When is the last time anyone here looked at the original post???
Printable View
When is the last time anyone here looked at the original post???
Puh-leez. I know of some C/C++ programmers that couldn't program their way out of a paper bag.Quote:
Originally posted by macai
The satisfaction that you are 1337er than the VB programmers. I want to learn it as well, just for the sake of knowing a lower level language in case I need to write an app that can be compiled on multiple operating systems.
FYI: C is not a low level language.
For cross platform, there's Java.
How? There's much more I can do with VB.NET that I can't currently do w/o jumping through hoops in VB6.Quote:
Originally posted by wossname
VB6 was hailed as a powerful language when it came out. In comparison to VB.net it is not powerful.
Yeah go to .net, its infinitely better.
And error handling is finaly done right.
I'd like to know how it can be considered a "collosal failure " -- it's just now gaining steam. When you make significant changes to something like you can't expect every one to switch over night. That's rediculous. A failure is New Coke, a failure is Seguay, even the Titanic ( the ship, not the movie) was a failure, and so was OS/2 - despite it's superiority over Windows. VB5 was a flop, and does anyone remember "ActiveX Documents"? Somethings take time. I hardly think .NET is a failure in any way.Quote:
Originally posted by szlamany
The official word on the next version of Visual Studio (Whibdey?) is that it's going to re-embrace some of the look/feel and features of VB6, since VB .Net was a collosal failure as far of wide spread development switch-over.
Wait for that.
Edit: Learning C or assembler makes computers less mysterious and gives the programmer more power...
Redundancies? Really? Where? I haven't seen any. Infact, I'll have less redundancies due to inheritance and overriding and overloading, something I can't do in VB6.Quote:
Originally posted by RhinoBull
In terms of WHAT ???
VB6 is one of the very best programming languages ever and it did proved this over long period of time.
DOT NET is yet to achive this goal.
Programming is all about simplicity and not complications wich was why many C guys (including myself) moved away from redundancies in C/C++ programming to VB world back in the early VB releases. VB.Net as well as C# are nice languages (no doubt about that) but both have tons of redundancies in coding and both including mentality of some JAVA and some C++.
Personally I'm really sorry to see VB6 going away ... but we have to move on and future is all about DOT NET I guess.
Now there is a contradiction - yeah, go ahead and learn it, but never mind the fact that very few companies are looking for that skill set.Quote:
Originally posted by RhinoBull
I agree - Delfi is one fantastic language. Unfortunately it's not marketable here is the States but it's certainly big in Europe.
And it's DELPHI.
....
I keep hearing this, but I still have yet to see one shred of ANY evidence of this.... what is it about .NET that is "evil"? The name calling is counter productive and unnecessary. And I still don't see how .NET is a failure of anything. If it was this aledged failure that everyone (but me?) seems to think that it is, then why do I see more and more components available for it? Why do I see more and more .NET jobs available? Why is there now a thrird verison of VS out? If it is a failure, why is MS dumping VBScript for full-blown .NET integration in MS Office? If it's a failure, why are there comapnies bulding IDE's for C# on LINUX? Can *any*one show HOW .NET is a failure of any kind?Quote:
Originally posted by invitro
Nooo... .NET is evil. Stay away. Like someone said, wait for the new Visual Studio. Perhaps take a shot at delphi! I believe that .NET is an utter failure. The only thing that it is good for is Internet Applications. If you are interested in that, by all means. However, I would still recommend sticking with VB6 for now. It is not going to make you more 'l33t' like someone here said... which made me burst out in laughter.
The first reason is vlid, I'll give you that. It happens to be the nature of the beast. But even if you don't include something in the installer, the user has to get it somewhere. BTW: I haven't seen an installer of any kind where I had to include something. We've got an install that doesn't include alot of the components used by our app. It's our choice.Quote:
Originally posted by Madboy
Ok, i forgot to add, here is reason #47826 to choose Delphi, you can if you want compile the project to include the run time files into that single executable (the output single exe size is normally 450Kb), but you can specify which components to not to include, saves the need of an installer dont you think, if your lazy like me:wave:
Reason #39875
You can add icons to menu
Reason #1269
You can add icons/bitmaps to your Imagelist, then when you assign to your Toolbar, it doesnt matter if you need to add a new button later on (normally you would have to re assign the Image list image indexes), as it updates it for you easily
Reason #1
The product doesnt contain the name Microsoft:cool:
Your middle two reasons are weak.... same can be done in VB6.... albiet through thrird party controls, but it can be done.
