An Open Letter to the Community

Author's Note: Earlier today, I sent the attached note to each of the MVPs who signed the petition around VB6. Please let me know what you think.

 

I noticed that you signed the petition at https://classicvb.org/petition. I'm mailing each of the MVPs who signed the petition directly in hopes of continuing this dialog and giving you some more insight into what’s going on with VB these days.

 

There was a great deal of discussion around the issues raised in this petition back in 1999 and 2000 when Microsoft initially announced the design of Visual Basic .NET. Some of the input that we received from the MVPs and the community changed this design significantly. One debate was whether the Visual Basic language should evolve to target the .NET Framework. Many of our VB customers felt they had reached the limits of what VB could do and were looking for more – better security, deeper access into the core Windows platform, easier leveraging of skills for building Web applications. After looking hard at the VB runtime, Microsoft made the decision that managed code based on the .NET Framework is the future strategic direction for development tools.

We took a lot of feedback when we made this decision and didn’t make it lightly. The MVPs have continued to give us a tremendous amount of feedback. Much of the way that Visual Basic 2005 looks today is due to feedback that we got from MVPs about features like Edit and Continue, Design-time Expression Evaluation, and the overall simplification of the development environment. The discussions on the MVP mailing list are sometimes heated, but this debate and feedback is what has led to the product that we are shipping later this year.

 

We remain passionately committed to helping Visual Basic developers leverage their skills and solve new challenges using Visual Basic .NET and Visual Basic 2005. Many MVPs have told us that migration is a difficult task for some types of code. In response to that, we’ve concentrated on first helping developers to upgrade their skills. Later this month, we’re introducing a “VB Upgrade Center” as a part of the developer center on MSDN. We are also hosting a number of free training events worldwide and a pre-conference before TechEd focused on the Visual Basic 6 developer. I welcome your input on how we can work together to continue to speak to Visual Basic developers.

There's also been a great deal of debate around the end of mainstream support. To clarify, this is a switch from free to paid support. Many of the questions around support have been thoroughly addressed in the blogs and the current information is available at https://msdn.microsoft.com/vbasic/support/vb6.aspx. Soma also addressed this in his blog at https://blogs.msdn.com/somasegar and linked to other comments on this. However, I want to highlight to you that Microsoft is still supporting Visual Basic 6 and will continue to for quite some time. In fact, the Visual Basic 6 runtime is slated to ship as a part of Windows Longhorn, which means that it will be covered under Longhorn’s support lifecycle.

There are strong feelings on all sides of the issue that sparked this petition and I know that this note is not going to address all of these concerns. However, I hope that we can continue to have an open dialog around this issue. Some of these discussions will continue in the public forum, but please also feel free to contact me directly.

 

Best,
Jay

Comments

• Anonymous
  March 17, 2005
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  March 18, 2005
  
  In continuing to focus on VB.NET, you're side-stepping the issues that really matter.
  
  .NET, I think we can agree, is a fine platform and is, if MS decides it is, the future. Do the VB.NET team want reassurance that what they created is good and valuable in its own right? You have it -- it is.
  
  But the petitioners are not talking about VB.NET, except peripherally. The main issue is the vast amount of VB6/VBA code -- the valuable data assets of your customers -- that MS is cavalierly declaring obsolete.
  
  It is generally considered -- viz the posts by industry experts and the stated position by MS not to offer an improved conversion wizard -- that 'porting' VB6 code to VB.NET is pointless, because in the end a rewrite is needed to take advantage of the radically different platform. So, given that .NET is the future, what the petition asks for is not outrageous.
  
  I would never ask that VB.NET be dropped, denigrated, deprecated or deloused. That isn't necessary for a VB6 follow-on to succeed, and to be valuable in introducing -- on their own terms and in their own time -- legions of VB6/VBA programmers to the .NET future. It doesn't have to be an either-or situation, and that is the spirit of the petition.
  
  I again encourage all to read the actual petition, and the related FAQ, and ask yourself how Jay's or Soma's posts address the real concerns expressed there, here, and by many VB users in various forums. Ask what happens to your company when MS one day decides that the data you value, has no value. Don't kid yourself -- you have no protection and apparently no recourse.
  
