
-
- So, regardless of what Delphi does, or does not do, how fast it is,
- how small it's exe's are, VB will be around for a long time. It is,
- and will continue to be a major developers tool in the Windows
- environment.
-
- So, to the question, "Should I dump Visual Basic", I would so
- no. It is just to important to MS, and MS is too big to be ignored.
- Ofcourse, that does not mean one should learn other programming
- languages. Even Delphi.
-
-
-
-
- >--
- >=\
- > *=- R.Moberg, CD-Player Pro info @ http://www.sn.no/~mobergru/
- >=/
-
-
-