Re: What this mean for Borland?

"marc hoffman" wrote

Seriously, though, there is something to be said for backward
compatibility, but there's also such a thing as /too much/ backward
compatibility, as well. VB had to change for .NET, and in my book
MS did the right thing in changing it,

So when to we expect the EOL announcement for RemObjects on win32?

onto the framework. VB (as much as i still loathe it ;) has gotten
better for it.

VB.NET has no support whatsoever for writing win32 programs, which is what
it used to do. Argue the syntax changes as improvements all you want--it
remains that MS dumped the language as a win32 tool. That's not "commitment
to developers" in my book; it's palace decree.

Again, since you seem to think MS's action just fine, when do you plan to
dump your win32 tools?

That said VB6 isn't going anywhere, so it's not like developers that
have exiting applications written in VB6 cannot continue to use VB6 to
maintain these apps, or even continue using VB6 to write new
applications.

I trust you think this will satisfy your customers as well. I see you've
thought this out.

happy. But i suppose at some point resource limitations come into
play, even for someone as big as Microsoft.

Interesting argument for a language with an installed base of millions, and
an organization with 50 billion in loose change.

bobD


.