  Well, unless you're using FoxPro :-)
  
  http://vb.mvps.org/vfred/Trust.asp
  
  

• Anonymous
  March 18, 2005
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  March 18, 2005
  Jonathan,
  
  I find it it surprising that, given your usually elephantine powers of recall, you are suggesting that the compatibility namespace will be "going away." As you should remember, you asked me directly about this a little less than a year ago, and I replied, in part:
  
  BEGIN QUOTE
  
  I tracked down who was directly responsible for this documentation and we worked on some edits. Although I haven't seen the final text, the new note should read something like:
  
  "NOTE: Functions in the Microsoft.VisualBasic.Compatibility namespace are provided primarily for use by the upgrading tools. Although it is possible to use functions in this namespace when writing new code, their use are discouraged in favor of using functions in the Microsoft.VisualBasic or System namespaces."
  
  We'd discussed removing the note entirely, but we felt that it was worth retaining because the Compatibility namespace was explicitly designed as a bridge to get from VB6 into the Framework, not to replace the Framework itself. As such, when new functionality is added to the Framework, the Compatibility classes will likely only updated if that new functionality directly impacts conversion from VB6. Since the future development focus is going to be on the Framework, we feel it is best to encourage people to move off of the compatibility classes over time. However, what I just said seemed a bit wordy to put into the note.
  
  You also privately raised the issue of support. Libraries we ship are covered under a well-defined deprecation process. You can find more information about it at http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/changeinfo/v2.0/obsoletefaq.aspx.
  
  END QUOTE
  
  So, the answer is, no, we are not "telling me that even after I have ported and rewritten to get to VB.NET, I'm probably faced with another rewrite in the near future in order to eliminate dependency on the VB6 Compatibility library, which still contains features not duplicated elsewhere in VB.NET."
  
  Hope this helps.

• Anonymous
  March 18, 2005
  Paul,
  
  That's a very interesting set of comments. You might also recall that you promised to change the particular piece of documentation I referred to (you didn't) and you promised a white paper on Microsoft policies for language stability (it never appeared).
  
  Now, if after those broken promises, and lack of public confirmation of private statements, even though you were occasionally reminded over a period of a year or so, would you like to explain to me why I should regard a page on gotdotnet as taking precedance over Microsoft's official documentation in the product and on the MSDN website?
  
  I would also be most interested to hear your views publically stated about your understanding of the linkage between languages and platforms, and whether you regard a change of platform as justifying changes in language syntax that are not strictly necessary for platform compatibility. For instance, looking back, do you think that the additional changes you made to VB.NET were a good idea? When the next platform change comes round, would you like to take the opportunity to change the languages some more?

• Anonymous
  March 18, 2005
  >>> and you promised a white paper on Microsoft policies for language stability (it never appeared) <<<
  
  I think developing, publishing, and maintaining a document such as this would be a responsible move on Microsoft's part. It's crucial information for developers, and is sorely needed.
  
  RBL

• Anonymous
  March 18, 2005
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  March 18, 2005
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  March 18, 2005
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  March 19, 2005
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  March 19, 2005
  Come on classic vb6 supporters... that's at least 3 years I knew that VB6 would disapear, I'm not a MVP, I'm just (well I was) an average VB6 developper. I did not had a privileged access to new, articles, meetings, technologies as you did
  
  I did VBA, VB and ASP exclusively for 10 years. Last year I started to migrate to VB.Net
  I had the intuition that it will propose the improvements I was starving of: I know you are starving of innovation too
  
  I read the FAQ of the petition very carefully: that's plenty of good sense... I begun to ask myself questions: why?
  
  You have plenty of code that's running in vb6, me too: that's not a good reason
  
  Migrating code is nonsense, I agree. But the idea is to re-think your code, improve it. It can be done, I did it.
  
