The downside with OSS (or why Microsoft retired VB)
Choice between coding platforms/languages are the death of fast development, and OSS choices propagate exponentially.
it is far better to have, like, 3 basic choices with tradeoffs than it is to have 30.
that is something that apple is getting right, they limit their development choices. it is also why Microsoft were right in retiring VB, and it is why OSS is so bloody hard to get into, and why java sucks.
choices make life bloody hard, because if I want to create a solution from existing parts then the more choices that are available the more likely the existing parts that I want to use are only available in differing forms and languages. likewise the documentation. likewise the os.
the death of OSS isn't going to be microsoft, it is going to be the propagation of choices.
Not sure how your argument applies to Java. You basically limit yourself to the Java stack and are forced to live with it. Apple makes you choose b/t Objective-C, C++, AppleScipt, Java, Ruby and whatever else their going to be shipping with Panther, which will also let's you pick reference counting or garbage collection for objc, Carbon or Cocoa, Webobjects, php, etc.
<shrug> clearly Im not an expert with java* but every conversation I hear regarding it involves struts, j2ee, jthis, jthat, thingie and the jwhatsit everyone has been talking about recently.
" Apple makes you choose b/t Objective-C, C++, AppleScipt, Java, Ruby and whatever else their going to be shipping with Panther"
yeah, Im distinguishing between shipping stuff with the OS and having it as their 'supported' platform. their supported platform is objective c for applications, applescript for creating workflows and thats about it now, with the small exception of the carbon stuff that they are still working through.
if you want to use java, ruby, or whatever else they ship they make it easy by providing a base installation, but its not 'supported' in any real way **
* youd guessed, right?
** except for the fact that IIRC they are providing ruby bindings through to cocoa with the next release, so maybe Im making a false distinction.
MS didn't retire VB -- it lives on in VB.NET.
If you had said that VB.NET use is on the decline (with the exception of web developers), I'd agree entirely.
March 11th, 2007 6:17pm
look, Im sorry people, this is my fault. I wasn't clear about my expectations with this thread.
_this_ thread is for those who agree with me. the rest of you can just fuck off.
>> the death of OSS isn't going to be microsoft, it is going to be the propagation of choices. <<
You can generalize this to "Death by Fork"
March 11th, 2007 7:30pm
>MS didn't retire VB -- it lives on in VB.NET.
VB.NET is C# in sheep's clothing.
March 11th, 2007 7:42pm
VB still lives on as VBA 6.5 in Excel 2007.
They won't ever be able to kill it properly too much stuff living in Excel spreadsheets.
March 11th, 2007 7:45pm
They are trying to begin to kill it, though - it's not in the next version of Office for Mac.
I'm not sure if that means they are trying to kill VB, or kill Mac.
March 11th, 2007 11:51pm
>I'm not sure if that means they are trying to kill VB, or kill Mac.
Good point. M$ has stopped working on IE for the Mac, if I'm not mistaken, so maybe that's evidence of M$ trying to kill the Mac.(Or at least "die on the vine" slowly)
Then again, doesn't M$ need the Mac to be at least on life support, so M$ can point to it and say, "No, we're not really a monopoly, we do have competition" ?
March 12th, 2007 10:01am
I think .NET more or less murdered VB, but I remember seeing a Computerworld poll that said ~60% of .NET shops were using VB.NET.
Not that I buy that number, just that I do buy VB.NET being more widespread than it sounds here.
March 12th, 2007 10:03am