Your third reason is ..... *sigh*..... not going to bother.
Classic example of the "Chicken Little Syndrome" : it doesn't work the way I'm used to so it must be broke, so label it "this sucks" and rant and rave about it.Quote:
Originally posted by invitro
heh i found this rather amusing
http://bobmoore.mvps.org/opinion/opinion004_VSNet.htm
Imagine if the same mentality had been applied to Windows when it first came out. "There's no C:\ prompt, so this thing sucks. I can't get it to tell me what path I'm in....." The samething happened for a lot of people when moving from VB3 to VB4. It's a paradigm shift: Roll with it or get out of the way.
....
It's a time and energy thing. Moving from VB6 to VB.NET takes some getting used to, there are some big changes. But I don't think it's a failure.Quote:
Originally posted by projecttoday
Re:
Back in the sixties a lanquage was introduced called PL/1. No, I wasn't programming at that time. PL/1 was clearly superior to Cobol. But it never really caught on. The reason is that programmers were not forced to learn it in order to program a mainframe.
Question: Is .NET failing because people don't want to take the time and energy to learn it or is it because it stinks?
Here's how I look at it: The first two years it was out, it basically in Park, with the engine indling. Then last year it go out of park (thanks in part to VS2003 and .NET 1.1) and into first gear. Now it's run all the way through first and has only (in the last 6 months or so) shifted into second. Next year will the be the third gear year and when the next round of Windows and BackOffice (SQL Server, IIS, etc.)comes out, .NET will be cruising along in fouth gear (maybe even fifth). Remember when Windows 95 came out? It took some time before people were moved to it. And now, there are still people out there who _won't_ give it up.
Now this has to be one of the smarter comments I've seen on this thread. I'd like to note that there is power in all languages, it's a matter of knowlege (knowing what to use, when to use and why to use it). I've said it before to other people, and I'll share it here: When it comes to wanting something done in a program, nothing is impossible. It all just depends on how much time and money you want to throw at it.Quote:
Originally posted by Madboy
Lets not post a Pro's/Con's list, the page would overflow with memory leakage, causing another MICROSOFT product to crash.
Whatever the problem was Phreak, i can guarantee that if you used Delphi 7 or higher, the problem would be easily fixed and completed. I dont know where you got the idea of it not being powerful, but i hear the power is phenomenal, compared to VB/VB.Net. I mean, if you think Delphi 6 was weak, ill use this an excellent opportunity to correct you, and enlighten you on this. Go to www.gamemaker.nl the dude there Mark Overmars made a program to let people make games. It includes a full fledged code editor, with power of physics, full multimedia and a compiler. This wsa made in Delphi 5, which is ancient, like 1997 i think. If Delphi 6 has no power, how the hell did he achieve that in Delphi 5 ? Moving onto 2002 Delphi 7 was released, its now 2004 and moving on we have a beta of Delphi 8.Net, the power IS definitely in Delphi, you just need to look in the right place to get it;)
There's things I can do in VB6 that I never would have dreamed possible back in VB3 (classes? DLLS? Interfaces? <- there's powere in that stuff too.)
------------
The key to the VB6, .NET, Delphi, et al. decision is simple: What is it that _YOU_ want to do? Learn to do what it is you want. Then expound upon that skill. Otherwise the question becomes an open invitation to a pissing contest (which is what I feel this thread has turned into.)
The opportunities are boundless at the moment. But you have to look to yourself and decide what it is you want to do. I want to expand my skills, I'm picking up .NET (both VB and C#.) I didn't ask for advise, but looked inside and made the decision for myself. I'm starting up a new company, and decided that the language of choice would be VB.NET. I could have stayed in VB6, in my little cocoon and played it safe. But it would serve no purpose. For what I wanted to do, VB6 just wasn't it. .NET is.
I'll be honest, I have yet to see one *GOOD* valid reason to not go to .NET. By that same token, I haven't seen any reason to not go Delphi or Java or C++. And believe it or not, I actually see reasons to stick with or to learn VB6 - after many VB6ers jump to .NET, their legacy code will still exist, run and need to be maintained.
TG
According to this months InfoWorld, VB 2005 has been re-born.
