A Call to Kill VB

I’ve been around the software development industry a few years, starting originally in Classic ASP using VBScript, then changing over to .Net around the time it first made it’s debut. It was a natural change to upgrade my skills to VB.Net – well, because that’s what it was created for, right? Not just for developers, but for enterprises to have a clear upgrade path to the current technology for existing applications, and to be able to leverage as much as possible the existing skill-set within the organization.

Here we are, ten years later. VB.Net, why do you still exist?

After years of VB.Net getting the language feature Me-Too! treatment, it’s still out there. I’m still seeing developers clinging to this antiquated language with a firm death grip. And I’m still seeing new projects being started with VB.Net…

I realize that .Net was architected with many different languages in mind – so that there would be peace, love and harmony between all developers (except Java!), but is VB even relevant anymore? In fact, whenever someone talks about a .Net application, or working with .Net, I only assume C#. With VB.Net’s ancient syntax, it feels like a “programming for dummies” project that’s gone too far. It’s almost condescending every time I have to code… Staring back at me all smug – saying “you don’t know what you’re doing! Why are you even getting paid?!” OK that part is in my head, but it’s still a WTF feeling…

On the Microsoft side of things; when Microsoft releases new versions of the framework, like Silverlight for Windows Phone, or XNA, C# gets first class treatment, then a VB.Net version is hacked into existence. It’s obvious who’s the star of the show in their eyes when it come to .Net, so who are we kidding? Is VB’s existence even justified anymore? .Net toolsets have matured to the point where Microsoft could, and should be including an uprade wizard to go from a VB.Net project to a C# project. Why not?!

When a development team brings on a new hire based on .Net development skills, 9 out of 10 times they will stare in shock at the existence of VB.Net apps in an Enterprise suite, and have that look of disbelief that some of those apps are brand new.

Microsoft, isn’t it about time you put a bullet in this lame dog? It’s called progress – let’s stop clinging to the past and euthanize VB for the betterment of mankind.

Advertisements

Windows on ARM

It probably escaped the notice of most consumers, but a fairly major announcement was made at CES 2011 that will shape the future of mobile computing for the next few years.

Yes, Microsoft announced that Windows has been ported to the ARM processor. I don’t mean Windows Mobile (Microsoft’s now legacy Mobile OS, or Windows Phone 7 – built on Windows Embedded Compact 7) which already runs on ARM. I mean the Windows desktop, the OS that there is a 91% chance you are using if reading this article from a desktop computer.

ARM processors power a significant portion of mobile and low powered devices including smart-phones, TVs, and industrial hardened portable devices. They can be found anywhere that a system designer needs to conserve power due to battery life, or needs a low-heat high performance processor for a specific task. If you haven’t noticed, this is not the world of Windows.

Windows has always been relegated to mid-range to high performance computers for consumers or businesses. But there is an entire emerging market of smaller embedded computer devices that are becoming the norm. From smart phones to tablets, there is an overall pattern that is becoming apparent. The hardware these devices are running on is starting to rival desktop computers from a few short years ago. Desktops that are still perfectly capable of running a modern operating system with a few bells and whistles turned off. In the time between now and when this software is ready for prime-time, the gap will close even further. In fact, it’s highly likely that Windows 8 and Windows Phone 8 are going to be the same operating system.

Some would argue that Microsoft is late to notice this trend, just as they were late with noticing the trend towards touch based computing. This is further from the truth as can be. It takes years to produce working software as complicated as an Operating System. It takes quite a bit of time, planning, and financial backing to port an OS to an alternate micro-architecture. It’s likely that Microsoft put the plans in motion several years ago for this announcement, just as the Microsoft Surface sat in R&D labs at Microsoft since the beginning of the last decade before making its public debut. It takes careful consideration to release a product into the marketplace, and it’s all about timing.

Back on the subject of ARM however, some would point out a small issue on this subject. Software. You can’t run x86 or x64 compiled software on an ARM processor. You can’t run any natively compiled software on a processor that it’s not specifically compiled for. So this small caveat prevents almost every commercially available piece of software ever written for Windows from being run on Windows for ARM. So why would they do such a thing? Again, it’s all about timing.

The .Net Solution

.Net is a hardware agnostic technology that Microsoft release in 2002. It’s largely been relegated to development of Line of Business software due to its nature. It allows rapid development of software for several mediums (Windows, Web, Mobile) while using a (mostly) common API and set of languages. When used by a skilled team of developers, it’s a technology that produces a high return on investment by lowering development costs and making your IT department as versatile as possible though the application of the same skills to the various target platforms.

What’s special about .Net is that an application is compiled to MSIL (Microsoft Intermediate Language), a processor agnostic language that is JIT-compiled at runtime on the target platform, or pre-compiled during install time, again specifically for that target architecture. Although you can target your compilation for a specific architecture with .Net directly, there are usually specific reasons to do so that would prevent you from running a particular assembly on an alternate architecture anyways.

.Net is not a technology that is widely used in commercial software. There are likely very few software packages the average consumer has installed that use .Net. But it is there. Windows Vista and Windows 7 both have a desktop rendering engine that uses .Net. Microsoft began its push towards full .Net user interface several versions of the framework ago. A push that is finally starting to show a return on investment.

An application written in .Net and compiled for “Any CPU” will run on an ARM based Windows implementation the same as an x86 or x64 PC. It’s the runtime installed on the specific OS that knows about the underlying architecture, freeing the developer to write software that meets business requirements and not just internal platform specific plumbing.

There is a drawback though.

.Net has no first party equivalent on alternate OSs. Yes, there is Mono, but Mono is not a complete implementation of the .Net framework and has no real support or commercial viability due to timelines for support of new features.

Instead, Microsoft has spun off purpose specific versions of .Net. Silverlight, XNA, and to a lesser extent, the older deprecated .Net Compact Framework (Windows Mobile 6.5 and below).

XNA can be used to develop games or 3D interfaces – and works for Windows, Xbox 360, and Windows Phone.

Silverlight is usually found in browser distributed software and exists as a plugin to host the runtime for all the major browsers on both Windows and Mac (and through the Mono implementation for Linux).

Silverlight and XNA are in fact the only way to develop for Windows Phone (an alternate platform for embedded phone devices that shares only its name with the Windows desktop). A move that has ensured that all Windows Phone software moving forward will continue to work on every iteration of the OS and for every type of hardware. This is quite important if what I predicted earlier becomes true – that the Windows desktop OS will displace the current Windows Phone 7 OS in the mobile space. The consumer should not notice.

It’s also possible to use Silverlight for Web development for both Windows and Mac. And through a Silverlight specific version of Click-Once deployment called Out-Of-Browser, you can run Silverlight software just like regular desktop applications, including having a start-menu entry for start-up.

Although not perfect (it would be nice to have one framework to rule them all ;-) they’ve done an admirable job of organizing the chaos with all of the different platform possibilities out there. It’s also quite an exciting time for .Net development from the perspective of someone like me as commercial development begins to take hold and wider industry adoption takes place. The possibilities seem endless.