Let's ask MS to make VB6 open source!

[esposito]

As Microsoft decided to discontinue VB6 a long time ago, don't you think it would be in the interest of the thousands (millions?) of developers who are still using it to urge them to make that old product of theirs open source?

If they did, they would show great consideration for their customers and it would certainly pay off in terms of reputation, professionalism and sensitiveness to our requests.

After all, they have decided to make VB.NET Express Edition free, which is a much more powerful product, so it shouldn't take much for them to please their customers by giving away a development tool they have trashed and with which they now make no money at all.

Any comments will be appreciated.

[gep13]

http://weblogs.asp.net/guybarrette/archive/2009/03/31/microsoft-to-release-vb6-as-open-source.aspx

[esposito]

http://weblogs.asp.net/guybarrette/archive/2009/03/31/microsoft-to-release-vb6-as-open-source.aspx

I like one of the comments made to the blog you have posted:


If they did Windows would not die a humble death in the future. it is only still around because old VB6 software still runs on it.

[Lord Orwell]

There is too much current software based on it. If they made it open-source, it would only be a small step before the runtimes were ported to linux and a simple patch would then make most of the current vb6 programs linux native. If you are that interested in basic, look up darkbasic.

[esposito]

There is too much current software based on it. If they made it open-source, it would only be a small step before the runtimes were ported to linux and a simple patch would then make most of the current vb6 programs linux native. If you are that interested in basic, look up darkbasic.

What difference would it make for MS, considering they are not interested in VB6 anymore? After all, they have allowed Linux to run .NET software using Mono. So, why should they be afraid of VB6 Linux native software?

[esposito]

If you are that interested in basic, look up darkbasic.

Like many other VB6 developers (actually, I think the majority of them), I'm not interested in Basic but in Visual Basic, i.e. I want a programming environment that makes my VB6 code and forms open up when I double-click on one of my .vbp files.

[gep13]

Hey,

I am not looking at starting a VB6/VB.Net flame war here, there have already been too much of those, but I am going to put this out there....

Is there anything stopping you from moving to developing in VB.Net? As you have mentioned, the Express Edition are completely free.

Gary

[esposito]

Hey,

I am not looking at starting a VB6/VB.Net flame war here, there have already been too much of those, but I am going to put this out there....

Is there anything stopping you from moving to developing in VB.Net? As you have mentioned, the Express Edition are completely free.

Gary

Well, I think I have explained my reasons for it in tens of posts. Basically, what stops me from switching to .NET is, above all, the fact that my software must also be used on pendrives/flashdrives and the .NET Framework would not allow anything like that.

[gep13]

Hey,

What does this software do?

Given the correct permissions, a .Net Application can be run from a USB Drive.

Gary

[esposito]

Hey,

What does this software do?

Given the correct permissions, a .Net Application can be run from a USB Drive.

Gary

Only if the Framework has been installed, can a .NET application be run from a pendrive. The problem is, I don't know whether the user has installed it or not, nor do I want to force him or her to install it. To make a long story short, my application must be a native one if I want to be sure that the final user will be able to run it without installation.

[gep13]

Granted, yes, the .Net Framework needs to be installed, however, it is becoming more and more common for the Framework to be installed, as it ships with the base OS.

I take your point though, that you can't rely on it being there.

Gary

[dilettante]

Wow, what brings this very same topic up so often? I'm referring specifically to the "VB6 to open source" topic itself.

A long time ago when it became clear VB6 was the end of the line and we'd never get successors in the product line I used to be interested in such a possibility. But I became convinced quickly it wouldn't ever happen, and as time goes on even more convinced it wouldn't buy us much.

One reason I say this is I'm pretty unimpressed with the level of sophistication I see in open source software aside from products that have major corporate underwriting, whether behind the scenes or publicly.

I have also looked pretty hard at many of the alternatives to Visual Basic including commercial products. I don't mean they aren't worthy efforts, but despite so much criticism of the flaws of VB6 (I refer to the state of the IDE, compiler, and standard component suite - not the language) it remains the gold standard even for Microsoft's current offerings. A lot of highly-focused work was done on that product line going back to QuickBasic/PDS on MS-DOS.

Most of the AlsoBasics are pretty shabby. While some of them are excellent in niche areas (more optimal compilation of straight-line crunching code for example) overall they're still rather primitive and ragged. They're mostly relegated to DOS-style game programmers who refused to ever embrace the way Windows programs are supposed to be constructed.

Another reason is that in a lot of ways Windows is Visual Basic and Visual Basic is Windows. Yes, an outrageous statement, but there is a close coupling between the two things - at least between VB and the layers of Windows above the kernel and Win32 API. This means that it would be difficult to produce certain kinds of improvements to VB without corresponding improvements in higher-level parts of Windows. IIS, IE, COM+, MSMQ, MSXML, WinHTTP, DirectX, the list goes on and on... all have major VB-oriented "plumbing" in them. These things are no longer being enhanced with VB in mind though, which is starting to become a problem because less effort is made on this plumbing every new Windows release.


My point is simply that I don't think Microsoft has any interest in releasing the codebase as open source, and I do not expect the community that might spring up to support it to be capable of doing a decent job. Major software products like VB that have lived through an extensive period of evolution result in a codebase that just isn't easy for a random person to tinker with effectively.

By now Microsoft has lost the knowledge itself, whether through employees leaving or moving on to work on other things for a decade. This is evident from the extremely poor quality we have seen in some of the more recently released security updates to VB6 component libraries. As they produce "security fixes" bugs have been introduced that are so bad they render the controls useless. Some of these have been re-released three times and still have terrible bugs. We even saw this in the first release of VB6 SP6, which was so problematic some people won't move beyond SP5 to this day even though the re-release of SP6 long, long ago addressed the issues.

[Nightwalker83]

As far as I'm aware you can still develop programs in vb6.0 because Microsoft have allowed the new operating systems, etc to support it. Also, like others have mentioned there are a lot of people around still using vb6.0 (maybe even earlier technology) that haven't switch to vb.net, etc.

[dilettante]

You can (and many of us do) still use VB6 programs even up through Windows 7.

There are lots of places where support is thin though. Microsoft dropped VB6 support in DirectX, they never made it easy to use reg-free COM, "XP style" theme support is minimal and indirect, we haven't seen support for SOAP and Web Services evolve beyond the old SOAP Toolkit 3.0, we never got IPv6 and P2P support, the new system controls and dialogs in Windows XP and beyond have no VB6-friendly wrappers, you can forget about compiling code for 64-bit execution, support is basically non-existant in Azure. We were supposed to get an enhanced "embedded VB" for CE and Windows Mobile...

... the list goes on and on.

[esposito]

It is beyond dispute that MS have dropped support for VB6. They have invested so much time and effort in .NET that, in my opinion, they would never consider the idea of going back on their decision.

The only hope VB6 die-hards like me may still have is that MS could yield to the pleas of the thousands of VB6 developers around the world and give away the source code. Many will say that the chances of something like that taking place are pretty slim but, in any case, I think it is worth a try. That was the reason why I started this thread.

[Nightwalker83]

Well, if you convert all your vb6.0 programs to .net by rewritting them then you'll never have to go back to vb6.0.

[gep13]

You can (and many of us do) still use VB6 programs even up through Windows 7.

There are lots of places where support is thin though. Microsoft dropped VB6 support in DirectX, they never made it easy to use reg-free COM, "XP style" theme support is minimal and indirect, we haven't seen support for SOAP and Web Services evolve beyond the old SOAP Toolkit 3.0, we never got IPv6 and P2P support, the new system controls and dialogs in Windows XP and beyond have no VB6-friendly wrappers, you can forget about compiling code for 64-bit execution, support is basically non-existant in Azure. We were supposed to get an enhanced "embedded VB" for CE and Windows Mobile...

... the list goes on and on.

Out of interest....

...how much VB6 development do you do?

When I first started out developing, I did a couple VB6 applications, and then my company switched to doing .Net, and since then we have never had to do anymore.

Do you get clients coming to ask you specifically that they want something done in VB6, or is this a preference of your company?

With all the problems that you just listed, and obviously more that you haven't, I am curious as to why there hasn't been a switch.

Gary

[Lord Orwell]

I just found out something that makes me think they will NEVER do this. They just finally quit selling licenses to windows 3.1 last year! If they are still selling vb6 licenses to schools and such, they aren't going to give up a source of income.

[Nightwalker83]

I just found out something that makes me think they will NEVER do this. They just finally quit selling licenses to windows 3.1 last year! If they are still selling vb6 licenses to schools and such, they aren't going to give up a source of income.

Yeah, I've noticed a lot of new people in the vb6 and earlier section. Some of those people are being taught vb5.0 and 6.0 in their classes even though it is now 2010.

[gep13]

I just found out something that makes me think they will NEVER do this. They just finally quit selling licenses to windows 3.1 last year! If they are still selling vb6 licenses to schools and such, they aren't going to give up a source of income.

They are still selling VB6 to schools?!? Really?!?

That really surprises me. Especially since there are free editions of Visual VB.Net, C# and Web Developer, why would schools not opt to teach their student .Net?

Gary

[esposito]

They are still selling VB6 to schools?!? Really?!?

That really surprises me. Especially since there are free editions of Visual VB.Net, C# and Web Developer, why would schools not opt to teach their student .Net?

