We had a chat this morning with Eric Rudder. He gave us a few promises regarding the future of the Visual Basic 6.0 runtime. I don’t know how many folks from the development team are considering switching to the Halo group after this… Oh, another interesting point. For the first time, we were attacked by several spammers. Thankfully the moderator was able to get them off, but geeze, cant’ we get anything done in this industry without these mindless twits disrupting people trying to carry on a conversation?
Not long there after, I was asked by a member of the press to comment on the public chat this morning with Eric Rudder. This is how I responded:
Let me start by saying that I think that Microsoft is really interested in the welfare of the developer community. If they were truly arrogant as some would have you believe, they would not open themselves up for comment and shield people like Eric Rudder from the outside world. However, as I see it, they’re between
It’s hard to put a finger on what a Visual Basic developer really is. It’s not like C++ that requires a degree in abstract thinking to understand. Consider that Visual Basic in its many forms is easy enough for virtually anyone to use—regardless of the consequences or the skill level. In the hands of some developers I see Visual Basic as a poor-man’s
When Microsoft introduced Visual Basic .NET they assumed that once the “new and improved” language hit the streets that the hordes of developers would adopt it. They didn’t. This new language they called “Visual Basic” .NET was different enough that many of the paradevelopers and the pros didn’t want to invest in the new version. The other problem was that in the early days Microsoft kept saying that .NET was all about Web Services and ASP development. Not everyone (by far) was building web sites and they had no idea how a web service could help them. This put a damper on the momentum to migrate as much as the sour economy. Lots of companies simply didn’t (and still don’t) have the money to invest in yet another new technology. They think that as long as their old gas-guzzler is still running, they can afford to pay a bit more for gas—as long as their application is still working, they don’t see the need to convert. They figure that they should wait until Longhorn anyway—it’s just another few months away (or so they think). When it comes they’ll reevaluate the impact and whether or not it makes sense to migrate. Who knows, by then there might be yet another technology entirely different from .NET and they will save money by skipping this wave.
What should Microsoft do? Perhaps if Microsoft had named the new language something else (like “Visual Fred” or “B#”), they could have kept Visual Basic alive and made the transition smoother for their customers—but that’s water under the bridge. I don’t see Microsoft doing much more with Visual Basic 6.0. They simply don’t have the resources to do both. However, I think they need to focus on what’s best for Visual Basic 6.0 developers—the people they convinced that this was the best long-term solution for their application requirements. I think this means keeping the product alive by making sure it works in XP, Longhorn and beyond. This means keeping their staff working on bug fixes and compatibility issues as these new platforms evolve. I think we heard today in the chat that Eric has committed to this. I would like to hear this from Bill (the other one). Remember when Steve said “OS/2 OS/2 OS/2”? I would like to see continued support for Visual Basic 6.0. They have agreed to provide this (for a fee) but does this mean they pass this off to people overseas that don’t know the product?
I also think that Microsoft needs to take a hard look at the disruption they’ve caused in the industry as they constantly churn the technology. They can’t expect to reinvent the wheel every five years or so and expect the world to adopt the new technology just because it’s new and improved.
Well said as usual Bill. Your "real-world" perspective is always nice to get. I think that sometimes the air over at MS might get a little thin inside and they forget what the real people are dealing with. Businesses _can't_ afford, and average developers _don't_ want to be re-learning the latest technologies every five years. Perhaps this is good for authors, speakers and the like, but real folks just aren't so enthusiastic about it; especially when they have deadlines, no money or time for training as it is, and a family waiting at home for them.
Actually, it's bad for authors and trainers too. All of this technology churn means we have to constantly rewrite our books and training materials. Consider that books don't ususally stay on the bookstore shelves more than a couple of years. There always seems to be a newer version, an SP3, an upgrade that makes them obsolete. My Hitchhiker's Guides were revised six times in about eight years.