!Re: Nuke Redmond!

From: allisonp_at_world.std.com <(allisonp_at_world.std.com)>
Date: Thu Apr 6 09:24:48 2000

On Wed, 5 Apr 2000, Bruce Lane wrote:
>I can only speak for myself, but sitting in front of a screen for 12+hour
> days grinding out nothing but abstract code would drive me bonkers inside
> of a week. I prefer to work with REAL hardware, thank you. Things I can
> actually see, touch, and manipulate with hand tools, solder/desolder
> equipment, and a nice test bench full of instruments.

;) Yep!

>No, it's not a joke. It is a useful language for what it does. But it is
> NOT suitable for every imaginable application. Each language -- C, C++,
> ADA, Pascal, whatever -- has its own strengths and weaknesses. I would
> hardly choose VB to write, say, code for an embedded microcontroller. Nor
> would I choose it if I just needed a simple program in ANSI BASIC for an
> older system.

VB is almost as reliable as my copy of MITS basic 3.1 and also the copy
of MITS basic 3.21 ($75 more) and so on... MS meant buggy code 1975 and
still does.

> I'm curious... if you're so enamored of VB and PCs, and not so much of
> "antiquated technology," why are you even subscribed to this list?

I'd bet for a break from insanity! ;)

Richard has one point burried in there. VB good or bad is the accepted
tool and as Zane pointed out a sad story indeed that it would be a
standard at all.

Received on Thu Apr 06 2000 - 09:24:48 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:32:39 BST