Gary

Gary, have you ever thought of the possibility that some people may not want their programs to depend on a huge Framework and may consider native software quicker and less cumbersome than .NET applications?

When those people quit using VB6, they will very likely not switch to .NET but to any other programming language that allows them to produce native software, such as Delphi, RealBasic and the like.

So, don't be surprised if many schools and developers who are their own bosses -- as I am -- are still using VB6 and refuse to take .NET into any consideraton. It's just because these two programming languages are two completely different kettles of fish. It's as if you were surprised because someone refused to abandon Windows and switch to Linux.

[gep13]

Hey,

As I mentioned previously, I am not trying to start another VB6/.Net flame war, so I am not going to say anymore on that subject.

I was merely trying to understand why they are still teaching VB6 in school's. As you have correctly pointed out, there are alternatives out there for creating native code, that are actively being supported and updated, so why would schools choose to teach something that is effectively "dead". To my mind, this makes no sense whatsoever.

Gary

[esposito]

I was merely trying to understand why they are still teaching VB6 in schools. As you have correctly pointed out, there are alternatives out there for creating native code, that are actively being supported and updated, so why would schools choose to teach something that is effectively "dead". To my mind, this makes no sense whatsoever.

Gary

Obviously, because learning VB6 is a piece of cake in comparison with other programming languages. A beginner may start being productive in less than a week. MS committed a serious crime when they decided to discontinue it... and they will surely pay for it (are they already paying?).

[gep13]

Obviously, because learning VB6 is a piece of cake in comparison with other programming languages. A beginner may start being productive in less than a week.

I would like to see the evidence to back this statement up.

[esposito]

I would like to see the evidence to back this statement up.

It took me a couple of days to teach my wife how to manage a database in VB6. I started teaching her how to do the same in Delphi more than two months ago and she still gets mixed up with all those "begin...end" statements, commas and semi-colons.

[esposito]

Yeah, I've noticed a lot of new people in the vb6 and earlier section.

Right now, for example, there are 82 viewers in the VB6 and Earlier section against 42 (about half as many!) in the Visual Basic .NET one. Long live VB6!

[dilettante]

Out of interest....

...how much VB6 development do you do?

When I first started out developing, I did a couple VB6 applications, and then my company switched to doing .Net, and since then we have never had to do anymore.

Do you get clients coming to ask you specifically that they want something done in VB6, or is this a preference of your company?

With all the problems that you just listed, and obviously more that you haven't, I am curious as to why there hasn't been a switch.

Gary
I'd have to say that the bulk of Windows programming being done around me is C# and VB.Net now. Up until two years ago I was programming in C# most of the time on Windows myself.

Then a strange thing happened.

Problems were being brought to me, programs written by other people. Most of these had been written by vendor contractors to handle specific situations that involved interoperation between Windows and other OSs. Suddenly an emergency arose. A critical server running the application had failed and was rebuilt and running, but something must be done now.

The "something now" was to write a VB6 Service to do the same job. I ripped out the Web Service interface and went with a lighter protocol that the non-Windows systems could easily handle. No more bulky HTTP. No more bloated SOAP. In two weeks I had one EXE, one DLL, and a clean Installer MSI that could be deployed every time. After one week of parallel runs it went into production. It was 1/3 as many lines of code and performance was 12 times as fast as the former .Net application, and it was running on a less powerful server!


There has been little letup since then. Demand has come from all over to rip and replace .Net applications in these sorts of roles.

Not all of the benefits come from using VB6. There are simply a lot of bad programmers out there. But .Net leads people down a path of ineffiency both in technology (managed code penalty, Web Services and WCF, interop and P/Invoke) and architectural habits ("drunk on OOP" mentality, gratuitous multithreading).

[techgnome]

Schools can't just change their cirriculmn overnight... there's certifications involved and it has to be in compliance with what other schools are doing. This is what makes grades and credits transferrable. If I take a.NET class at a local university, then transfer to another one that doesn't have a .NET cirriculm I lose out... those grades will not transfer. Changing development languages - changing ANYthing about course work isn't easy. That's why VB6 is still in use in a lot of educational places.

Esposito - All that means is that twice as many people have problems with VB6 than they do with VB.NET. And just because some one is viewing one forum vs another doesn't mean squat.

As for VB going open source... even if it were to happen, it's written in C. Those that would be interested in keeping VB6 around so they could use it would need to learn C to keep it alive. Somehow I don't see that happening. The legions of VB users out there do so for a reason, so we wouldn't have to use C/C++ .... If I'm going to learn C to just keep VB alive, then I might as well switch to C and get the benefits of that.

-tg

[esposito]

Schools can't just change their cirriculmn overnight... there's certifications involved and it has to be in compliance with what other schools are doing. This is what makes grades and credits transferrable. If I take a.NET class at a local university, then transfer to another one that doesn't have a .NET cirriculm I lose out... those grades will not transfer. Changing development languages - changing ANYthing about course work isn't easy. That's why VB6 is still in use in a lot of educational places.

Here in Italy school syllabuses are quite flexible and a teacher may decide which language to use in his classes without any restrictions. In spite of the shortage of money that Italian state schools have to face up to, the majority of them (at least, those that I know) have not switched to teaching .NET yet and still prefer expensive programming languages for native code software to the .NET free Express editions.


Esposito - All that means is that twice as many people have problems with VB6 than they do with VB.NET. And just because some one is viewing one forum vs another doesn't mean squat.

On the contrary, I think that the more people use a language, the more probable it is to find someone who needs help with it.


As for VB going open source... even if it were to happen, it's written in C. Those that would be interested in keeping VB6 around so they could use it would need to learn C to keep it alive. Somehow I don't see that happening. The legions of VB users out there do so for a reason, so we wouldn't have to use C/C++ .... If I'm going to learn C to just keep VB alive, then I might as well switch to C and get the benefits of that.


You probably ignore the Lazarus project, that is the exact negation of what you have stated.

[dilettante]

I've used Lazarus and Delphi. Lazarus is no Delphi, and Delphi is no VB6. Neither Basic or Pascal is a perfect programming language, but nothing is. I have nothing against Pascal or any other member of the Algol language family.

I think it comes down to having a large enough group of high-powered folks to develop and support complex software like compilers, IDEs, and the libraries and utilities that go along with them.


I use NS Basic (both Desktop and CE versions) for side projects. This is a commercial product, but it has many warts that require as many or more workarounds. The company is very responsive to good bug reports, but non-bug "warts" take a backseat. They have other products to develop and support as well, and a small company only has limited resources. I wouldn't even be using their products except they let me do things I can't do as easily otherwise. On the plus side since they are based on VBScript these products are very easy for a VB6 programmer to use and they even have IDEs much like VB6's.

I mention this because working with them compared to working in VB6 is a lot like using Delphi and Lazarus side by side. My concern is that an open source Basic based on the VB6 source code would probably end up just as ragged very quickly.

That doesn't mean I'm against the idea in any way. I just have low expectations.

[gep13]

Right now, for example, there are 82 viewers in the VB6 and Earlier section against 42 (about half as many!) in the Visual Basic .NET one. Long live VB6!

Oh look, I think VB6 is losing popularity:

76725

[gep13]

I'd have to say that the bulk of Windows programming being done around me is C# and VB.Net now. Up until two years ago I was programming in C# most of the time on Windows myself.

Then a strange thing happened.

Problems were being brought to me, programs written by other people. Most of these had been written by vendor contractors to handle specific situations that involved interoperation between Windows and other OSs. Suddenly an emergency arose. A critical server running the application had failed and was rebuilt and running, but something must be done now.

The "something now" was to write a VB6 Service to do the same job. I ripped out the Web Service interface and went with a lighter protocol that the non-Windows systems could easily handle. No more bulky HTTP. No more bloated SOAP. In two weeks I had one EXE, one DLL, and a clean Installer MSI that could be deployed every time. After one week of parallel runs it went into production. It was 1/3 as many lines of code and performance was 12 times as fast as the former .Net application, and it was running on a less powerful server!


There has been little letup since then. Demand has come from all over to rip and replace .Net applications in these sorts of roles.

Not all of the benefits come from using VB6. There are simply a lot of bad programmers out there. But .Net leads people down a path of ineffiency both in technology (managed code penalty, Web Services and WCF, interop and P/Invoke) and architectural habits ("drunk on OOP" mentality, gratuitous multithreading).

That is quite an interesting turn of events.

Although I agree with some of what you are saying, I think a lot of it comes down to "how" something is written. All of the technologies that you have mentioned have there place, however, it is all to easy to see these being misused.

Gary

[gep13]

Schools can't just change their cirriculmn overnight... there's certifications involved and it has to be in compliance with what other schools are doing. This is what makes grades and credits transferrable. If I take a.NET class at a local university, then transfer to another one that doesn't have a .NET cirriculm I lose out... those grades will not transfer. Changing development languages - changing ANYthing about course work isn't easy. That's why VB6 is still in use in a lot of educational places.

That is a good point, I hadn't thought of it like that.

[esposito]

Oh look, I think VB6 is losing popularity:

76725

Considering that VB6 was released more than a decade ago, it is amazing that in the year 2010 we still have popular discussion forums dedicated to it. On the contrary, what should make MS worry is the fact that in these forums the viewers of the VB6 section often outnumber those visiting the .NET one.