From that issue:
I'm not sayings that inexperienced developers should drive where we all go, but that is where programmers start...Quote:
"VB 2005 abridges .Net's pendantic grammar to accomodate inexperienced and impatient developers. VB coders won't need to know much about the .Net framework to get their work done. VB 2005 is, once again, the beginner's language whose capabilites rise to match your skills..."
Also from that issue:
It goes on and on.Quote:
"Let's settle this up front. MS has let is's developers down. During the past few years, the company has left a trail of broken promises: a .Net centered OS; a broad stack of managed .Net-based server apps...".
The original poster now knows VB6 and wanted to know were to go next. Why choose .NET?
Out of all the posts that have been posted very few have answord my question!!!
lol
another question should i buy a VB.Net book if I already know VB6?
Don't be silly and so cocky. Just one Handle Button2.Click and so on to handle multiple controls within one procedure is already readundant s...t. VB6 only requires single declaration of Index for control array. And list can go on ...Quote:
Originally posted by techgnome
Redundancies? Really? Where? I haven't seen any. Infact, I'll have less redundancies due to inheritance and overriding and overloading, something I can't do in VB6. ...
Wouldn't have - I already know it and I said unfortunately "it's not marketable here in the States".Quote:
Originally posted by techgnome
... Now there is a contradiction - yeah, go ahead and learn it, but never mind the fact that very few companies are looking for that skill set.
And it's DELPHI. ....
Check out the last portion of the third of my three part postings.... I tried to cover it there.Quote:
Originally posted by rotcrules
Out of all the posts that have been posted very few have answord my question!!!
lol
another question should i buy a VB.Net book if I already know VB6?
And yes, buy a book, the differences are great enough, you'll need it.
TG
"Moving to VB.NET" is a book that helps the VB6 programmer move t VB.NET, with helpful comparisons along the way. Or, there's also Professional VB.NET (2nd edition) from Wrox Press, which I find to be even better.
You'll find a lot of reccommendations for books, and most of them will be good for you. All of them start off with the assumption that you know a little bit of VB6.
I am not aware of any books which teach just VB.NET without comparing or referring to VB6.
Rotcrules, here is my uneducated answer, because, as has been noted, few have given a clear answer. I do not use .Net – yet.
MS has a pattern of putting out a crappy product in the midst of a big change, followed by a much better one. Windows 95 ran and crashed. Windows 98 (at least by SP2) was stable. ME sucked worse than just about any other platform in the history of OSes. XP is as stable as the rest of NT line (more or less) with the functionality for home users of the Win9x line.
VB5 was great and sucked both at once. VB6 got it right where VB5 failed. My guess is that the next generation of VS will get it right .Net has problems.
If you don't mind spending time to learn something that may or may not be around (at least in mass) in five years, then go ahead and switch to .Net. If you don't mind that VB's next version will probably revert back to a lot of VB6’s ways – making your newfound skills un-needed (although not inherently un-useful) – then go ahead and switch to .Net.
Because of the high financial cost of switching I am planning on waiting for the next generation of Visual Studio to come out, and to see how .Net plays out. And for sure, as this thread shows, it is unclear how that is going to be yet.
Hi,
Interesting. I've never looked at Delphi. I used dBase III Plus for a long time because Borland made such a hash of developing a visual product, so I went to VB6 & VB.NET. If what you guys say
obout Delphi is true I must take a look at it. One point would be decisive. Whilst printing hard copy in VB6 was no better than dBase III Plus, in VB.NET it is horrendus!!!!! How easy is printing in Delphi?
Not tried, but if its as effective and easy as the rest of Delphi, then there should be NO problems.
For the dude wondering what to do now, all i can say is find a demo or something of VB.Net, Delphi whatever and have a go at using it for a week or so, see which you enjoy using most, but more importantly which you can benefit from most. I choose delphi now, but the end of the day, that is my choice, my opinion;)
YOU SHOULD NOT LEARN .NET!
IF YOU HAVEN'T LEARNED IT YET, THEN DON'T LEARN IT NOW.
WHY?????
Because this way those of us who do know .NET can make more money, because there are less skilled .NET programmers to choose from!
So stick with your VB5 or go to work at McDonalds, because all you are doing is hurting the IT industry by learning more skills.
My suggestion is learn to be a Retail Sales Associate.