  VB.Net is so powerful you can't imagine how... wait... perhaps you had never experiment that power at all, because logically: if you experiment VB.Net correctely, you can't go back: you love it
  
  Here is my analysis of the facts:
  
  *** Microsoft made a mistake when it tried to mimic a vb6 in a full-OOP backgroud
  - Wizards, Conceptors, datasets are good productivy tools I agree, but they where presented as basic features of the language: FALSE, the only base is OOP (just at least to understand how to use efficiently the productivity widgets)
  
  *** Vb6 developpers made a mistake as they began to code in a vb6 fashion in VB.Net
  - they begun to mimic that way (like "ah yes, I must put a NEW statement before that thing") without understanding what they where doing...
  - they are are still thinking in a procedural way
  - they are still starting their code from a form
  Consequently:
  - You code like in vb6, and at a moment you are lost
  - You find VB.Net totally different (that's false, only organisation is different, code is the same)
  - You find it not intuitive (just because you haven't seen the simple basis)
  
  => In my opinion that's the only possible reason you are still for vb6. Is it exact?
  
  If yes, here is my proposal to a (constructive I hope) solution:
  
  *** To Microsoft:
  - You still have to keep a free suport for a while, you see, a lot of people haven't migrate yet, it will take some time
  - You have to a migration "Marshall Plan" in coordination with people that have succeed their migration (who see everyday the same questions and who have an idea about why other haven't migrated to VB.Net as expected)
  - You have to explain what is OOP in an intelligent and practical way. For instance: not "Interface is a contract between a..." but rather "implementing an interface in a class will allow you to easily switch between two different classes, or threat two diffent classes the same way"
  - garantee that vb.net and C# will have the same abilities for the future (who wants to code in a 2nd importance language? vb6 coders are not just ugly-imaginationless front end to databases: refresh your memory on http://www.planet-source-code.com/vb/default.asp?lngWId=1 )
  - you need to reoganize MSDN articles, sothat people can follow a learning path
  
  ***To vb6 supporters:
  - Give VB.Net one chance: Just try to understand how VB.Net works (after reading the first steps of the "Marshall Plan") Just feel its power, how you can easily improve what you have done for years, what are the new possibilities (that you can sold)... belive me as a former vb6 developper: it's awesome, incredible, wunderbar, szwitne... words are missing
  - Forget to migrate to anything else, in all cases it's much harder to learn concepts and syntax rather than concepts only, you will even be able to migrate to java very quickely after you will understand VB.Net (Mr Roxe: I'm kidding)
  - Your speed will rise exponentialy. "Quality", "Stability", "Flexibility", "Re-use" will have a meaning, trust me

• Anonymous
  March 20, 2005
  I to am a single VB Developer. Most of my work is done at home after work hours. Our ISD department did not consider our division worthy of any development for Applications. I have tried porting by apps to the .net world and found that it would be easier to rewrite the code. But I don't have the time to try to relearn or learn the .net. I have been trying to learn when I can. What I have seen in the VB.net I really like. But when you are working with both languages, you tend to get confused on which syntac to I use here!
  
  I have been working in the VB express beta1 and also Vb 2003. I am getting a better understanding of the .net framework. I have to keep my vb6 apps going with constant updates and upgrades. Beside my computer I use at work has to be Win98SE because of Motorola Dos software Issues.
  
  Maybe most of this don't make a lot of sense, but Microsoft needs to keep us small people in mind. I have not yet used any phone calls or the like for any of the MS products I have. But when they throw out the end of support, it sends a message to all us. Anyone remember MS Basic Professional, or Microsoft Basic of the Mid '70's? Got forced to Visual Basic.
  
  Just my three cents(Inflation) worth.

• Anonymous
  March 20, 2005
  Shame on you, Microsoft! First you took away my Windows 95 and now my Visual Basic 6. Shame on you, Ford! You took away the Ford T Model.
  Shame on you! I can’t fly in a 14-BIS anymore!
  If VB6 is all you can do, get a job as a bricklayer – they haven’t had much progress over the last couple of centuries. Programming is for people who know they have to keep up with the Joneses constantly and not for crybabies.
  

• Anonymous
  March 20, 2005
  :)
  
  The problem is that there are 3155 babies and still counting, and that babies represent the sucess of .Net (and not almost-retired java developpers, neither C# aristocracy)
  
  VB6 developpers are smart people (like me :]) that make smart applications with just a couple of controls (like I did), give them feeding-bottle plenty of simple explainations, of basics of OOP and then desing patterns (so they will be able to understand and use more evolved patterns like Microsoft Patterns, as they where using ActiveX controls)
  
  I totaly agree with you Lawrence Gatlin, I work in a small business too. that's why it have to be explained not to change vb6 way of thinking, but only to adapt it
  
  It took me a while to understand evidence, nothing exists on the net that explain OOP fundamentals for procedural vb6 developpers. At the moment I am not enough confident in myself to write that kind of articles (that's only my 3rd week with fundamental desing patters), it have to be done by a mixed team of senior OOP developpers and vb6 developpers that are migrating.
  