[DeanMc]

I find your reasoning lacking. Given that I have looked at your site the applications there do not need to be ran on a flash drive, your using it as a selling point. In fact there is no software that needs to be ran from a flash drive, Why would you bother? With current technology it is more than easy to develop feature rich web apps or have a data store on a flash drive. Poor broadband, that's a governmental issue not a software one, sign a partition and get on with it.

Your site looks terrible and the screen shots of your applications look awful too. I am sure they run perfectly but they remind me of why VB6 should burn forever, terribly designed applications that caused a whole slew of mishmashed rubbish that runs corporations.

On the subject of ease. Software should not be easy because it is not an easy task. Corporations are forever putting software second and then they wonder why budgets go up and applications fail, of course they do when you have some rent a monkeys on the job for a few weeks. VB6 had some fantastic examples of software but also some of the worst. It is your breed that make managers think it is acceptable to "code by the hour". VB6 is the very reason that software lost its "art form" status and now you have sites like rent a coder looking for full CMS software for less than 100 dollars.

I'm sure you are a fantastic software developer and make a nice amount of money but do not come in here and tell me that MS trying to drag software, kicking and screaming into the 21st century where design is as important as functionality and software takes time and planning, was all a big mistake.

Oh and if you think this is all an il thought out rant look at the iPhone, with its rather large framework. You know none of that fanciness is built into objective C.

[Lord Orwell]

I find your reasoning lacking. Given that I have looked at your site the applications there do not need to be ran on a flash drive, your using it as a selling point. In fact there is no software that needs to be ran from a flash drive, Why would you bother? With current technology it is more than easy to develop feature rich web apps or have a data store on a flash drive. Poor broadband, that's a governmental issue not a software one, sign a partition and get on with it.

Your site looks terrible and the screen shots of your applications look awful too. I am sure they run perfectly but they remind me of why VB6 should burn forever, terribly designed applications that caused a whole slew of mishmashed rubbish that runs corporations.

On the subject of ease. Software should not be easy because it is not an easy task. Corporations are forever putting software second and then they wonder why budgets go up and applications fail, of course they do when you have some rent a monkeys on the job for a few weeks. VB6 had some fantastic examples of software but also some of the worst. It is your breed that make managers think it is acceptable to "code by the hour". VB6 is the very reason that software lost its "art form" status and now you have sites like rent a coder looking for full CMS software for less than 100 dollars.

I'm sure you are a fantastic software developer and make a nice amount of money but do not come in here and tell me that MS trying to drag software, kicking and screaming into the 21st century where design is as important as functionality and software takes time and planning, was all a big mistake.

Oh and if you think this is all an il thought out rant look at the iPhone, with its rather large framework. You know none of that fanciness is built into objective C.
I would look at the iphone framework but it only runs on mac.

And i really don't understand your rant against vb6. How is it intrinsically worse than vb5 or 4? For that matter, it actually was one of the first programs that let you use a gui to design YOUR gui. For me at least, it's pretty friggin hard to design a good gui in c due to all the manual math. wysiwyg designing like vb pioneered make it so much easier. I code completely differently now. I design the user interface first and the code follows naturally from there. Plus let's not forget it is one of the forefront pioneers of object oriented programming.

Really, if you have such a problem with vb, you should take a step backwards and look at its predecessors.

and yeah, it came across not only as a rant, but as a personal attack on a fellow coder and developer. Please refrain from such behaviour. This is not a chit-chat thread and even if it were personal attacks like that will get you banned.

[Nightwalker83]

@ gep 13

:lol: However, those results are misleading because most people require sleep and when that happens the numbers are bound to drop.

For that matter, it actually was one of the first programs that let you use a gui to design YOUR gui. For me at least, it's pretty friggin hard to design a good gui in c due to all the manual math. wysiwyg designing like vb pioneered make it so much easier.


I agree! The visual languages have certainly made it easier for some people when designing their programs, rather than having to guess the location where the object would appear on the screen.

[DeanMc]

It WAS good, originally. It is not now, it is past it's sell by date and has been for some time. And no it was not a personal attack against a member but rather an honest opinion. I have not slandered a fellow member I have stated my opinion on the look of his products and his reasoning behind why VB6 is superior in his view. If my opinion seems obtuse it is because I do not feel I should skirt around an issue just because my opinion is at the opposite end of the spectrum.

Referring to VB6 with any relevancy is foolish, it is a legacy language built on poor practices. One only has to look at all of the string and chewing gum holding half of the cooperate world's LOB applications together to see it was not a great language, it merely offered unparalleled speed in terms of development but we are paying for that means to an end now with people having to maintain poorly built systems.

[DeanMc]

Also if Esposito feels I have attacked his integrity I apologies but I will not say sorry for being critical for ones work that is freely available online.

[RhinoBull]

Referring to VB6 with any relevancy is foolish, it is a legacy language built on poor practices...

Define "poor practices".


... but we are paying for that means to an end now with people having to maintain poorly built systems.

"poorly built systems" can be done in any language.

[DeanMc]

Examples of poor practices that I have actually come across are:


"Glueing" VB6 code to C++ code to have a GUI.
Development of applications around GUI's (any large system cannot support this type of development)
Massing of poor code styles and seriously questionable hacks.


These are just items from 1 system I work with on a daily basis. I agree that systems can be poorly built in any language but VB6 was the proverbial gold rush when it came to cheaply developed poorly designed systems. It is not that I am even a .Net fan boy. I think python got it right in terms of an extendible language VB6 did not. The fact that it had RAD development papered over some serious design flaws in the implementation of the language.

I am not even sure why people are surprised .NET came about. All it was in essence was a major clean up. If it had not been branded .NET and simply called the VB7 runtime with no C# none of these arguments would have happened.

[RhinoBull]

"Glueing" VB6 code to C++ code to have a GUI.


??? :confused:



Development of applications around GUI's (any large system cannot.


??? :confused:



Massing of poor code styles and seriously questionable hacks.


??? :confused:

[dilettante]

We've managed to drag this off into the weeds with secondary topics.

All he was trying to do was drum up enthusiasm among existing VB6 programmers for the idea of trying to get Microsoft to release the source code for the VB6 system. I just think it (a.) will never happen and (b.) might not lead to good results. But I'm not against the idea.

[dilettante]

I am not even sure why people are surprised .NET came about. All it was in essence was a major clean up. If it had not been branded .NET and simply called the VB7 runtime with no C# none of these arguments would have happened.
I think you have that entirely wrong.

Anders always hated VB with a passion, since it wiped Turbo Pascal off the map. He started his "VB Killer" project that produced Delphi. Delphi was never able to put a serious dent in VB market share, attracting many bitter anti-Microsoft people to its community.

Anders was hired by Microsoft and created Visual J++, a private Java clone. Adoption rates by developers were minimal. Sun sued Microsoft and won, destroying VJ++ forever.

Yet Anders wanted to create another private version of Java. With input from the lawyers Project COOL was undertaken.

His hands near the throat of VB now, he decided to (successfully) lobby for its demise. He found accomplices, many from the VFoxPro team who also despised VB. They produced C# and "VB.Net" and sold it to the bigshots.

What you have is a fancy Java clone and a VB-like alternative language for the CLR/JVM.

Some of this is documented, other parts are hearsay. It is now 2010 and the game is long over.

[gep13]

@ gep 13

:lol: However, those results are misleading because most people require sleep and when that happens the numbers are bound to drop.

It would appear that you are missing the point that I was trying to make. The number of people viewing the forums at any point in time, can't be used as an indication of how well a particular language is doing.

[gep13]

All he was trying to do was drum up enthusiasm among existing VB6 programmers for the idea of trying to get Microsoft to release the source code for the VB6 system. I just think it (a.) will never happen and (b.) might not lead to good results. But I'm not against the idea.

(a) Agreed
(b) Agreed

[Nightwalker83]

Referring to VB6 with any relevancy is foolish, it is a legacy language built on poor practices. One only has to look at all of the string and chewing gum holding half of the cooperate world's LOB applications together to see it was not a great language, it merely offered unparalleled speed in terms of development but we are paying for that means to an end now with people having to maintain poorly built systems.

Whether or not a program is great or really poor would have nothing (if anything) to do with the specific programming language. It would be more that the programmer was lacking it skill if anything.

[DeanMc]

RhinoBull: Your post makes no sense, if you choose to sit in the corner shouting I'm not listening when I give you the answers you asked for well then I cannot continue my debate with you. My three reasons are perfectly valid and can be made about a huge proportion of corporate applications I have viewed.

Dilettante: I agree with with your first point about drumming up support but I feel that bashing one of the most successful frameworks ever implemented by saying that publicly downloadable software is not feesable and that .Net is inferior to VB6 in every thread begins to grate after a while. I also think you took up my .Net statement the wrong way. I know Anders had a lot of input into .Nets inception but I do feel that Microsoft where going to take the .Net route in one form or another. The point I was trying to make was that somewhere along the line VB was eventually going to move from VB6's implementation, breaking it anyway.

Nightwalker83: Actually I disagree. Many languages offer features and implementations that help in the construction of a program. Granted VB6 was not designed to be a poor language it was certainly used that way. I use many VB6 programs on a daily basis that are terrible and have been written by IBM outsourced coders for big money so I am not talking about some backyard outfit here. All I can do is speak from experience!

