VBx and Silverlight

[dilettante]

I'm not seeing any chatter about this here yet. Of course the whole thing is only a few weeks old at this point.

So far I'm seeing a few posts on VBx:

http://blogs.msdn.com/vbteam/archive/2007/05/01/vb-on-silverlight.aspx

http://oakleafblog.blogspot.com/2007/05/visual-basic-language-on-silverlight.html

... and of course lots on Silverlight itself, which looks/smells like a Flash competitor. This used to be called WPF/E.

So it appears that "VB" (or at least the .Net incarnation) is being positioned as a VBScript/VBA replacement for both Windows and Mac. Probably outside Silverlight it'll first emerge in a new Office release. No idea what this means for PowerShell but perhaps we'll see some convergence.

I also can't be sure whether this means VB.Net will "lose its legs" as it follows this evolutionary path or not. Maybe VB.Net will vacate its niche alongside C# for "traditional" CLR (non-DLR) development? I pity the poor fool who decided to invest heavily in VB.Net if that is true.

I have my doubts though. The Silverlight 1.1 JavaScript-to-IL compiler was built in VB.Net. Maybe VB.Net is simply splitting into two parallel paths like the old VB/VBA dichotomy? A pretty well-circulated "poster" graphic mapping the Silverlight universe seems to list both VB.NET and VBx.Net (listed as Visual Basic and VBx respectively).

Platform coverage seems to include IE 6 & 7, Firefox 1.5 & 2.0, and Opera... on Windows 2000 through Vista and Mac Leopard & Tiger. A sort of stripped CLR weighing in at about 4MB seems to be at the core. I assume from the chatter that it contains at least some of the "dynamic language" support so maybe it's more of a stripped DLR.

Isn't technology churn wonderful? Anyone else having trouble keeping up?

 

[Sympology]

Too true. Until recently I had several versions of Java installed, just to run different pieces of software from the same Vendor ... Aarrrggghh

Only the truly stupid believe they know everything.
Stu.. 2004

 

[dilettante]

Well if that's not cross-platform... then what would be?

The only alternative I see is to try doing it at the source code level. Yet there you'll need compilers, linkers, etc. as well as libraries for each targeted platform.

 

[jsteph]

I guess my point is that nothing really is, but 'they' keep saying they've developed the magic program/tool/language that *is* cross platform.

I've mentioned in the past that a universal standard would be nice--and the analogy I've used is the way countries do most of their roads and many utilities: It simply doesn't make logistical sense to have 6 water mains and 6 sewer lines trenched to every single house in the country, from 6 different vendors. Same with roads--we can't have 12 "Interstate 80"s running across the country, each competing for tolls, when a single one that is funded by the general population--whether they may or may not use it--works generally fine.

With OS's, or at least a virtual machine or browser, it would be great if the logistics and the financial side of things could be worked out to do something somewhat similar. The irony is that this idea itself may not be logistically possible.
--Jim

 

[dilettante]

We have the universal standard already: Windows on x86 hardware.

Yes I know how much this answer sucks. But I accepted it years ago with all its warts. Doesn't make me happy, but there's more than a little truth in it.

 

[Opieo]

I would consider accepting the Windows over x86 if Windows worked with itself.
So many cross version issues its not even funny.
So no, need a better answer =P

~
Give a man some fire, he will be warm for a day, Set a man on fire, he will be warm for the rest of his life.

 

[dilettante]

Windows 2000 had a life cycle of March 2000 to March 2004. Windows XP has a life cycle of December 2001 to January 2008. These are "general license availability" dates.

Four years isn't bad, six is better, and there were two years and a few months of overlap. This doesn't sound too bad though I agree it could be improved.

If you're trying to support the later NT OSs and the obsolete Win9x OSs at the same time you have to expect some differences. If you think about it though the amount of portability between the two OS families is pretty good. I have lots of programs that will install on either type of OS unchanged, not even requiring recompilation.

It's hard to expect old versions of either OS to support things introduced in later ones though.

What's the problem?

I think lots of us would like an "OS for life" but that's not in the cards from any source.