  I am sure that in one week, 1 hour a day, you can prove by practice that VB.Net is at the same time so much powerfull, so much more exiting and so few different
  
  I'm sure that if you transpose the minds of vb6 developpers to OOP, you will have some fresh minds that will go further than trying to copy java ideas (Spring, nxbre...)

• Anonymous
  March 20, 2005
  <VB6 developpers are smart people>
  So, and why did they fail to wake up during the past couple of years? Those who fear progress, and .NET is progress, are nothing more and nothing less than losers.

• Anonymous
  March 20, 2005
  There are many good points above and I won't repeat them. I'll just give you a personal anecdote that is probably not unique.
  
  At my office, we use VB6 and ASP. We attended some .NET training, expecting that we would move to Microsoft's newer technology, but instead we came away convinced that an upgrade would be costly, and therefore difficult to justify to management.
  
  The result is that now we have to consider competing technologies. If a significant redesign is inevitable, why not do it in, say, Java? What would that do for us?
  
  If VB7 had come along, we would already be there, still dedicated to Microsoft. Now...?
  
  As many people have said here, .Net is a good technology. But that's not the issue. When Microsoft says we must spend time (and therefore money) changing what we've done in the past, that makes us angry. The product is still called "Visual Basic", and that should imply a commitment to previously loyal customers.
  
  I'll stop now.
  
  LB

• Anonymous
  March 20, 2005
  Jonathan,
  
  >>> That's a very interesting set of comments. You might also recall that you promised to change the particular piece of documentation I referred to (you didn't) and you promised a white paper on Microsoft policies for language stability (it never appeared).<<<
  
  I apologize if I didn't make it clear that the updates will first appear in the VS 2005 beta documentation and then migrate to the official MSDN documentation when the VS 2005 documentation becomes the official documentation. The current Beta 1 documentation doesn't have the edit, which is not surprising given the timeframe. It should show up in Beta 2 documentation and, if not, then we should report it to make sure it's fixed.
  
  Also, as you should remember, I said that instead of issuing a separate whitepaper on language compatibility, I was going to fold the topic into the general language specification. That specification will be released in beta form once Beta2 ships, although we're close enough now that I can post it over on my own weblog and will do so...
  
  I think my views on platform migration and language stability have stated publicly pretty consistently...
  
  Paul

• Anonymous
  March 20, 2005
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  March 20, 2005
  Paul,
  
  Seeing as how you are comfortable about the consistency of your public statements about platform migration and language stability, I'm sure you won't mind restating them one more time for the benefit of those who have not yet seen them elsewhere. To give a structure to them in the present context, I would be grateful if you would answer the following questions.
  
  
  1. Who did Microsoft regard as the primary target market for VB.NET? In other words, which language's users did you regard as the largest group of people who would come to VB.NET?
  
  2. You have told me in the past that you accepted that many of the changes in syntax and behaviour made in the move from VB6 to VB.NET were not necessary for the purpose of compatibility with the platform. Given this, would you please summarize the reasons you think those changes were a good idea?
  
  3. When individual non-platform-related changes were being decided on, what consideration was given within Microsoft to the effect on the ability of VB.NET to import VB6 projects?
  
  4. Do you regard a change of platform as an opportune moment to include non-platform related changes in language syntax?
  
  5. Would you regard it as appropriate to make changes on a similar scale in the future, if you took the view that benefits of the same kind were available?

• Anonymous
  March 21, 2005
  I see the same few responses of sarcasm (you took away my Win95! Ford you took away my Model-T) and of course the get over it, and move forward.
  
  First, to those writing those comments - to me it appears as though either they have not been involved in in depth projects or b) are looking at it from simply a technology standpoint. I personally do a lot of ASP .NET development in C# and VB.NET. I also have done smart client projects using both as well... so it is not a learning issue to move my mental assets. VB.NET and .NET as a whole is clearly a better platform overall and therein lies the true problem.
  