[esposito]

I find your reasoning lacking. Given that I have looked at your site the applications there do not need to be ran on a flash drive, your using it as a selling point. In fact there is no software that needs to be ran from a flash drive, Why would you bother? With current technology it is more than easy to develop feature rich web apps or have a data store on a flash drive. Poor broadband, that's a governmental issue not a software one, sign a partition and get on with it.

If my customers keep telling me that they are enthused about the fact they can easily transport my software from a computer to another, I'll continue to guarantee this functionality, in spite of what you think.


Your site looks terrible and the screen shots of your applications look awful too. I am sure they run perfectly but they remind me of why VB6 should burn forever, terribly designed applications that caused a whole slew of mishmashed rubbish that runs corporations.

Frankly speaking, I couldn't care less about your opinion concerning my Web site, firstly because my sales have doubled recently, secondly because the opinion of someone who speaks in an offensive way like you is as worthy of attention as that of someone who lives in a cave.


On the subject of ease. Software should not be easy because it is not an easy task. Corporations are forever putting software second and then they wonder why budgets go up and applications fail, of course they do when you have some rent a monkeys on the job for a few weeks. VB6 had some fantastic examples of software but also some of the worst. It is your breed that make managers think it is acceptable to "code by the hour". VB6 is the very reason that software lost its "art form" status and now you have sites like rent a coder looking for full CMS software for less than 100 dollars.

On the contrary, I think that our task should be to make software as easy as possible for the final users, because their daily lives are already full of worries and complications.

[RhinoBull]

RhinoBull: Your post makes no sense, if you choose to sit in the corner shouting I'm not listening when I give you the answers you asked for well then I cannot continue my debate with you. My three reasons are perfectly valid and can be made about a huge proportion of corporate applications I have viewed.

You didn't answer anything what so ever which was why I replied with "???". You have to stop attacking anything and everything and look around you and think for a change - things are not (and were not) as bad as you try to present them.

My best regards.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

DeanMc,

you seem to have got yourself inordinately wound up about this thread, I can understand your personnel dislike of VB6, due to you experiencing lots of badly coded VB6 apps, but you have to remember that for many years vb6 has also been used perfectly successfully to design business applications.

You can write perfectly good code in vb6, it's biggest problem is that it also makes it easy to write bad code.

Personally i am not the biggest fan of VB6 (although i don't hate it) as many times i have had to support badly written (by someone else mind) VB6 apps much as you have said yourself, Still you must recognise that your experience is not necessary everyone else's experience.

Also i believe the reason RhinoBull Question marked your points is that everyone of them is about poor design or poor programming, and does not actually reflect directly on to VB6 they could have been about systems written in any language.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Plus let's not forget it is one of the forefront pioneers of object oriented programming.


I may have misread this. Are you saying that VB6 was one of the forefront pioneers of OO programming? VB6 made no more than an afterthought nod towards it, and was nowhere near the forefront. I wouldn't say that .NET was near the forefront, either. So I'm not sure which language were you refering to?

As for the original question: It's hopeless. Has MS EVER supported open source ANYTHING? I can see the appeal, but the chances are so slim as to not be worth the attempt by any other than those who find windmills to be their favorite sparring partners.

[gep13]

As for the original question: It's hopeless. Has MS EVER supported open source ANYTHING?

Depends, as far as I am aware, they are "helping" with the Mono Project, i.e. the Open Source implementation of the .Net Framework.

[esposito]

Depends, as far as I am aware, they are "helping" with the Mono Project, i.e. the Open Source implementation of the .Net Framework.

Yes, MS's support for Mono is a concrete reason for hope. People change and even MS may change their policy and approach to open source.

[techgnome]

Their support for Mono is more open standards rather than open sourced. If it was truly open sourced, then their coding for .NET would truly be open and widely available. It isn't. What they have done is to make the specifications for .NET languages available and even walked C# through the standards boards. That's about as open sourced as it gets. And it's not even the source. Open specification is more like it.

-tg

[Nightwalker83]

It would appear that you are missing the point that I was trying to make. The number of people viewing the forums at any point in time, can't be used as an indication of how well a particular language is doing.

That would be true if I were talking in general sense but I was referring to this forum.


Nightwalker83: Actually I disagree. Many languages offer features and implementations that help in the construction of a program. Granted VB6 was not designed to be a poor language it was certainly used that way. I use many VB6 programs on a daily basis that are terrible and have been written by IBM outsourced coders for big money so I am not talking about some backyard outfit here. All I can do is speak from experience!

So it would have to do whether then programmer was skillful enough to know how/why to use those features, etc. Bad programmer = Bad program.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I'm not sure that it is as simple as Bad programmer = Bad program. There are loads of new things coming out in .NET. The alphabet soup of technologies is growing at a fast pace. As an example, I have been playing around with the Entity Framework. There are several neat features to the EF, to be sure, but there is not a single thing there that couldn't be written without using the EF, and that is true for many of the technologies. The point to the EF is that it solves a problem that is not a coding problem, in that you could write a program that does the same thing with or without the EF. What the EF is solving is a management and organization problem which any given person may or may not believe exists. You can create entities that represent the data, and have a somewhat easier means to update data from these entities back to the database. The same result can be achieved by using tableadapters, dataadapters, or even just commands and raw SQL. However, the EF attempts to automate lots of the code away. Once you are familiar with the EF, you can bind a UI to a DB much quicker than you might with the other technologies. On the other hand, the EF has a large amount of code that is generated automatically. All of this code is useful in some situations, and nearly all of this code is useless in some other situations. However, you get it all.

So a good programmer with a good understanding of the EF may well build a program based on EF, and do so rapidly. They may have the ability to build the same program without using the EF, but chose to use the EF because it was quicker to get the program built rather than writing code to replicate the things that the EF code does. However, the resulting program will be good by some metrics and bad by others, regardless of the capability of the programmer. They may have had speed of development and low failure rate as the metrics they cared about, and they may well have achieved an admirable result by those metrics, yet runtime performance may have suffered as a result, so if you care more about that, then the program isn't so good.

And so forth. My basic point is that there is so much technology that can be thrown at a problem that it is becoming increasingly important to understand how you will measure success just in deciding which technologies to apply.

[Nightwalker83]

I'm not sure that it is as simple as Bad programmer = Bad program. There are loads of new things coming out in .NET. The alphabet soup of technologies is growing at a fast pace. As an example, I have been playing around with the Entity Framework. There are several neat features to the EF, to be sure, but there is not a single thing there that couldn't be written without using the EF, and that is true for many of the technologies. The point to the EF is that it solves a problem that is not a coding problem, in that you could write a program that does the same thing with or without the EF. What the EF is solving is a management and organization problem which any given person may or may not believe exists. You can create entities that represent the data, and have a somewhat easier means to update data from these entities back to the database. The same result can be achieved by using tableadapters, dataadapters, or even just commands and raw SQL. However, the EF attempts to automate lots of the code away. Once you are familiar with the EF, you can bind a UI to a DB much quicker than you might with the other technologies. On the other hand, the EF has a large amount of code that is generated automatically. All of this code is useful in some situations, and nearly all of this code is useless in some other situations. However, you get it all.


However, how can you blame the code if it can't make decisions on it's own and has to have input from someone in order to work correctly (unless, the code writes itself). Although, if I understand what you are getting at yes, you can only go as far as the technology of the day will allow you to go.

[Lord Orwell]

i wasn't referring to vb6 being a pioneer, i was referring to visual basic in general (starting with 1.0 which ran in dos) being a pioneer. Although other languages precede it, none were near as widespread due to the fact that it's pretty darn hard to write anything object oriented in dos. VB did it with a fake (ascii-art) GUI you could put your apps in complete with buttons. And to make the transition easy from qbasic (which every windows install had up until winme) it was backwards compatible and could compile qbasic apps into .exe. But that's neither here nor there.

I have serious doubts to any ibm coders programming anything in vb6. Cobol seems to be their preferred language, and if you are programming specifically for business use, it is actually easier to use than vb due to the focused design. And cobol is far from dead and it is still being taught an my local university, whereas vb6 is NOT.

And DEANMC, opinions are like butts. Everyone has one and they all stink. That's fine if you wish to criticize (for example) my website, but where do you come off doing a rant like that when it wasn't even the thread topic? This thread is so far off topic now it wouldn't amaze me if it got closed. This is not a chit-chat thread, it's general developer, and i can't believe it hasn't been edited for content by a moderator already with a stern warning all around for everyone.

[FunkyDexter]

I can't see MS releasing B6 as OpenSource. For one thing, MS guard their intellectual property with more spit than Cerberus. But also, MS don't want you to continue writing in VB6. They want you to switch to one flavour or another of .Net. Should MS be worried that there are people still using our VB6 forum? Yes. When nobodies using it they'll be happy because it will indicate that those who remain addicted to VB6 having finally kicked their habits.

Eposito, the argument you give for sticking with VB6 (you want to run from a pen drive) is valid... for you. But the point I think you're missing is that you represent a tiny minority. For the vast majority of us VB.Net is more suitable. The vast bulk of people who are still using VB6 are doing so, not because of a genuine technological reason, but rather due to inertia. They've got apps that are already in VB6 that they don't want to port. They've got developers who are trained in VB6 who'd need to be retrained. Often VB6 is just "what we do around here". Given that MS would really like to get all those developers onto .Net, why would they release 6 as open source? Sure, they might please you and a very few others who have a genuine reason not to use .Net but they lose the opportunity to prod the foot draggers forward. In the end they just deem that, from a business point of view, you're not important enough to matter.

