4 ms·

I don't think Microsoft failed to see that most VB programmers wanted to keep VB as it was. Microsoft killed VB with a clear purpose: controlling more tightly

by narag 4y ago

I don't think Microsoft failed to see that most VB programmers wanted to keep VB as it was. Microsoft killed VB with a clear purpose: controlling more tightly as much as Windows development as possible, copying the Java model with .NET. If that seems like too conspiranoic theory, let's say that their new Devs head, Anders Hejlsberg, wanted a more uniform development experience around .NET and its star, C#. I'd bet for the former.

mike_hearn 4y ago
It wasn't deliberately killed. The problem was that VB6 had weird semantics and behavior by the standards of other languages, but .NET was designed primarily around Java's semantics. Rather than pollute their nice next-gen platform (that they wanted to standardize through ECMA even!) with lots of VB6 compatibility goop, Microsoft chose to change VB with a new version that was closer to a normal .NET language. For example, in VB6 parameters are always passed by reference, but in C#, Java and VB.net they're passed by value. They also didn't seem to care much about being fully compatible, for example VB6 had some fairly basic features that WinForms didn't have.
- narag 4y ago
  OK, you bet for the latter. But: They also didn't seem to care much about being fully compatible... That sounds deliberate. Edit, to clarify: I doubt they didn't anticipate the frustration and the hit on the mindshare. From Ballmer's show, shouting "developers", to spit in the face... I didn't use VB6, but I do remember the complaints.
bazoom42 4y ago
I dont see how .net was more tightly controlled than VB? VB was a closed source proprietary language tightly integrated with the IDE. They had absolute control.
- narag 4y ago
  They had no control over other vendors' programming tools. Borland Delphi used a more difficult language, but generated compiled, autocontained faster binaries, had a better out of the box library, similar third party components market (same language for programs and libraries, unlike VB that often used C++ controls) and was starting to develop a version for Linux. Microsoft had been poaching most of Borland's talent: https://techmonitor.ai/technology/microsoft_and_borland_bury_the_hatchet_sotto_voce https://techmonitor.ai/technology/microsoft_and_borland_bury... That included Hejlsberg. Take a look at the tools he created and worked on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Hejlsberg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Hejlsberg Later something interesting happened. Microsoft settled just another suit, this time for office applications. I don't remember if it was a spreadsheet or a desktop database and I've been unable to find it in the news, but I clearly remember that Borland received $30M in cash and priviledged access to Microsoft's dev documentation. Then Borland abandoned Kylix, its Delphi version for Linux and released Delphi 8, that wasn't a native tool, but only worked on .NET. Next versions of Delphi included both .NET and native compilers and .NET creeped into Delphi IDE making it much slower. FUD was spreaded that Microsoft will eventually close all native developement and you will only will be able to use .NET to program for Windows. Delphi versions for .NET were never as good as VS, always lagging in features, and finally they were abandoned. But the distraction lasted long enough to kill the company. It's not the same to target a binary API and a virtual machine. The first must be stable, backwards compatible and follow specifications.
  - bazoom42 4y ago
    So .net was a deliberate ruse to trick Borland into delivering a sub-par product? It’s weird because a very common complaint towards .net was that it didn’t allow you to build self-contained stand-alone applications the way VB6 and Delphi allowed. So possibly Borland could have attracted a lot of disgruntled VB6 developer who migt have found Delphi more familiar than VB.net. > FUD was spreaded that Microsoft will eventually close all native developement and you will only will be able to use .NET to program for Windows. Given the the dominace of Windows was because of the available software (and Microsofts dedication to backwards combatibility was legendary) I dont see why anybody would belive that.

by narag 4y ago

mike_hearn 4y ago

It wasn't deliberately killed. The problem was that VB6 had weird semantics and behavior by the standards of other languages, but .NET was designed primarily around Java's semantics. Rather than pollute their nice next-gen platform (that they wanted to standardize through ECMA even!) with lots of VB6 compatibility goop, Microsoft chose to change VB with a new version that was closer to a normal .NET language. For example, in VB6 parameters are always passed by reference, but in C#, Java and VB.net they're passed by value. They also didn't seem to care much about being fully compatible, for example VB6 had some fairly basic features that WinForms didn't have.

narag 4y ago
OK, you bet for the latter. But: They also didn't seem to care much about being fully compatible... That sounds deliberate. Edit, to clarify: I doubt they didn't anticipate the frustration and the hit on the mindshare. From Ballmer's show, shouting "developers", to spit in the face... I didn't use VB6, but I do remember the complaints.

bazoom42 4y ago

I dont see how .net was more tightly controlled than VB? VB was a closed source proprietary language tightly integrated with the IDE. They had absolute control.

narag 4y ago
They had no control over other vendors' programming tools. Borland Delphi used a more difficult language, but generated compiled, autocontained faster binaries, had a better out of the box library, similar third party components market (same language for programs and libraries, unlike VB that often used C++ controls) and was starting to develop a version for Linux. Microsoft had been poaching most of Borland's talent: https://techmonitor.ai/technology/microsoft_and_borland_bury_the_hatchet_sotto_voce https://techmonitor.ai/technology/microsoft_and_borland_bury... That included Hejlsberg. Take a look at the tools he created and worked on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Hejlsberg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Hejlsberg Later something interesting happened. Microsoft settled just another suit, this time for office applications. I don't remember if it was a spreadsheet or a desktop database and I've been unable to find it in the news, but I clearly remember that Borland received $30M in cash and priviledged access to Microsoft's dev documentation. Then Borland abandoned Kylix, its Delphi version for Linux and released Delphi 8, that wasn't a native tool, but only worked on .NET. Next versions of Delphi included both .NET and native compilers and .NET creeped into Delphi IDE making it much slower. FUD was spreaded that Microsoft will eventually close all native developement and you will only will be able to use .NET to program for Windows. Delphi versions for .NET were never as good as VS, always lagging in features, and finally they were abandoned. But the distraction lasted long enough to kill the company. It's not the same to target a binary API and a virtual machine. The first must be stable, backwards compatible and follow specifications.
- bazoom42 4y ago
  So .net was a deliberate ruse to trick Borland into delivering a sub-par product? It’s weird because a very common complaint towards .net was that it didn’t allow you to build self-contained stand-alone applications the way VB6 and Delphi allowed. So possibly Borland could have attracted a lot of disgruntled VB6 developer who migt have found Delphi more familiar than VB.net. > FUD was spreaded that Microsoft will eventually close all native developement and you will only will be able to use .NET to program for Windows. Given the the dominace of Windows was because of the available software (and Microsofts dedication to backwards combatibility was legendary) I dont see why anybody would belive that.