Fog Creek Software
Discussion Board




Is City Desk 2.0 written in VB6 or .net?

Does anyone know if CD was written in VB6 or in .net or in something else?

(I'm guessing .net)

Entrepreneur
Tuesday, August 12, 2003

You're guessing wrong! It's VB6 with some C++.

John Topley (www.johntopley.com)
Tuesday, August 12, 2003

Ada with a smattering of Rexx.

On the inside.
Tuesday, August 12, 2003

It is probably written in VB 6 or something.

The reason I don't belive it was written in .NET is the fact that .NET has so many bugs, that development takes 2x the time needed to write in VB 6.

Joel is too smart to make such a bad decision like developing in .NET.

B.J. Thunderstone
Tuesday, August 12, 2003

.NET has too many bugs?  Where do you hear this?  I've been working in it since the beta (all ASP.NET stuff) and have been very happy with it.

Mark Brittingham
Tuesday, August 12, 2003

".NET has too many bugs?  Where do you hear this?"

If its microsoft its obviously buggy. The fact that its microsoft is all the proof people need.

Robert Moir
Tuesday, August 12, 2003

Bollocks.

John Topley (www.johntopley.com)
Tuesday, August 12, 2003

"The reason I don't belive it was written in .NET is the fact that .NET has so many bugs, that development takes 2x the time needed to write in VB 6."

It pleases me to no end to see people write stuff like this. One less mouth in the food chain to compete with.

Brad Wilson (dotnetguy.techieswithcats.com)
Tuesday, August 12, 2003

With the risk of being dubbed "one-mouth-less" also, I vote for that CityDesk is probably not rewritten.

~9MB of complete download for the 2.0 release candidate as opposed to ~7.5 for the earlier 1.x releases tells me that there is no .NET runtime to be downloaded as part of the complete installation. The .NET runtime is some ~20MB to download. And since most of the CD user base is not hardcore developers you could not omit the .NET runtime.

Patrik
Tuesday, August 12, 2003

What gave it away for me was when Joel talked about CityDesk being written using VB6 and C++ and outlined his plans for .NET.

John Topley (www.johntopley.com)
Tuesday, August 12, 2003

-----QUOTE------
"The reason I don't belive it was written in .NET is the fact that .NET has so many bugs, that development takes 2x the time needed to write in VB 6."

It pleases me to no end to see people write stuff like this. One less mouth in the food chain to compete with.
-----END QUOTE------

Brad, I don't know about ASP .NET, but the WinForms grid is horribly buggy, inadequate, and plain bad quality.

For example, if you select a whole row in the grid, then press DEL, no matter how you set things up, your program will crash either immediately, or after a little time.

The ADO .NET database architecture, even after you understand that it's disconnected and learn the "little big secrets" like how to keep the IDs in memory syncronized with the IDs on disk, is very error prone in the way the C++ was and Java isn't.

The documentation for many things is very bad - says one thing, but the environment does something else...

I am astonished by the amount of bugs and raw edges .NET has.

Don't get me wrong - C#, GDI+ and the VS .NET IDE are beautiful jewels - really the best of their kind.

But what about the rest of things in .NET, which are absolutely necessary in order for the programs to work?

Is it normal to write a Windows application, and have to spend x hours writing and debugging your code, and another x - 2*x hours to work around bugs in WinForms components?

I think that many people who say that .NET is great don't do serious development with it, but just some small examples. They read the docs from MS, and never check to see if what they read are real.

Yes, .NET is insanely great in theory, but in practice, bugs are to .NET framework almost what letters are to alphabet soup.

This means that by using .NET you take a huge productivity hit.

But, I am not a VB programmer - I use another RAD tool which has a lot less bugs than .NET.

Maybe VB has the same amount of bugs like .NET has, and people are simply used to the "2-3 nasty bugs in almost every control" approach.

B.J. Thunderstone
Tuesday, August 12, 2003

"I think that many people who say that .NET is great don't do serious development with it, but just some small examples. They read the docs from MS, and never check to see if what they read are real."

You're absolutely right. I haven't been using .NET since the alpha, I haven't spent the last year solid on a pure .NET project. I don't know what I'm talking about. Obviously.

Is it perfect? No. It is horribly disfigured and unusable? No. Perhaps some people feel stymied by what they perceive as the insurmountable bugs. Like I said, that's just great, because it gives me even more lead time on them. By the time they get into it seriously, I'll already have 5 years experience with it.

So, keep on discouraging people! Thanks. :)

(The above was clearly sarcasm. If you didn't think so, have your sarcasm filter checked and cleaned, please.)

Brad Wilson (dotnetguy.techieswithcats.com)
Tuesday, August 12, 2003

missed my <sarcasm> and </sarcasm> tags from my earlier post. It's been that kind of day :-/

Robert Moir
Tuesday, August 12, 2003


The "<sarcasm>" tag takes away most of the fun. It's very funny watch the first clueless soul bite in.

Leonardo Herrera
Tuesday, August 12, 2003

"The ADO .NET database architecture, even after you understand that it's disconnected and learn the "little big secrets" like how to keep the IDs in memory syncronized with the IDs on disk, is very error prone in the way the C++ was and Java isn't."

That last phrase is where my troll alarms spun up on the governors.

Philo

Philo
Tuesday, August 12, 2003

As far as I know, it's been designed and coded in J2EE and websphere.

Extensive java servlets.

memyselfandirene
Tuesday, August 12, 2003

"But, I am not a VB programmer - I use another RAD tool which has a lot less bugs than .NET."

So is Mr. Thunderstone going to tell us what his mysterious RAD tool is, or is he keeping it to himself for competitive advantage?

My guess:  Cocoa :).

Jim Rankin
Tuesday, August 12, 2003

As a CD user I can tell you that CityDesk hasn't changed much in form or size from it's 1.x version. 2.x wasn't a major upgrade or rewrite, just a few feature enhancements & bug fixes people have been clamboring for.

So if you read that CD1 was written in VB6 w/ C++ doing the hardcore work, then that's probably what CD2 is written in.

www.marktaw.com
Tuesday, August 12, 2003

*  Recent Topics

*  Fog Creek Home