  What about client deployment? It is not about migrating to me, I can understand that sometimes code needs to simply interoperate. Why fix something that is not broken? BUT what about NEW CODE? Specifically what about making a new, what now is called, Smart Client? As stated before the .NET runtime is not out in a decent percentage of machines! Not at all!
  
  What were we as developers left with for creating NEW PROJECTS? Take out the learning the new language - what are our options? To me it is more times than not an absolute deal breaker to have to ship a 21 MB + runtime. If you are making a commercial app - which in the past could have been done using COM and VB - what can you now make? How will you distribute it?
  
  I would like someone to give me an answer, from Microsoft, about this: I want to create a new Client App that gathers RSS feeds and sell it (plug in any app type you want). My users download it, some try it as a demo and then they buy it. Now, how likely is it that a user will wait for a 21+ MB runtime to download? Simply making someone download and getting them to install something can be tricky. Microsoft completely overlooked this group of developers and people.
  
  It is not just commercial software, or shareware or online software either. Now take that concept and apply it to people that dial in remotely or even VPN over the Internet which needs an app.
  
  Microsoft provided no decent in between... No decent means or where to go on the client. We are left to choose between a language that has not changed in years and is no longer a live product and a framework that is great but is on less than 50% of machines, and with a distrib size that makes is prohibitive. What is the current installed base, percentage wise, of non server PCs that have the .NET Framework version 1.1?
  
  I would like someone at Microsoft to address this issue - with an answer. I do not want to hear that it will be splipped into Longhorn or something like this. Are we supposed to shut down until then? I want to hear What are we as developers that paid Microsoft for a product supposed to do in the meantime??? What is a VIABLE option?
  

• Anonymous
  March 21, 2005
  Jonathan,
  
  Like I said, your questions have been addressed publicly elsewhere, multiple times. Besides the fact that they've been rehashed enough times as it is, this isn't the place to rehash them one more time. Sorry.
  
  Paul

• Anonymous
  March 21, 2005
  Paul,
  
  How about answering the other questions then listed by others such as what is a viable option for smart client development? % of PCs (non server) with .NET runtime installed? See the post titled "what about smart clients? " and answer a few of those then.
  
  

• Anonymous
  March 21, 2005
  There are some good pointers about framework availability at http://blogs.msdn.com/scottwil/archive/2005/03/09/391199.aspx, Ben!

• Anonymous
  March 21, 2005
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  March 21, 2005
  Paul,
  
  Is there some other place on the web where there is a summary of your views on the topic? Your blog doesn't have one, nor a link to one. It's a bit strange to say that you have "stated publicly pretty consistently" your views, but you don't provide the means for people to find out what those views are.
  
  I know pretty well what your views are from the numerous private conversations we have had, but it would be improper for me to post extracts from those conversations without first obtaining your permission.
  
  Also, please realise that I'm not after your views about VB.NET specifically, I'm after your views on whether and how it is appropriate to modify language syntax. VB.NET is only relevant to this in that it happens to be the language you have been working on lately.
  
  By the way, it's also worth pointing out that I'm not anti-VB.NET or anti-.NET in general. To be anti-VB.NET would be to wish on VB.NET developers the same fate that has befallen the VB6 community, with the discontinuation of the language leaving their code assets stranded. I would not wish that on anyone. I'm also not anti-.NET, because I accept the need to update platforms from time to time with new features and capabilities. My sole interest is ensuring that there are ways forward for existing source code to be compiled onto current platforms using current tools. That is what the change from VB6 to VB.NET failed to do.

• Anonymous
  March 21, 2005
  Good point Jonathan. It's worth pointing out and re-pointing out that VB#, the migration to VB#, and the support of VB are three distinct issues, and it would help to address them as such. I believe that a large portion of the VB community have accepted .Net (C# and/or VB# as their language of choice within the framework), myself included. Although it has nothing to do with concerns over providing a higher level of support of systems built in VB, and the tidal wave of a message it sends to their customers.
  