Have you looked at the compact framework? I have no experience of it at all so this might be a red herring but it would be the first thing I'd look at if I were in your position.

Also, I looked at your site. It looked fine to me but there's all this strange alien writing all over it. which I couldn't understand I panicked, got scared and closed it down.:p

[techgnome]

"rather due to inertia." -- I actually know of one place where the LACK of inertia prevents them from moving to .NET. It's not because they don't want to (ever since .NET first came out, it was seen as the way to go and would solve a lot of issues)... it's not because people need to be retrained (last I knew, they had the knowledge)... in the end it came down to politics.

-tg

[Shaggy Hiker]

i wasn't referring to vb6 being a pioneer, i was referring to visual basic in general (starting with 1.0 which ran in dos) being a pioneer.

You pre-date me.

Gee, I kind of feel bad saying something as depressing as that. You're a good sort, really, even if your gills are still showing. I remember when we first discovered fire (what a night THAT was), how about sharing an even earlier story, such as the invention of dirt. Would that soften the blow?


@FD:

with more spit than Cerberus

:thumb::thumb:

[esposito]

I can't see MS releasing B6 as OpenSource. For one thing, MS guard their intellectual property with more spit than Cerberus. But also, MS don't want you to continue writing in VB6. They want you to switch to one flavour or another of .Net. Should MS be worried that there are people still using our VB6 forum? Yes. When nobodies using it they'll be happy because it will indicate that those who remain addicted to VB6 having finally kicked their habits.
Why are they supporting the Mono project, then? Aren't they afraid of the fact that people may switch from Windows to Linux?


Eposito, the argument you give for sticking with VB6 (you want to run from a pen drive) is valid... for you. But the point I think you're missing is that you represent a tiny minority. For the vast majority of us VB.Net is more suitable.

You are obviously right: in this forum most developers have already switched to .NET. I have one question, though: is there any reason why a developer who produces desktop (non-Web based) software should prefer .NET to another programming language that can do the same job without needing the Framework?


The vast bulk of people who are still using VB6 are doing so, not because of a genuine technological reason, but rather due to inertia. They've got apps that are already in VB6 that they don't want to port. They've got developers who are trained in VB6 who'd need to be retrained.

There are also a lot of people who decide not to switch to .NET because they don't want their software to depend on a huge virtual machine.


Given that MS would really like to get all those developers onto .Net, why would they release 6 as open source? Sure, they might please you and a very few others who have a genuine reason not to use .Net but they lose the opportunity to prod the foot draggers forward. In the end they just deem that, from a business point of view, you're not important enough to matter.

Abandoning customers for purely commercial reasons can backfire: the first thing I did when I realised that MS had discontinued VB6 was look for an alternative language that was not produced by them. In short, I didn't (and I still don't) feel like investing in a development tool that, in the future, MS may abandon again. So, MS have lost a customer and found someone who will give testimony of the way in which he was left stranded. Other software houses may decide as well to discontinue one of their products or they may even go bankrupt. Nevertheless, the difference is that, when it happens, they normally sell their product to another software house and, by doing so, they show more respect for their customers. This happened to Borland that decided to stop producing Delphi and sell it to Embarcadero.


Also, I looked at your site. It looked fine to me but there's all this strange alien writing all over it. which I couldn't understand I panicked, got scared and closed it down.:p

Thank you for having found my Web site fine. It is designed for a kind of user that is not exactly a computer wizard. Basically, I produce accounting and data management software for an Italian fairly aged public. By the way, the strange alien writing which scared you is called Italian.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

is there any reason why a developer who produces desktop (non-Web based) software should prefer.NET to another programming language that can do the same job without needing the Framework?

Hi Esposito there are a number of reasons, one of the big ones though is that many developers work for companies (as i am aware you work for yourself), and as a developer you need to be skilled in the languages which are in demand so that you can remain in work.

If you look at the job market not many people are still recruiting for VB6 developers any more where as there are plenty of .Net jobs.

There are also a lot of people who decide not to switch to .NET because they don't want their software to depend on a huge virtual machine.

This is true, but do you not think that as an when Windows 7 finally takes over from XP as the most used version of Windows some of these issue will go away as Windows 7 comes with the framework pre-installed ?

[esposito]

Hi Esposito there are a number of reasons, one of the big ones though is that many developers work for companies (as i am aware you work for yourself), and as a developer you need to be skilled in the languages which are in demand so that you can remain in work.

If you look at the job market not many people are still recruiting for VB6 developers any more where as there are plenty of .Net jobs.

This is a good point. Yes, the fact that I am my own boss makes my situation particular. So, I'll rephrase my question: is there any valid reason why a developer of desktop software who is his own boss should prefer .NET to VB6 or Delphi?



This is true, but do you not think that as an when Windows 7 finally takes over from XP as the most used version of Windows some of these issue will go away as Windows 7 comes with the framework pre-installed ?
The problem is, by then there will surely be a newer version of the Framework and, if you want to keep yourself up-to-date, you will have to face up to the same issue.

[si_the_geek]

In the end they just deem that, from a business point of view, you're not important enough to matter.That is a reasonable assumption, but it isn't actually correct.

Esposito has admitted on several previous occasions that MS went out of their way to give him help to move to a more appropriate tool - even tho it meant giving a customer to their competitors.

He does (or did) matter to them, but they aren't willing to hinder the masses in order to make life a little easier for a tiny minority.
Why are they supporting the Mono project, then? Aren't they afraid of the fact that people may switch from Windows to Linux?The vast majority of people won't move to Linux, so any loss there will be insignificant.

There is a big gain however, as more developers are likely to buy/use VS (which costs more than Windows), and other market based benefits.
There are also a lot of people who decide not to switch to .NET because they don't want their software to depend on a huge virtual machine.Lots yes, but they are almost certainly the minority... because most users already have an apt framework, or can get it very easily.

Your situation is different and almost unique, but you have been well aware of that for years.
Abandoning customers for purely commercial reasons can backfire: ... So, MS have lost a customer and found someone who will give testimony of the way in which he was left stranded. ...You are well aware that they did not leave you stranded at all - they just didn't make things harder for the masses in order to give a tiny minority exactly what they wanted.

While it would be nice to have one tool that suits every situation, it is incredibly naive to pretend that would be the best way to go - there are good reasons that there are a variety of languages available.

You like to regularly pretend that MS have been out of order, but there is no valid reason for you to do that... and by concealing the facts (such as their assistance to help you find a more apt tool, which gained them nothing), you are clearly the one who is being out of order.
This is a good point. Yes, the fact that I am my own boss makes my situation particular. So, I'll rephrase my question: is there any valid reason why a developer of desktop software who is his own boss should prefer .NET to VB6 or Delphi?There are lots of reasons, such as: the time to write software being dramatically reduced, the ability to have multiple targets (desktop, phone, web) with one code base, extra functionality, etc.
The problem is, by then there will surely be a newer version of the Framework and, if you want to keep yourself up-to-date, you will have to face up to the same issue. That is virtually irrelevant... from the 2008 edition (or perhaps even 2005) onwards, you can use whichever framework version you like.

If you have a reason to use just one framework (as would be best for your situation), you can do that.

This is not a chit-chat thread, it's general developer, and i can't believe it hasn't been edited for content by a moderator already with a stern warning all around for everyone. Editing is too much effort, but more off-topic posts are likely to lead to this thread being closed - separate thread(s) should be created instead.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Why are they supporting the Mono project, then? Aren't they afraid of the fact that people may switch from Windows to Linux?


They most certainly are. Bill G had a name for that project that is more colorful than can be posted here. However, they made the business calculation that ignoring Linux could cause them to be left behind, so they wanted to be generating revenue (and a bit of directional control) related to Linux.

You are obviously right: in this forum most developers have already switched to .NET. I have one question, though: is there any reason why a developer who produces desktop (non-Web based) software should prefer .NET to another programming language that can do the same job without needing the Framework?

While the best answer is certainly the one given by NSA, I would add that the framework is not an issue for a whole bunch of people. If you absolutely don't care about it, as I don't for my personal projects, then .NET is all benefit. Only if you care about the framework is it in any way a negative.


There are also a lot of people who decide not to switch to .NET because they don't want their software to depend on a huge virtual machine.

That's kind of funny. VB6 requires a virtual machine that made VB6 programs too large to fit on floppy disks (at least on a single one) which were the common media back in its day. Early on, the VB virtual machine was an impediment, and now you consider it trivial, and quite rightly. With streaming media, the .NET framework is already trivial in size to many people.

Abandoning customers for purely commercial reasons can backfire: the first thing I did when I realised that MS had discontinued VB6 was look for an alternative language that was not produced by them.

This is very true. MS took a look at the current market, and the trends that they saw coming, and changed strategy. That certainly left some people hung out to dry, and as a business move it may have been a bad one, but if they get crushed by Google trying to make computers online only, then who will really care? They felt that the web would be king and acted accordingly. If the model of online only apps takes such market share that the Windows OS is discarded, where will your VB6 apps be then? That was the future that MS foresaw. It may or may not happen, but they felt it likely enough that they turned the ship, and in doing so, you were cast aside.


