Sam Gentile suggests that Microsoft could not make VB.NET source-compatible with VB6 due to the latter's COM underpinnings. A nice theory, Sam, but I'm not buying it: MS had little trouble maintaining source compatibility when it re-plumbed VB4 to use COM; I don't see why it couldn't have done the same when it replaced COM with .NET. Certainly a few changes (such as ref counting vs. GC) were unavoidable, but many (most?) of the items on Karl's list could have been avoided.
I understand that MS had to make difficult decisions in the face of tight deadlines and limited resources; it had to get VB.NET out the door as quickly as possible. But now that it's shipped, why not improve VB.NET's compatibility with VB6, even if only by means of a deprecated compatibility namespace? This would undoubtedly spur increased adoption of .NET, and underscore Microsoft's commitment to VB as a serious development tool.
Posted by Sam Gentile on January 16, 2003:
Posted by Mike Gunderloy on January 19, 2003:
Posted by Dave Rothgery on January 22, 2003:
Posted by Mark Hurd on January 23, 2003:
Posted by Dave Rothgery on January 23, 2003:
Leave a comment