  I just cannot believe that VB is even in this position while FoxPro gets beefed up. Did I miss something along the way? When did FoxPro even come close to the scale VB has reached? BTW, you can't even post to Rob Copeland's blog on this topic since it goes to the bit bucket, er I mean it's moderated -- couldn't send clearer message ;-).
  
  Monte Hansen - Visual Basic MVP

• Anonymous
  March 21, 2005
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  March 21, 2005
  Bryan, I think all the players at MS have been prep'd on how to avoid the hard questions, and confuse the issues, while still constantly saying buzz phrases like "support isn't going away", "we are giving you Edit and Go", "we're keeping the lines of communication open" ...

• Anonymous
  March 22, 2005
  The devil's in the details. The stats indicate that MS is trying hard to deploy .net framework to as many machines as possible.
  
  The stats do not indicate how many % of production machines (in the area that putyourname here operate in) have the .NET installed.
  
  The stats do not indicate how many machines are NOT Windows XP, with or without SP2.
  
  The stats do not indicate how many machines are under corporate control with the IS team diligently blocking out Office 2003 (for example) until they have enough budget and resources to roll out and migrate Office 97
  
  And the list goes on an on....
  
  There are also paradigm shifts.
  
  Whilst end users may commission Access+Excel+VBA or VB6+Jet solutions, because an end user does not realise what VB.NET is and that VB.NET is not native in Office, the IT dept may be the commissioner. This means if your customer is end users, you're dead in water.
  
  There is also the dependency problem. If you have ensured .NET is deployed corporate wise, you may find that Office 2000 or Office 97 so pervasive that Office 2002 and Office 2003 don't get a go. And if you want to use VB.NET to manipulate Office 2002 or 2003, you are again, dead in water. Don't forget, there are wrappers and shims for .NET and Office interop to be deployed as well.
  
  If you have a desktop app, on mobile notebooks, it may be that Access+Jet would be great. If you have a sparse, long distance app, then ASP.NET would be better. But the person who commissions the former is not the same as the one who commissions the latter. For example, setting up a standalon webserver in corporate environs is a no no, whilst getting VBA going may be quite "Just Do It" culture.
  
  Boils down to, VBA, VB6 are currently viable solutions - it does not make business sense to discard them in 2005.
  
  Finding a difference: An old Japanese beer story. Panel of tasters are asked to taste beer from different breweries. They conclude - "it's the packaging that makes the difference, there is no superiority in taste". Later on they find out that there is a difference in taste. It's just that after the first glass of beer, you don't really care.

• Anonymous
  March 22, 2005
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  March 22, 2005
  we have an vb6 application (ERP like) with around 350.000 code lines. the team development time was about five years. the abs value of our codebase ist ~450.000,00 EUR.
  
  Theres no need for vb.net liked features. and so i dont get the point wheres the benefit to upgrade to vb.net?
  

• Anonymous
  March 23, 2005
  <body>
  
  <p><font face="Verdana" size="2">We recommend ISVs that know VB6 to use VB.NET
  for targeting new applications due to the following reasons:</font></p>
  <ul>
  <li><font face="Verdana" size="2">&nbsp;<b>Modern tool</b> - VB.NET is a
  modern tool that enables the best productivity for the skill set that ISV
  already has (in VS 2005 it is particularly true). The modern tool enables
  delivering modern applications that can use XML, Web Services and populate
  nice and modern UI using Windows Forms. VB.NET is also much better tool for
  developing localized applications than VB6. </font></li>
  <li><font face="Verdana" size="2"><b>Distribution </b>- The distribution of
  the .NET Framework is a lot deeper than most people realize. Within the
  population of Windows XP computers in the US, more than 60% of the PCs in
  home and consumer premises have the framework already installed. Considering
  that more than 50% of the internet connected users in the US have broadband
  connection, and that internet connected customers tend to be the potential
  customers of the ISVs, the potential target market should be big enough for
  any ISV to deliver applications to. The situation is improving by the day
  since more than 90% of new PCs sold by the big PC manufacturers to
  businesses and individuals have the .NET Framework preinstalled.</font></li>
  <li><font face="Verdana" size="2"><b>Reality of download </b>- 5 years ago
  it took 8 min to download the VB6 runtime on 33Kbit modem. Today it takes 3
  minutes do download the 23MB of the .NET Framework runtime on a 1.5MBs cable
  mode. These numbers are only going to get better and deployment techniques
  are going to improve.</font></li>
  </ul>
  <p><font face="Verdana" size="2">I hear the call to provide more details about
  the .NET Framework distribution and I plan to publish some articles on MSDN in
  the next two month to address that need. </font></p>
  <p><font face="Verdana" size="2">If you have direct questions and issues about
  adoption and deployment, feel free to email me directly:
  <a href="mailto:barakc@microsoft.com">barakc@microsoft.com</a></font></p>
  