So, I'll rephrase my question: is there any valid reason why a developer of desktop software who is his own boss should prefer .NET to VB6 or Delphi?

On my own, my apps are HIGHLY multithreaded. VB6 handles multithreading not at all. How does Delphi do?

[esposito]

Your situation is different and almost unique, but you have been well aware of that for years. You are well aware that they did not leave you stranded at all - they just didn't make things harder for the masses in order to give a tiny minority exactly what they wanted.

Believe me, I'm not alone! There are 14319 developers, including 265 Microsoft MVPs, who have signed A PETITION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF UNMANAGED VISUAL BASIC AND VISUAL BASIC FOR APPLICATIONS. Click on the link below:
http://classicvb.org/petition/?lang=en

[esposito]

On my own, my apps are HIGHLY multithreaded. VB6 handles multithreading not at all. How does Delphi do?

Multithreading is surely essential for those who deal with advanced programming, as you probably do. In my case, it's marginal.

[si_the_geek]

Believe me, I'm not alone!Yes you are, or at least very close to it - and it is deceitful of you to pretend otherwise.

I am well aware of the petition, and as I have told you before:
I am one of the people who signed it.
Like most people, my reasons for signing it were entirely different to yours.
Like many others who signed it, I do not believe that it would be the right thing to do any more - but there is no way for people to remove themselves from the list.Even without those points, 14319 is a very tiny percentage of VB developers (I don't know exactly how many, but it is easily in the millions).


You are part of an extremely small minority, and you just clutch at straws (in spite of previous evidence you have already seen repeatedly) to pretend that it is not the case.

You believe (probably correctly) that VB.Net is not the right tool for your situation - so simply don't use it.

Stop pretending that somehow VB.Net is wrong in general, or that Microsoft (who actively helped you personally move to something apt for your situation - which you should have done yourself) did something wrong by focussing their future efforts on what was best for the vast majority of developers.

As can be seen in the posts above, you still haven't put in enough effort to have a valid opinion of .Net - one issue is bad for you, so you ignore/forget the rest of it (which is mainly good points, even for you).

Despite the ridiculously large amount of threads where you have made the claims, there has been almost nobody backing you up at all - yet you still pretend that a large percentage are of others are in the same situation.

There is no valid reason for these claims that you keep on making (most of which you have admitted before are not valid), or for posting them repeatedly - especially in cases like this one where it is not even the topic.

That's enough for this thread, so get this back on topic, or I'll close the thread.

[esposito]

Yes you are, or at least very close to it - and it is deceitful of you to pretend otherwise.

If you take a look at forums dedicated to Delphi, you will see that I'm not alone in not wanting to embrace .NET. All of my new applications are developed in Delphi but I still miss VB6 because things could be done much more quickly with it. I have to maintain software I developed in VB6 that took me months of work. That's why I would like MS to understand that many of their customers would be grateful to them if they sold the VB6 source code to some other software house.


You believe (probably correctly) that VB.Net is not the right tool for your situation - so simply don't use it.
You bet I will never use .NET in my life! Just to use a quotation from one of my previous posts, ONLY WHEN THE SUN CEASES TO SHINE, WILL I .NET! If worse comes to worse, I'll switch to Java, which is completely free.


As can be seen in the posts above, you still haven't put in enough effort to have a valid opinion of .Net - one issue is bad for you, so you ignore/forget the rest of it (which is mainly good points, even for you).

Despite the ridiculously large amount of threads where you have made the claims, there has been almost nobody backing you up at all - yet you still pretend that a large percentage are of others are in the same situation.

There is no valid reason for these claims that you keep on making (most of which you have admitted before are not valid), or for posting them repeatedly - especially in cases like this one where it is not even the topic.

That's enough for this thread, so get this back on topic, or I'll close the thread.

The purpose of this thread was to explore the possibility for those who are still using VB6 to join together and ask MS to give a future to it. Don't they like money? So, why don't they want to sell a product they have binned? The future is made NOT ONLY of .NET. Native software is still an important part of it. Since we can take for granted that MS will never release the VB6 source code, let's try to see if they can be convinced to sell it and make some money that otherwise would be lost.

And yes, I'm sick and tired of repeating that, for my purposes, .NET is worth less than junk. So I'd like not to even mention the word ".NET" from now on. This thread is about VB6 and only VB6!

[Shaggy Hiker]

I still think you should learn C++ and get away from the whole issue. Delphi is marginal and VB6 is dead. C++ will outlive .NET, requires no framework, compiles to machine language, and has HUGE amounts of support. It is the language that you wish VB6 to be.

[si_the_geek]

If you take a look at forums dedicated to Delphi, you will see that I'm not alone in not wanting to embrace .NET. No, but there are different reasons (perceived or real) for that - presumably most of which were the cause of those people using Delphi in the first place.

On this site (which MS are well known to read, and still has an active VB6 presence), very few people who understand .Net to a reasonable degree share the view.

Like with any tool there are situations where it is not the best, so in those cases use a tool that is more apt.
That's why I would like MS to understand that many of their customers would be grateful to them if they sold the VB6 source code to some other software house.From what I have seen the "many" you mention is an insignificant percentage - and you have made it very clear that you are not one of them yourself (you are an ex-customer, and while you were leaving you got treated far better than you should have).

I am one of that small percentage who would like an unmanaged VB route (which is certainly not the same as "VB6 forever!" or ".Net is bad!"), but unlike you I will not make false/misleading claims to support my opinion.
You bet I will never use .NET in my life! ...Yes, and that attitude is the problem.

It is an extremely good tool, and it is very likely that at some point in the next few years it will be the best tool for you (for one thing in particular, or for everything you do), but you will choose to ignore it because of your unjustified vendetta.

I on the other hand use it when it is right for me, and will almost certainly use it more as time goes on.
And yes, I'm sick and tired of repeating that, for my purposes, .NET is worth less than junk.I don't believe that, because a very large percentage of your posts over the years repeat the same claims (even after you are well aware that they are not valid), often as an attempt to persuade relative newbies to join your vendetta before they have had a chance to learn the facts.
...Don't they like money? So, why don't they want to sell a product they have binned? ... As has already been pointed out by others in this thread, in order for VB6 to be of any use in the future, it will take a large amount of redesign by people who know what they are doing in other languages - which will take a lot of money in itself.

There are many VB6 alternatives already available (several of them free), which means that only a tiny percentage of developers would be willing to pay for whatever was created.

Due to that, there is very little chance of anyone being willing to take the risk of paying for the work involved - let alone pay extra for the rights for it before they can even see what needs to be done.

The desire for unmanaged VB is very likely to reduce over time (more people will have the framework, etc) so the time scale to make any money at all is slim, which reduces the chances further.

Even if it was done (which would probably take years), Shaggy Hiker's recommendation is likely to be a better option for you.


I suspect a cheaper/easier/quicker option would be to create a new unmanaged .Net language which looks like VB6 (so that you get the benefits of the IDE etc), but I am not sure of the legal issues with that. In fact, there may well be something of that nature already, I haven't checked.

[esposito]

I still think you should learn C++ and get away from the whole issue. Delphi is marginal and VB6 is dead. C++ will outlive .NET, requires no framework, compiles to machine language, and has HUGE amounts of support. It is the language that you wish VB6 to be.

C++ does not have a form designer which is as easy as VB6 or Delphi and it would surely reduce my productivity. The fact that Delphi is marginal is highly debatable. There is a large community supporting this language and Embarcadero are seriously investing in it.

Nevertheless, VB6 is so user-friendly that no other development tool on earth compares to it. Any other programming language which had been discontinued by its producer would have disappeared completely after such a long time.


There are many VB6 alternatives already available (several of them free), which means that only a tiny percentage of developers would be willing to pay for whatever was created.
Don't be so sure. Just the fact that the VB6 section of this forum is sometimes more crowded than the other (I don't want to mention its name!) should make you understand that a VB7 (a real VB7!) would make a very high percentage of developers happy. And, needless to say, those happy people would buy the product.


I suspect a cheaper/easier/quicker option would be to create a new unmanaged .Net language which looks like VB6 (so that you get the benefits of the IDE etc), but I am not sure of the legal issues with that. In fact, there may well be something of that nature already, I haven't checked.

If MS themselves came up with something like that, I'm sure it would be a winning strategy.

[si_the_geek]

C++ does not have a form designer which is as easy as VB6 or Delphi ...There are options which are very close, and you could make your own too.
Nevertheless, VB6 is so user-friendly that no other development tool on earth compares to it.Like most people who have used both VB6 and VB.Net, I disagree - VB.Net is noticeably more user friendly in many ways.

There is the initial OO hurdle to get over (and because you have VB6 experience, dropping your old habits), but that is about it.
Any other programming language which had been discontinued by its producer would have disappeared completely after such a long time.I basically agree.
Don't be so sure. Just the fact that the VB6 section of this forum is sometimes more crowded than the other (I don't want to mention its name!) should make you understand that a VB7 (a real VB7!) would make a very high percentage of developers happy. And, needless to say, those happy people would buy the product.The forum user counts is a fairly rare occurrence (and gradually getting rarer), and means virtually nothing anyway.