Quote:
Originally posted by Madboy
Not tried, but if its as effective and easy as the rest of Delphi, then there should be NO problems.
What DO you mean? You have not tried printing!!! How can you possibly write a commercial programme without printing out reports or sending invoices???????
Hi rotcrules,
Seriously, moving from VB6 to .NET is not particularly easy. It is easier to learn VB.NET if younever knew VB6. I still cannot produce written invoices etc in .NET and have not yet sold a .NET application. I still run VB6 for my customers not because it is better but because I can guarantee to produce what is required. Hopefully, new versions of .NET will overcome such problems, so I suggest you wait and see. If you do move you will have to spend at least $100.oo on books (or $1500.oo on a course). Alternatively, you could post your questions one at a time on VB.NET forum and take 10 years to learn it for free:bigyello:
Quote:
Originally posted by macai
The satisfaction that you are 1337er than the VB programmers. I want to learn it as well, just for the sake of knowing a lower level language in case I need to write an app that can be compiled on multiple operating systems.
Pardon my ignorance but what is a "1337er"? That was about the time of Robin Hood. The only thing he knew about computers was the cursor movement symbol. :bigyello:
...because i program for Personal use, i only started learning VB a year ago coz i was supposed to do it in college, otherwise i wouldnt of bothered. But having learnt VB, i didnt even do it at college, now i use it if im really bored, or need something making which isnt available on the net, in which i havnt made one sucesfull thing yet, now im using Delphi 7, i feel like a real pro already, the skills i picked up from VB6 are proving to be very rewarding, the syntax is pretty much the same as VB once you work around a few differences. For example, to set the programs caption in VB, its done like:
Me.Caption = "Hello World!"
in Delphi, its done:
Application.Caption:= 'Hello World!";
Not much difference if i may say so myself, when i first tried delphi, i said to myself, im never going to use that EVER, a year down the line, i needed a replacement to VB6, and i wish i never abandoned Dephi 7 now, seriously you should STRONGLY consider it, at least try the Trial:thumb:
This thread went waaaaay off topic.
I don't know much about .NET but think that it was a bold move by Microsoft to standardise the .NET concepts/methodolgies (whatever you want to call them). It hasn't taken long for projects such as Mono to get off the ground and we''ll probably see more open source .NET projects in the furture. For this very reason - even if it was going to fail, it wont now :D.
Madboy, why do you keep going on about how superior Delphi is compared to VB6. I like to think of real programmers as lazy. Why? Becuase a real programmer will have a host of tools in front of him - all the tools will do different things and have their own strngths and weaknesses. The smart programmer will pick the tool which will get the job done quickest and easiest.
Comparing VB6 to Delphi is like comparing a hammer to a saw (granted saws are great at cutting through wood - but what use is it at hamming nails into wood) .
The idea behind Visual Basic is RAD (Rapid Applications Development), the one thing Visual Basic excels in. It allows the programmer to think more about the business needs of his applicaion and not the low level memory allocation, pointer managment, and OS interaction C++ programmers have to worry about. And in all honesty - if you want to create a stock management application, why would you need to worry about those things. The pitfalls of VB are obvious - and although it is possible to get pictures in menus and program using the Windows API - it is often more work than would be required if you were to use a language like Delphi or C.
Delphi/Pascal sits in the middle. Syntax wise it has the look and feel of VB - however, don't be deceived - these languages a quite low level and almost as powerful as C. They promote good coding techniques and encourage the creation of abstract data types through the use of units.
One of their main advantages is their ability to use C Runtime Libraries - common place on all Windows OS'es (ie no runtime files required when installing) and their built-in ability to use other libararies such as DLL's with eas and without running the risk of crashing the IDE. The pitfalls again are obvious - for our programmer who is creating his stock managment system, why should he have to worry about the size of his array's at design time? Why does the program crash when the user enters a string instead of a number?
I will say again - the smart programmer uses the language that gets his task done the quickest and easiest. Anyone who trys to write CGI applications using batch scripts is a fool. Anyone who trys to use access in a grid environment is a fool. Anyone who trys to create his stock managment system in assembler is a fool.
I conclude my random rant :afrog:
to hault all discussion...
I am going to move to .NET!!!