  </body>
  

• Anonymous
  March 23, 2005
  We recommend ISVs that know VB6 to use VB.NET for targeting new applications due to the following reasons:
  Modern tool - VB.NET is a modern tool that enables the best productivity for the skill set that ISV already has (in VS 2005 it is particularly true). The modern tool enables delivering modern applications that can use XML, Web Services and populate nice and modern UI using Windows Forms. VB.NET is also much better tool for developing localized applications than VB6.
  Distribution - The distribution of the .NET Framework is a lot deeper than most people realize. Within the population of Windows XP computers in the US, more than 60% of the PCs in home and consumer premises have the framework already installed. Considering that more than 50% of the internet connected users in the US have broadband connection, and that internet connected customers tend to be the potential customers of the ISVs, the potential target market should be big enough for any ISV to deliver applications to. The situation is improving by the day since more than 90% of new PCs sold by the big PC manufacturers to businesses and individuals have the .NET Framework preinstalled.
  Reality of download - 5 years ago it took 8 min to download the VB6 runtime on 33Kbit modem. Today it takes 3 minutes do download the 23MB of the .NET Framework runtime on a 1.5MBs cable mode. These numbers are only going to get better and deployment techniques are going to improve.
  I hear the call to provide more details about the .NET Framework distribution and I plan to publish some articles on MSDN in the next two month to address that need.
  If you have direct questions and issues about adoption and deployment, feel free to email me directly: barakc@microsoft.com
  

• Anonymous
  March 23, 2005
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  March 23, 2005
  That's great. However, none of the primary concerns pointed out here have anything to do with adoption and deployment (and I'd argue the deployment thing with you too, in a different discussion perhaps).
  
  Monte Hansen - Visual Basic MVP

• Anonymous
  March 23, 2005
  Monte,
  
  Actually, I do think it is discussed above and further it falls under objective 3 of the petition. That may not be an issue that is at the top of your mind, but it is one of the primary issues for many developers.
  
  Ben

• Anonymous
  March 23, 2005
  Ben,
  
  While that may be a concern (and is one of mine too), it is also being used as a tactic to disguise the other primary concerns. The more we dwell on that concern, the more clouded the issues will be, and this is what the executives at MS would like (so the press doesn't write about the other issues that make MS look bad).

• Anonymous
  March 23, 2005
  It's amusing to me that this article was entitled "An Open Letter to the Community" when it seems that Microsoft is anything but receptive to the needs of the community it claims to understand so well.
  
  Like many others here, we have an ENORMOUS investment in Visual Basic 6 and hence so do our customers. The lack of commitment shown by MS has forced us to rethink our direction for future products.
  
  The .Net community seems to consist of MS and anyone who agrees with MS. Where is the process at MS for community involvement? The quick answer is that there is none.
  
  Since .Net requires retraining and recoding efforts I encourage developers to use software based on open standards or software driven by the community. Standards driven software is good for developers and provides a reasonable secure investment for our customers. A great example of can be seen in the Java community process(JCP). Along with providing involvement in the creation of future Java standards, Java developers can now submit bug fixes to J2SE. That is community involvement! MS doesn't have a clue about community and you need to figure it out fast, Slick Marketing isn't going to help you this time.
  

