[ale] OT: Re: posting to Linux mail list

[Geoffrey]

Greg wrote:
> Well, VB is cheap, easy , plenty of developers (I think it is the # 1
>  language by number of developers) and did I mention it is cheap ?

Cheap???  Let's see, what are the prereqs for running VB?  Oh, yeah, one 
of those M$ OS's, running about $200+ for one box.

> It interacts with other VB stuff (all of MS office) and it is
> object-oriented (no, not object based).

Oh, cheap again, let's see, MS Office, that's about $400.

> It can easily access and use
> C++ and Windows API's is scalable to probably about 90% of what
> business's require. 

I could say the same for perl and C.

> It is not a scripting language (like HTML)

No, HTML is not a scripting language, it is a markup language.

> but a
> full development language.  It represents RAD at it's best and is
> only as insecure as the coders make it. Many apps are not necessarily
> networkable and many companies are not connected to the net (or
> weren't), so the security thing is not a huge thing in some
> instances.

Scripting language is one that does not compile to a binary.  As I 
recall, VB requires an additional dll to run, thus it would be similar 
to Perl in that it needs an engine.  Correct me if I'm wrong, as I don't 
stay on top of the M$ stuff.

> Rewriting is many times not an issue, as many clients will point out.
>  Money, politics, and the what-if-Linux-changes (lib problems anyone
> ?) points make re-writing not a choice for many businesses.

Then they are not looking at the bigger picture, which is what too many 
companies do these days.

> Whether facing a choice of changing to Linux or .NET or Java many
> companies are doing what the 400 million users of Windows 98 are
> doing - nothing.  If it ain't broke don't fix it. A trillion flashy
> apps, connectivity crap, stuff that would never be used but is paid
> for and such that are in the ads of many OS's are irrelevant to many
> businesses.  MS has done well by them and outside of the occasional
> HD failure they were/are/will continue to be ok.  They have already
> paid for their licenses and really don't require much of anything
> from any camp (Java/Open Source/Windows).  For these folk there just
> simply is no reason to change.

What?  What OS's does M$ now support?  I believe they've dumped 95/98 
right?  What about NT?  I think it's gone too.

So, no support for your OS.

You're description of 'flashy apps, connectivity crap, stuff that would 
never be used' sounds a lot like Microsoft OS, only worse.  Rather than 
a bunch of different apps, you've got this monolithic OS with crap stuck 
into it that shouldn't be there, like IE...

> Also, the point that you see little value of a GUI dev tool (which is
> huge to me) is the point.  Just because I don't care about OCR or
> other stuff does not mean that there are not those that do - and do
> so to a large extent.  MS has many apps in these little niches that
> Linux does not - and obviously vice-versa.

I'd still like examples.  I mean, I've been working from a whole Linux 
shop for at least 5 years.

> But to date, there is no
> VB equivalent in the Linux community and the choices are really not
> great for what there is (C++, tcl/tk, perl, etc etc) that has VB's
> points.

Perl can easily do pretty much all you've defined VB can do, and more. I 
can write to an Access db and create excel spreadsheets with Perl.  What 
other db engines (I know that's a stretch, calling Access a db) can VB 
write to?  Perl can write to: Oracle, Informix, Postgresql, Mysql, 
Access, and ODBC compliant DB.

Who the hell really cares if you can VB with Word?  Who really does 
that?  Most  businesses use Word for just what it is, a word processor.

-- 
Until later, Geoffrey	esoteric at 3times25.net

Building secure systems inspite of Microsoft