:thumb:Quote:
because it looks like the future
Bigger fool you:ehh:
Before making that move dude :
http://community.borland.com/article...,31980,00.html
VisualAD - I always ramble about Delphi because, im like what you are, despised/dislike it, having got into it, i wish i never wasted a year on Microsoft Visual Basic 6, not to mention waste of money. The only problem with Delphi is, there is little resources available, we need more people to join the Delphi corporation. This isnt about, Microsoft sucks, Delphi rules whatever, its about which can perform the best, and in my eyes, Delphi proves this without a fault.
Did i mention?
Quote:
If you're a Delphi developer, but aren't using Delphi 7, you'll be interested to know that Delphi 8 for .NET includes a copy of Delphi 7 (for Win32). Even if you have only a passing interest in .NET development at this time, the offer to get Delphi 7 bundled with Delphi 8 for .NET should provide you with a pretty compelling argument for upgrading.
Qoute from some other website:
Quote:
I was a die-hard VB fan, but after being forced to use delphi, I have found it more robust, efficient and better to use. Furthermore, to simply run a VB.NET .exe file, you need to have the .NET framework installed.
Fik .net.
Learn Access and VBA instead.
It's Brill.
Just ask the others if you dont believe me.
:afrog: :afrog: :afrog: :p :afrog: :afrog: :afrog:
The advantages of Delphi over VB:
http://www.tek-tips.com/faqs.cfm?spi...t1=10&sfid=776
I think you have now successfully converted all VBF members to Delphi. Well done :rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally posted by Madboy
Bigger fool you:ehh:
Before making that move dude :
http://community.borland.com/article...,31980,00.html
VisualAD - I always ramble about Delphi because, im like what you are, despised/dislike it, having got into it, i wish i never wasted a year on Microsoft Visual Basic 6, not to mention waste of money. The only problem with Delphi is, there is little resources available, we need more people to join the Delphi corporation. This isnt about, Microsoft sucks, Delphi rules whatever, its about which can perform the best, and in my eyes, Delphi proves this without a fault.
Would you quit plastering the boards with your Delphi crap? Its not a language thats in demand, and he stated that he wants to learn stuff of use. ;)
My 2cents would be that its really not worth it and you'd probably be better off moving to C++. :)
I gotta unsubscribe from this thread - it's killing me...
I agree with Pc_Madness...
Like I said the first day:
Quote:
Originally posted by szlamany
The official word on the next version of Visual Studio (Whibdey?) is that it's going to re-embrace some of the look/feel and features of VB6, since VB .Net was a collosal failure as far of wide spread development switch-over.
Wait for that.
Edit: Learning C or assembler makes computers less mysterious and gives the programmer more power...
By asking the question that is what he is doing. Why are you registered for this forum, surely google has all of your answers?Quote:
Originally posted by ironhide
Should I buy a new car?
There's a billion factors to consider.
Why not do your own research, I know a really good site that helps you with answers to this kind of stuff.
I'ts called www.google.com
I really have to disagree and say this is a very bad career move for you.Quote:
Originally posted by rotcrules
to hault all discussion...
I am going to move to .NET!!!
:thumb:
Please reread my post above.
I haven't heard that before, but I truely hope you are correct. I'm of the opinion that the only people that have adopted VB.Net are current or ex C++/Java programmers.Quote:
Originally posted by szlamany
The official word on the next version of Visual Studio (Whibdey?) is that it's going to re-embrace some of the look/feel and features of VB6, since VB .Net was a collosal failure as far of wide spread development switch-over.
I've always thought MS sold out on the VB programmers around the world and I've always thought I was in the minority that thought that.
Perhaps not?
ALL wrong, the best language ever is,
DrunkLanguage - the only language i understand, and its real easy to pick up, you should all try it:thumb:
I strongly suggest that all programmers (except me) find new jobs in the Retail industry.
Hardly. EVERY VB developer in my company has embraced .NET. That includes developers who have been around way before VB for Dos. Yes they have their concerns due to some new ways of doing things, but they all been impressed by it.Quote:
I haven't heard that before, but I truely hope you are correct. I'm of the opinion that the only people that have adopted VB.Net are current or ex C++/Java programmers.
I dont know anyone outside this forum who have gone onto vb .net.
The problem is we are constantly adjusting old machines to take new software. We cant upgrade the runtimes except some dll's so .net is way out of bounds.