• Anonymous
  March 23, 2005
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  March 26, 2005
  As far as I’m concerned VB.net is already legacy. The majority of business apps will be browser based. Until Microsoft gets their framework into my Blackberry I’m not using it. Microsoft should stop wasting time on client side languages and worry about getting a runtime in every embedded browser out there. Microsoft should have two (2) products: .Net for the serious programmer and VB6 legacy ongoing development. Let US choose which one we want to use. Talk about the model “T” (any color you want as long as it’s black) I think Microsoft can afford to do both. I think you’d be surprised at how successful the latter product would be. As for being technologically advanced… Everything we use VB6 for is server side (the side nobody sees). All we use VB6 for is spitting out HTML pages. When we upgraded to VB.net all of our business logic was broken. It is going to cost me millions to debug and upgrade my code. Plus all of my 2000+ customers have to deal with bugs that will surely be overlooked in the conversion process. My customers have no patience for bugs. Anyone who has owned a business and paid programmers real money knows the upgrade process is difficult. And by setting the precedent it will happen over and over again. I say get a team together and re-release VB6 and let the Gurus and Ph.D. candidates play with .Net all day. I just want my code to work.

• Anonymous
  March 27, 2005
  @Rickard Osson
  And the dictator of your nation has a name?

• Anonymous
  March 28, 2005
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  March 29, 2005
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  March 29, 2005
  OK Microsoft... lets get to the heart of the situation and it always is:
  
  The money.
  
  If a classic/VB7 were offered at a reasonable market price, that actually fixed bugs and addressed common pet peeves, I think you'd see way more than enought revenue to cover any development costs to do so.
  
  Just sitting here twiddlin' bits in VB6.

• Anonymous
  March 30, 2005
  To me and hundreds - yes, I have discussed and listened to that many - of other people it is that Microsoft abandoned us (4.5+ million at one point) VB developers with NO PRACTICAL upgrade route or NEW PROJECT language. None. Microsoft practically invented/ discovered that it is not about what is best but rather what is practical. We have been left with a dead classic VB6 and nothing that is ready for prime time. VS 2005 is not out yet and to me and many others that is the only choice that is worth considering.
  
  In the end that means Microsoft left us with a dead product between 1998- whenever VS 2005 is released + 2 years as it will take at least that long to be implememented; and that is just for new projects, not old ones.
  

• Anonymous
  April 01, 2005
  The VB6 migration tool (included with VB.net 2003) is useless for any practical VB6 project except for very simple project created by student/ hobbyist. Whole rewrite of the code is needed. It is very hard to make Finance people (who sanctions money) agree to spend huge amounts of money on the projects which already work. Then rigorous testing is needed before deployment as these are new codes. All these are needed because Microsoft dropped future development of VB6. I don't understand few basic steps of Microsoft (a financially successful IT company).
  1) Most developers (myself included) started programming with Basic/ Visual Basic becuase VB is so simple for novice. Still you can solve real problems with it, so they got glued to VB and later Microsoft Tools. If future generation of developer has to start with C, C++ or Java without absence real (old) VB, then Microsoft will be the loser. Try teaching VB.net to a school-kid of the same age, the age when you started to learn VB.
  2) Most of the establishments are still using MS office 97/ 2000 because lots of VBA codes they already have. Open source alternative (e.g. Openoffice) lacks replacement of VBA, the very simple tool which again solves real problems.
  3) Microsoft can afford to put developers to update foxpro, but they can not afford to update VB6.
  
  Microsoft has got a huge developer base because they offered simple tools which can solve real world problems. By killing VB6/VBA, they are losing the oppurtunity to present the very first tool to future generation of developers. Also, losing their defense against Linux, Java and other open source alternatives.
  
  I wish my comments are read by somebody at Microsoft who decides long term strategy but not by those Ph.D. development teams who are blind at .Net.
  

• Anonymous
  April 12, 2005
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  January 21, 2009
  PingBack from http://www.keyongtech.com/1338327-no-future-of-vba-in/2

• Anonymous
  May 29, 2009
  PingBack from http://paidsurveyshub.info/story.php?title=jroxe-s-weblog-an-open-letter-to-the-community

• Anonymous
  June 08, 2009
  PingBack from http://insomniacuresite.info/story.php?id=5741

• Anonymous
  June 08, 2009
  PingBack from http://cellulitecreamsite.info/story.php?id=766

• Anonymous
  June 08, 2009
  PingBack from http://toenailfungusite.info/story.php?id=2348

• Anonymous
  June 18, 2009
  PingBack from http://outdoordecoration.info/story.php?id=1478