There are many reasons why people might be in the VB6 forum, and very few of them translate in to potential customers, let alone ones who would pay.

Some of the most frequent reasons are:
Maintaining old apps that haven't been re-written in .Net yet.
A pirate version of VB6 has become available fairly recently, and a surprising amount of people have admitted that they are using it simply because they could get it for free - and that they didn't realise that the legitimately free edition of VB.Net has more features.
School/college based work... When the schools do move on from VB6, there is little/no gain from using unmanaged-VB (which should not be the same as VB6) rather than VB.Net

If MS themselves came up with something like that, I'm sure it would be a winning strategy. It would be for you, me, and some others... but would the potential return they get be enough to risk the initial investment?

If they did it and it fails, then we would be back in the same situation again - but with the extra effort of learning the changes for a short-term fix.

[Lord Orwell]

it's too much effort do quote about the mono project, but i will say this:

.net 4.0 is about to come out, and apps that need 3.5 are becoming mainstream. The latest mono is just now coming into a decent 2.0 compliance. At the speed microsoft is releasing these things, it will never keep up.

[JuggaloBrotha]

esposito, I'm curious to why you keep saying that vb6 compiles to native code. It never has and never will, none of the VB versions have ever compiled to native code. QBasic (before VB ever existed) could compile to native code, but put the limitation of needing DOS to run. VB has always required a runtime, period. It's just the runtime in .Net is a much larger set of files and only shipped with Vista and up.

I've also noticed that you tend to nit pick everything spinning the same lame story under different views so before you nit pick this post and spin the same "native" code crap I'll simply say that if a program is compiled to native code that means it can run on any MS OS without trouble. So that means a vb6 app can run on Win95, but oh wait, it can't you have to install the vb6 runtime files (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=BA9D7924-4122-44AF-8AB4-7C039D9BF629&displaylang=en&displaylang=en) before it can run. OMG vb6 has a runtime dependency. .Net has a runtime dependency... wait a minute .Net really is the next version of vb6.. Oh snap son. Maybe you should consider just migrating to .Net and quit your whining.

I mean if someone tries running your vb6 app from a flash drive on Win95c (the only version of Win95 with usb support) then they're going to get a program crash and you'll have to make an installer to distribute with your apps, just like you would have to with the .Net Framework like everyone else...

[Lord Orwell]

esposito, I'm curious to why you keep saying that vb6 compiles to native code. It never has and never will, none of the VB versions have ever compiled to native code. QBasic (before VB ever existed) could compile to native code, but put the limitation of needing DOS to run. VB has always required a runtime, period. It's just the runtime in .Net is a much larger set of files and only shipped with Vista and up.

I've also noticed that you tend to nit pick everything spinning the same lame story under different views so before you nit pick this post and spin the same "native" code crap I'll simply say that if a program is compiled to native code that means it can run on any MS OS without trouble. So that means a vb6 app can run on Win95, but oh wait, it can't you have to install the vb6 runtime files (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=BA9D7924-4122-44AF-8AB4-7C039D9BF629&displaylang=en&displaylang=en) before it can run. OMG vb6 has a runtime dependency. .Net has a runtime dependency... wait a minute .Net really is the next version of vb6.. Oh snap son. Maybe you should consider just migrating to .Net and quit your whining.

I mean if someone tries running your vb6 app from a flash drive on Win95c (the only version of Win95 with usb support) then they're going to get a program crash and you'll have to make an installer to distribute with your apps, just like you would have to with the .Net Framework like everyone else...

have you never dug into your menus? both vb5 and 6 have a "compile to native code" option in the project properties.

plus, i'm not necessarily disagreeing with any point you're trying to make, but to say that vb.net is a direct sequel to vb6 is really stretching it. Up until that version, vb was completely backwards compatible. While the programming structure is the same, it could also be said it's the same as any basic. While it's a new visual basic, it's a complete ground-up rewrite.

[dilettante]

VB6 can compile to native code as thoroughly as VC++. They both rely on runtimes and external libraries though, and why not? Reinventing the wheel is pointless. Your definition of "native code" is way off in the weeds. I believe the issue there is the relative ease of reverse-engineering a program's source from its EXE and DLLs.

QBasic was strictly an interpreter, perhaps you meant QuickBasic?

Trotting out Win95 is pretty silly. It has almost no relevance today, and even Win2K is dead as of July.


What I don't understand is why people who use VB.Net want to argue any of these points. They wouldn't even have come up if we just stuck to the original issue about releasing VB6 as open source software.

[Shaggy Hiker]

The topic of the thread was covered exhaustively long ago. The thread was started by Esposito, and he can take it wherever he wants as far as I'm concerned.

The drawbacks mentioned for C/C++ are too minor to overcome the advantages. Those languages have all the versatility you could ask for, compile to machine language, and nobody will cut you out. Learning them wouldn't be that hard. After all, you learned an entirely new language just to spite MS (VB6 is still around, so why else did you go to Delphi so quickly?), so why not learn a language that isn't owned by some company. You are betting that some new company will survive and continue where Borland failed. Fat chance. They're a niche market at best. Sure, they could be around for a couple more years, possibly even a decade, but what then? VB let you down in shorter time than that. If you switch to C/C++, you have an ANSI standard language that isn't owned by any company, so all kinds of different companies can build compilers, IDEs, and so forth. Choose C if you don't want to deal with OO design, choose C++ if you are fine with OO design.

In an earlier thread there were several links for viable IDEs that would allow form design. VB isn't any easier or harder other than the form design. Heck, I loved VB6, but after using the .NET IDE, the VB6 IDE is frustrating and awkward, so it isn't like the pinacle of design. Far from it, actually, as MS was able to improve on it considerably (and the IDE has nothing to do with the framework, .NET syntax, or any such thing, so it COULD have been put into earlier VB if it had been thought up back then). Furthermore, if VB6 was really so easy to learn and so easy to use, then why are there so many people asking questions about it? It isn't easy. The IDE is fairly good, but there are vastly better ones out there already. The language isn't particularly easy, and if you learned it, then learning C wouldn't be too tough for you. The code constructs would be the same, there would just be a change in the syntax for those code constructs.

There is no sound reason for you to stick with Delphi, which will ultimately disappoint you, other than that you don't want to learn the language that is obviously the most suitable for your needs.

[gep13]

it's too much effort do quote about the mono project, but i will say this:

.net 4.0 is about to come out, and apps that need 3.5 are becoming mainstream. The latest mono is just now coming into a decent 2.0 compliance. At the speed microsoft is releasing these things, it will never keep up.

Granted, Mono will always be behind what MS is bringing out, but what else can you expect. I personally think that the guys over at Mono are doing an outstanding job, and several .Net 3.5 technologies already working, and more in the pipeline.

Gary

[Lord Orwell]

VB6 can compile to native code as thoroughly as VC++. They both rely on runtimes and external libraries though, and why not? Reinventing the wheel is pointless. Your definition of "native code" is way off in the weeds. I believe the issue there is the relative ease of reverse-engineering a program's source from its EXE and DLLs.

QBasic was strictly an interpreter, perhaps you meant QuickBasic?

Trotting out Win95 is pretty silly. It has almost no relevance today, and even Win2K is dead as of July.


What I don't understand is why people who use VB.Net want to argue any of these points. They wouldn't even have come up if we just stuck to the original issue about releasing VB6 as open source software.

vb for dos can compile qbasic programs. Quickbasic was actually purchased by microsoft and used as the foundation for vb for dos, which incidently, was released AFTER vb 1.0 for windows was. I never said qbasic could compile. It was however completely capable of doing assembly calls with tricky programming. My qbasic programs had mouse support, and i wrote a floppy disk sector editor in qbasic.

Granted, Mono will always be behind what MS is bringing out, but what else can you expect. I personally think that the guys over at Mono are doing an outstanding job, and several .Net 3.5 technologies already working, and more in the pipeline.

Gary

If only the alky project worked that hard... Oh well. I was actually surprised to see how far along the mono project has come in a short time.

[esposito]

esposito, I'm curious to why you keep saying that vb6 compiles to native code... OMG vb6 has a runtime dependency. .Net has a runtime dependency... wait a minute .Net really is the next version of vb6.. Oh snap son. Maybe you should consider just migrating to .Net and quit your whining. I mean if someone tries running your vb6 app from a flash drive on Win95c (the only version of Win95 with usb support) then they're going to get a program crash and you'll have to make an installer to distribute with your apps, just like you would have to with the .Net Framework like everyone else...

You must be joking. First, VB5/VB6 does compile to native code. Consequently, applications developed in VB6 can certainly be cracked but never reverse-engineered. Second, the size of its runtime files is marginal and, besides, these files have been present in the OS as of Windows 98. Regarding Windows 95, only a fool could use it today.

[gep13]

Second, the size of its runtime files is marginal and, besides, these files have been present in the OS as of Windows 98.

And so is the .Net Framework.

http://blogs.msdn.com/astebner/archive/2007/03/14/mailbag-what-version-of-the-net-framework-is-included-in-what-version-of-the-os.aspx

[esposito]

And so is the .Net Framework.

http://blogs.msdn.com/astebner/archive/2007/03/14/mailbag-what-version-of-the-net-framework-is-included-in-what-version-of-the-os.aspx

I think we have already discussed it and there's no point in bringing it up again.