The other problem is it is a new language and we would have to start all our applications from scratch. :(
Nope... at least not for me. I've been using VB since VB3, and I'm enbrasing VB.NET.... unfortunatly for me our culture and manager attitudes here are preventing us from moving to .NET - which is why in my second "job" outside of here, I'm running full-steam w/ VB.NET.... I've only been messing with it for about two months now and I love it, it's got some truly great features (IMHO) that I wish I had in VB6.Quote:
Originally posted by Gary Campbell
I haven't heard that before, but I truely hope you are correct. I'm of the opinion that the only people that have adopted VB.Net are current or ex C++/Java programmers.
I've always thought MS sold out on the VB programmers around the world and I've always thought I was in the minority that thought that.
Perhaps not?
How has MS "sold out" VB developers? By giving us what we've been asking for years? OOP? Stronger Typing? Inheritance? Overloading?
TG
.NET installed as of last friday and still searching my way around a bit. I'm getting the hang of it :thumb:
Source?Quote:
Originally posted by szlamany
The official word on the next version of Visual Studio (Whibdey?) is that it's going to re-embrace some of the look/feel and features of VB6, since VB .Net was a collosal failure as far of wide spread development switch-over.
Wait for that.
Edit: Learning C or assembler makes computers less mysterious and gives the programmer more power...
I already stated the source - May 31, 2004 issue of InfoWorld - cover article on Visual Studio 2005.
Three [edit] years ago we started a $500,000 conversion for a large labor union/health insurance concern - converting from Digital mainframes to MS SQL and some kind of VB. At the same time we started converting our K-12 school district applications form Digital to MS SQL/VB.
VB .Net was very new back then. MS had there sales agents pulling copies of VB6 off the shelves at Comp USA as we were deciding where to go.
We looked very hard at VB .Net - and had major concerns over it's newness, it's extreme embrace of INet - ADO .Net with disconnected recordsets - a long list of issues. We purchased both VB .Net and a copy of VB 6 (got it though the MSDN software purchase agreements). We spent a month comparing the options - with hired hands from head hunters helping us get a grip. VB .Net had great points - true inheritance, real runtime - things we were used to from 20 years of using a strong consistent Digital VAX-11 BASIC.
I don't think the customers would have funded the development on VB .Net - we uncovered too many issues.
We decided to go with VB 6. It has been a great experience - the customers are happy - the product works great.
Had we to make the same choice right now, with the info that is available about the upcoming VB 2005 release, we would still not choose VB .Net. The very fact that VB 2005 is yet again another release of VB - major release - not minor (read the press on this - it's readily available) - would make us leary of choosing a new platform that is still being shaked out.
We fully expect to leave VB 6 - the time is not now.
Our customers pay us maintenance fees - and that drives the development cycle. Been doing this for 25 years. That's the way real life works.
Interesting read. Thanks.
I have been doing .NET for about a year and although I still maintain some existing VB6 apps, I wouldn't develop any new apps in anything but .NET.
And I plan on rewriting all of the VB6 apps in .NET soon.
And BTW, you guys are obviously not listening to me!!!
YOU ALL NEED TO GET JOBS IN THE RETAIL INDUSTRY
I think people were looking for a link. Here's the articleQuote:
Originally posted by szlamany
I already stated the source - May 31, 2004 issue of InfoWorld - cover article on Visual Studio 2005.
<{snip}>
We fully expect to leave VB 6 - the time is not now.
Our customers pay us maintenance fees - and that drives the development cycle. Been doing this for 25 years. That's the way real life works.
Our customers pay us maint fees too... and we also have on going develolpment that seems to never end - which is why I think we'll *never* goto .NET here, which is a real shame. And you're right, it is the way things work. You sometime have to make those decisions.
OK.... I read the article, and not once did it say that the look & feel of VB6 was comming back. What is comming back is VS6.... which I always thought was an ugly interface. Secondly, no where did it mention that .NET was a collosal failure. What they did say was that MS had expected C++ programmers to jump all over C# in great numbers, but they didn't and so now they are aquiesing and beefing C++ back up and getting it to re-join the VS family.Quote:
Originally posted by szlamany
The official word on the next version of Visual Studio (Whibdey?) is that it's going to re-embrace some of the look/feel and features of VB6, since VB .Net was a collosal failure as far of wide spread development switch-over.
Wait for that.
Edit: Learning C or assembler makes computers less mysterious and gives the programmer more power...
TG