Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!panix!.POSTED.panix2.panix.com!panix2.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
Newsgroups: comp.os.vms
Subject: Re: BridgeWorks
Date: 21 Jul 2024 15:26:03 -0000
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <v7j9ab$fql$1@panix2.panix.com>
References: <v7e9qt$33dn4$1@dont-email.me> <v7h8d1$3msj2$1@dont-email.me> <v7hveg$3u9vu$3@dont-email.me> <v7j2j7$3u0v$2@dont-email.me>
Injection-Info: reader1.panix.com; posting-host="panix2.panix.com:166.84.1.2";
	logging-data="9889"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com"
Bytes: 1596

=?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=C3=B8j?=  <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>On 7/20/2024 11:31 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Jul 2024 16:58:09 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> Interesting. I wonder if it is a retro thing or there are still VB6
>>> applications out there that need to be maintained.
>> 
>> Would you entrust mission-critical business functions to obsolete,
>> unsupported software?
>
>Doesn't matter what I like or don't like.
>
>Fact is a lot of EOL stuff is used out in the real world.

This is why it's important to look at software and consider the whole
software life cycle before standardizing on it.  Because you know you
are probably going to be using it after it is EOLed, and you want to
standardize on software that will still be usable and reliable after
that happens.  (Hint: Visual Basic is probably not that software.)
--scott
-- 
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."