[gep13]

I was merely pointing out that you are saying that the necessary files to run a VB program have been included in the base OS, so it isn't a problem. How is this any different from me saying that the .Net Framework is also included in the base OS?

Gary

[si_the_geek]

The topic of the thread was covered exhaustively long ago. The thread was started by Esposito, and he can take it wherever he wants as far as I'm concerned.I'm inclined to agree.

Second, the size of its runtime files is marginalFrom what I remember they are about 12 MB... and a quick check shows that the .Net 2.0 framework is 122MB, which is well within comparison.

If 12MB is marginal, 122MB is reasonable.

It may not be perfect, but it is at least worthy of consideration.
and, besides, these files have been present in the OS as of Windows 98. Regarding Windows 95, only a fool could use it today. In pre-XP (or is it pre-2k SP4?), they have a large amount of bugs... in the opinion of many people, only a fool would rely on those.

I think we have already discussed it and there's no point in bringing it up again.Coming from the man who repeats the same unjustified argument (with the same invalid excuses) in almost every thread he posts in, that is absolutely legendary!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Hack]

In every discussion on this topic (and there have been many) one of the most salient points seems to be continually missed.

Of what possible relevancy is any .NET language if the company that issues you a paycheck specifically dictates that VB6 is going to be used for all development?

Many of you know this story, but for those who may have missed it, the one and ONLY reason my place of employment even has a copy of VB.NET is because I told the IT management people none of their VB6 programs would run on Vista...in other words, I had to lie just to get .NET in the door.

Now that Vista is no longer in the picture, my rewrite of their VB6 apps into .NET has been cancelled, and all development is back in the VB6 house (in fact, rather than moving forward with VB.NET, I'm actually moving backward into VBA :mad: ).

This is the very important point that everyone seems to miss, or overlook: I would love nothing better than to ditch VB6 and move on. However, I have no control over that. Unless you own your own software development business you, as the programmer, have no control over what language you use either. That is dictated by the people that pay your salary. If you don't like that, then my experience has been that your only option is to find another job.

On topic, to transform VB6, which is still, and will continue to be, a money maker for Microsoft, into open source would be tantamount to a car manufacturer giving away free automobiles to anyone that wanted one.

[Pradeep1210]

Like anythig in this world, everything that comes in existence once is young and energetic, then gets old and finally dies. This applies to software as well. I'm happy that VB6 died a graceful death while it was on the top of the charts. And its descendant is even more powerful.

[esposito]

On topic, to transform VB6, which is still, and will continue to be, a money maker for Microsoft, into open source would be tantamount to a car manufacturer giving away free automobiles to anyone that wanted one.

Yes, releasing the source of VB6 for nothing is probably inconceivable for Microsoft. Since they still make money with it, why not try to convince them to make MORE money by releasing a new version?

[Jenner]

Yes, releasing the source of VB6 for nothing is probably inconceivable for Microsoft. Since they still make money with it, why not try to convince them to make MORE money by releasing a new version?

Simple, because VB6 can't go anywhere else. Yea, they can make it fully object-oriented, use WPF, allow it to use ADO.NET providers, give it LINQ, etc... but you end up with VB.NET in the end.

The systems that VB6 relied on: COM+, GDI, etc are an afterthought for Microsoft now only retained for compatibility. They've been replaced by Assemblies, and WPF. You can't "modernize" VB6 without turning it into .NET.

About all you can do with it is fix some bugs and that's what service packs are for.

[esposito]

You can't "modernize" VB6 without turning it into .NET.


Delphi comes out with newer and more powerful versions every two years and nobody has said that it must be turned into byte code so far. A programming language like Delphi is not going to die in the foreseeable future, so why should VB6? Native software is here to stay as this link shows:

http://blog.marcocantu.com/blog/olympic_rings_delphi.html

I think that making VB6 survive would also be beneficial for Microsoft. VB6 can only produce software for Windows and this means that the attention of those who use it or buy applications developed with this language will not be drawn to alternative operating systems. It wouldn't be a stupid move for MS to resume the "VB.COM" project or sell it to some other software house. Let's make sure they are aware of it!

[esposito]

There is a big gain however, as more developers are likely to buy/use VS (which costs more than Windows), and other market based benefits.

I hope I misunderstood the gist of the sentence above, because if you think that MS pay more attention to the sales of VS than those of Windows, then you have a serious problem.

[si_the_geek]

You clearly did, because that was only half of what I said, and taken out of context too:
Why are they supporting the Mono project, then? Aren't they afraid of the fact that people may switch from Windows to Linux?
The vast majority of people won't move to Linux, so any loss there will be insignificant.

There is a big gain however, as more developers are likely to buy/use VS (which costs more than Windows), and other market based benefits.The first part of what I wrote is saying that the effects of Mono will have very little effect on the sales of Windows - I would be amazed if the difference is anywhere near the effect of cheap linux based netbooks (which was very small from what I've seen), because most people want to use computers that are fully compatible with their friends etc, and work in the same way as the other computers they use.

The second part is saying that the sales of VS will improve, because the developers who create linux based systems can use it to target multiple OS's (and therefore multiple paying user bases) with just one set of code.


The increase in VS sales may not be huge, but the quantity should be bigger than the quantity of the drop Windows licences.

I don't know about the prices in your area, but here the price range of VS is about 20 times higher than the price range of Windows - which means even if the loss of Windows customers was 15 times as many as the gain of linux based developers, the overall income is likely to rise.

[Jenner]

Delphi comes out with newer and more powerful versions every two years and nobody has said that it must be turned into byte code so far. A programming language like Delphi is not going to die in the foreseeable future, so why should VB6?

VB6 is VB6 and Delphi is Delphi. Delphi has no intention of moving on and as such, continues to develop their language within it's predetermined confines. Comparing Delphi to VB.NET is like comparing a P51 mustang to an F117 Stealth Fighter.

VB6 on the other hand is made by Microsoft and Microsoft has moved on with .NET. The new version of VB6 already exists, it's called VB.NET. So what if it's not a native code compile? It's Microsoft's choice to take it there and in my opinion a very good choice.

You don't like it, then tough. It's ultimately your own decision what language you use for your own projects. If you want a language that native compiles that's like VB and continues to have support then learn to program in Delphi rather than waste time whining about the death of VB6 here.

[dilettante]

vb for dos can compile qbasic programs. Quickbasic was actually purchased by microsoft and used as the foundation for vb for dos, which incidently, was released AFTER vb 1.0 for windows was.
QuickBasic was developed in-house by Microsoft. QuickBasic was loosely based on the earlier GW-Basic intepreter's language syntax. Eventually QBasic was created as a replacement for GW-Basic, using parts of the QuickBasic runtime and editor (which was based on Edit).

From what I remember they are about 12 MB... and a quick check shows that the .Net 2.0 framework is 122MB, which is well within comparison.

If 12MB is marginal, 122MB is reasonable.
The VB6 runtime redist package is under 1.4MB, it easily fits on one floppy. Service Pack 6 for Visual Basic 6.0: Run-Time Redistribution Pack (vbrun60sp6.exe) (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=7B9BA261-7A9C-43E7-9117-F673077FFB3C&displaylang=en)

As far as using the "nice" things in the .Net Framework goes... it's a moving target. Which Framework? Once 4.0 (April 2010) is out you have to be sure to stick to 3.5 features or even Windows 7 machines can't be assumed to have the Framework you need. Are you ready for 4.0?

.NET Framework 4.0 to become less SOAP-centric, embrace REST (http://www.betanews.com/article/NET-Framework-40-to-become-less-SOAPcentric-embrace-REST/1222895836)

The systems that VB6 relied on: COM+, GDI, etc are an afterthought for Microsoft now only retained for compatibility. They've been replaced by Assemblies, and WPF. You can't "modernize" VB6 without turning it into .NET.
Umm... ever heard of System.Enterprise.Services? That's a .Net wrapper on COM+. GDI is heavily used by Windows itself yet. The GAC is very much a form of component registry.

[si_the_geek]

The VB6 runtime redist package is under 1.4MB, it easily fits on one floppy. I must have been remembering the amount with the standard Components/References I used at the time... just goes to show how long it has been since I packaged a VB6 app!
As far as using the "nice" things in the .Net Framework goes... it's a moving target. Which Framework? Indeed, but the same applied to earlier versions of VB too - and arguably to a bigger degree due to the SP's (whereas the .Net SP's get automatically applied by Windows Update).

Just like with the earlier versions of VB, you pick the one which is right for your situation.

Based on the link Gary gave... for those distributing to non-local users, 3.0 seems to be the best choice, as it is pre-installed on Vista and 7.

[Shaggy Hiker]

What is the longest timespan that any version of VB has been the most recent? I would guess that the answer is about 2-3 years, but it's just a guess. Things change.

C/C++ is the best possible choice for you. You just have to find a compiler.

However, I wouldn't be all that surprised to see MS come out with a tool that compiles .NET to machine language. I seem to remember seeing that such tools exist, so it would be an obvious addition for MS....except that lots of people probably shouldn't use it.

[si_the_geek]

What is the longest timespan that any version of VB has been the most recent? I would guess that the answer is about 2-3 years, but it's just a guess.About 4 years, which was VB6.

Things change.Indeed they do, and in this industry it is something that you have to accept.

[penagate]

And on that note...

Thread closed.