3 ms·
We should define "going strong"? MS basically killed it, in 200x when the VB.NET snafu happened. I assume 100% of the VB work is legacy at this point and since
by blub 8y ago
We should define "going strong"?
MS basically killed it, in 200x when the VB.NET snafu happened. I assume 100% of the VB work is legacy at this point and since solid architecture or design principles were never this language's strong points, it can't be particularly exciting legacy work either.
It's basically a career and technological dead-end.
- polygotdomain 8y agoYou could say the same about COBOL. Just because it's "dead" doesn't mean that businesses don't have tens to hundreds of thousands to even millions of lines of code hanging around in these "dead" languages. While it may not be exciting work, not every programmer is looking to do the latest and greatest thing that will appear at the top of HN. They make good money because the business knows paying someone well to maintain it is better that paying a team to rewrite it. That's why one of the issues with COBAL programmers is retiring and passing on, not leaving to go to a NodeJS shop.
- dTal 8y agoYes, and if they'd said Rust was more popular than COBOL, that would also have been damning with faint praise.