vb.net doesnt seem to be as good or easy as vb6
will vb6 last 20 or so years?
thanks
Printable View
vb.net doesnt seem to be as good or easy as vb6
will vb6 last 20 or so years?
thanks
>>vb.net doesnt seem to be as good or easy as vb6
:confused: care to qualify that? In what ways? Personally I find .NET far easier and better to work with.
>>will vb6 last 20 or so years?
Hard to say... it's already been around for almost 15 years.... MS has already stopped support of it. As long as the Operating Systems keep shipping with the VB Runtime, VB6 apps should be able to continue and have life for some time. But as a development platform for new development.... I think it's pretty much used up its shelf life.
-tg
Moved To General Developer
How much development experience have you had with VB.NET?
I like VB.NET: You get interfaces, better controls, Lists, etc.
VB6 is okay. VB6 also has a very strange way of working with files.
VB6 to me always felt like I was wrestling with the language. VB.NET just seems to be more natural. I think it's far easier when you bend your mind around some of the core concepts.
not much with eather it keeps me busy ,just a hobby
VB.NET FTW! (or C#)
So do I... but not because of better gui and not until 2005 came out - prior to that release it was bunch of garbage.Quote:
Originally Posted by minitech
Arguably it was best programming language ever produced.Quote:
Originally Posted by minitech
And what would that be? Just curios.Quote:
Originally Posted by minitech
Open filename For Output As #handle...
Arguably VB.NET is the best programming language ever produced.
I use 2005, which is outdated anyways, so you have nothing to complain about.
Tools are only as powerful as your knowledge of them.
Bravo! :thumb:Quote:
Originally Posted by DeanMc
I like VB 2008 and recommend it. There are some things that run slower than I would like in GDI graphics and some bugs that MS needs to eliminate. Other than that I don't have any problems with it. I can't compare it to VB6 because I never used it. I wouldn't be surprised if certain things could be done with greater cpu efficiency in VB6.
If you like graphics dump GDI+ and come over to the dark side (wpf).
What is wpf? Is that used in Visual Basic.NET?
Windows Presentation Foundation and yes it's available in all .Net languages, but it's too much like html for my tasteQuote:
Originally Posted by EntityX
You mean the Xaml markup? you know you never have to use Xaml everything can be done in code just like winforms. Xaml was created as a bridge between hard coding and designing. So a designer could make up vector graphics in say illistrator and save a xaml. Then you can load/copy/paste into your application.
The beauty of WPF is it caters for both types of people in a seamless way!
Maybe I'm just too old school, but drop the stupid xaml tags and I'll look into using it, I don't like it how MS is trying to bridge the gap between the web and desktop apps, it's just too big of a gap.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeanMc
I like Xaml, it breaks the UI away from the business logic and forces you to think of the form as nothing more than a medium to display data.
I also think they have bridged the gap quite nicely. For the first time ever you can take someones amazing adobe illustrator made control skins and incorporate them into your application correctly.
Also since controls are look less they have been designed to be modified not hacked as in .NET winform controls and don't tell me that you would rather work with Rich Text Format over Xaml!
I would rather work with Rich Text Format over Xaml. You told us not to tell you so I thought that I should. In reality I don't know what you're talking about. I have a few million things to learn about a few million different things.
But sure that will never change, no matter how much you know you will always be behind.
I'm also one who hates the tag-nature of XAML. I go cross-eyed looking at a page full of <blah><foo><bar></blah><ugh><make><it><stop>
I'd use the thing if they formatted it like C or VB. Also WPF just seems like it takes me three times as long to make a simple interface. I've tried a dozen times now to start a moderate-WPF app only to ditch it after a week because I couldn't get the controls to do the simple things WinForm controls were capable of without major XAML manipulation.
WPF in general I like.... but it's got a sharp learning curve.... but I could do w/o the XAML
The problem is that people like us weren't the target for XAML .... designers are... The idea is that by using a XAML front-end, you can have a single front end that runs both in the browser and desktop, looks the same in both, and all you have to change is the deployment method. Companies (allegedly) are using more and more "weby" designers to create their interfaces (I'd like to know who these companies are, I have yet to meet one) but designers aren't programmers, and so by severing the link between the UI and everythign else, the developer doesn't need to know how the data is going to be displayed... jsut needs to be served up. Meanwhile, the designer doesn't need to know where the data is comming form or how it got there.... just that it needs to look like "this".... Supposedly it's supposed to make changes easier too.... meh... some aspects of it I like.... others I'm not so keen on.... I'm not sure it's something that's ready for an enterprise-level mission-critical app....
-tg
I don't know about that, Billie Hollis seems to be using it for his applications, I think it just takes a bit more work on our part but the rewards are justified!