Is VB .NET just as "Visual" as VB 6?

[dpbsmith]

I've used VB 6 casually (I once used VB 1 extensively!) and like it. I've used VC++ version 6 quite a bit and hate it.

In VB 6 the GUI layout tools are truly integrated with the code development process.

When I first encountered VC++, I assumed it would be like VB, but with C++ replacing Basic as the coding language. Instead, it was a cruel hoax and an evil marketing trick. It was just a half-assed resource editor, loosely coupled to C code. It made a flashy demo but it was not "VB, but with C++."

Now I'm looking at a situation I think VB might be the right tool for the job. But I'm concerned by well-publicized issues about VB .NET not being compatible with earlier versions. This is just a coding issue, right? Backward code compatibility with VB 6 is not an issue as this is would be fresh development. But VB-6-like visual GUI development, and VB-6-like integration of GUI tools and code base, is critical, and the only reason for choosing VB at all.

1) If I liked VB 6 will I like VB .NET?

2) Is Visual C# a cruel hoax like Visual C++? Or is it just like VB but with C# replacing Basic as the coding language?

[Hack]

Moved To General Developer

[Pradeep1210]

On the up side:
You have a more modern tool with latest windows controls.
Better GUI
All .NET languages (vb/c# etc.) are compatible with each other, can be used interchangebly in most situations and can also be converted easily from one language to another, since they compile to a common base language (MSIL) and use the same runtime (CLR).

On the downside:
The .NET runtime is huge as compared to the VB6 runtime which was just a few MB.
Your programs will not run without the .NET runtime.
Code does not compile to native executables, but instead compile to an intermediate language (called MSIL) and is compiled at runtime by the framework. This is usually a boon, but bad as far as code secrecy/decompilation is concerned (though we have options to make it harder).

[NickThissen]

Not sure exactly what you mean by the GUI layout tools, but do you simply mean the Design time experience, eg adding controls to your forms, and setting their properties?
If so, you will find the VB.NET is very much the same as VB6, if not better. As far as I can remember it looks more or less identical, except more 'modern'.

And C#.NET is not very different. The design time experience is nearly identical to that of VB.NET (and VB6). Only the underlying code is different.

So:
1) Yes.
2) C#.NET has the same design time experience as VB.NET, except the coding is in C# instead of VB.

[RhinoBull]

1) If I liked VB 6 will I like VB .NET?
You may but not necessary, to say the least.
Since its introduction (goes back to 2001) community has divided on those who loves and those who hates it.
Many reasons for that - one of them is that the only thing that resembles the both is the syntax; another one could be that it does require very steep learning curve.



2) Is Visual C# a cruel hoax like Visual C++? Or is it just like VB but with C# replacing Basic as the coding language?
If you like C++ style coding then C# is for you - in .Net language is no longer relevant as it comes down to coding syntax you feel more confortable.



Your programs will not run without the .NET runtime...
But what did ever run without runtime support? Even multi platform java requires runtime compatible engine.

[NickThissen]

In any case, why don't you just try it? You can download the Express editions (an IDE built only for one language) for free.

If you are a student, you may also be able to download the professional Visual Studio 2008 IDE for free using microsoft's dreamspark (google it).

Try them and make your own conclusion whether you like it or not, we can't tell you :)

[Jenner]

I switched from VB6 to VB.NET 2003 about 5 years ago and I liked it. It took a little while to get used to and the errors and warnings that popped up took time to figure out.

When I moved to 2005 (.NET 2.0), there were more changes, but all of them for the better. The IDE with it's warnings really forced me to become a much better programmer. I strived to use Option Strict on with no Warnings in my project and it made me even better at programming. The new things offered in .NET 2.0 really were a lot nicer than the 1.1 junk I struggled with.

The jump to 2008 (.NET 3.5) was cake compared to the previous transitions. In all my projects, nothing broke when I upgraded them. I started teaching myself LINQ and Lambdas which were the hot new features of .NET 3.5 and am even better a programmer for that.

For me, it's like getting a set of shiny new tools or a new car about every 2-3 years.

Personally, if you liked VB6, I think you'll really like .NET. As NickThissen says, grab the Express Edition. You can do more with the free Express Edition of Visual Basic 2008 than you can with the paid Visual Basic 6 IMO.

[dpbsmith]

Thanks to all who replied. Thanks to NickThissen who pointed out the free trial option. In point of fact, the context is that we will probably be buying the complete Visual Studio package anyway so we'll be able to look at the real thing.

Need for, or size of runtime support is not an issue. I'm not a language snob and language nuances and/or coolness of .NET is not an issue. I've programmed professionally in a score of languages and language nuances are not an issue (Basic and C++ are practically twins if you've MUMPS, SNOBOL, APL-V, or FORTH!)

Just wanted to be sure there hadn't been any kind of downgrade in the visual development experience when moving from VB 6 to VB .NET.

[Cander]

Just to add one more point. I would say that the modern Visual Studio is more visual than 6 ever was with visual class designers and more visual ways to work with data.