Printable View
everything is changed in vb.net except view things. it is equivalent to lean a new language.Quote:
Originally posted by Mosabama
Actally I think that any one knows how to use VB6 .. Can learn .NET in 2 days ....
its all about finding out what are the new functions and the new classes .. thats all ???
I mean the syntax is allmost the same ?? So I dont think it will take much time to learn for those who say that they have no time to learn ..!!!
- The cost
- Haven't had a chance to try it out => No appeal
- Too busy to get involved with it
- I program for fun and for my own needs => VB6 just perfect
- Though far from having mastered VB6, I feel I've learned more than I ever got to know any other programming language
Vb.Net versus VB6 (Simple to answer)
Depends on what you needs...
So if you (like me) need a database app connected to MS SQL Server using ADO 2.X just use VB6...no need to waste time with extra features...
If you need to build a web support for you data just use VB6 to build the front end to the win.application and VB.Net to build the web.application
If you only need web interface just use VB.Net
Guys...you all need to undestand that every language has good and bad points, and depending what are your needs use one or other.
In my case im using VB6 for my commercial win.applications and my new framework (a new project taht will provide support for new products) because is fast, im used to it, and does everything i need...
But im also using vb.net for research like i use php, bash etc... in the development world we must have an open mind for all technologies...
nothing is keeping me away... i just didnt need itQuote:
What is keeping you away from .NET
if a client ask to add web support to the application...Quote:
what would it take to get you to switch to .NET
BRAD
Congratulations...This is a good thread...with good answers...keep it that way...
thx ...
I would imagine someone's already mentioned this: for me VB.NET is too redundand coding wise plus has tons of features that will never (or once in the blue moon) be used.
Although, there is almost nothing that can be done in VB.NET and not in VB6 (one way or another).
This may be the strongest point I have seen yet to support a decision to not move to VB.NET.Quote:
Originally posted by RhinoBull
... there is almost nothing that can be done in VB.NET and not in VB6 (one way or another).
Although I believe it could be argued that the WAY you achive a goal in VB.NET may be easier than the WAY that same goal is achieved in VB6, the difference is not large enough to compell most of us to invest the time and effort in it.
Has anyone read the opening notes on the CCRP website?
http://ccrp.mvps.org/
I personally dont like .net, nor do I see much difference (need) for the .net "technology" at all. I've been at a number of Microsoft's seminars (or other, I dont know how to say it better in english), and they talked for hours about the ".net" "technology".... a lot of demagogy, stories of magic etc... Personaly, this all seems just like marketing move to introduce a package of all development software under the same name (.net) and they introduce it as "technology".. that way they make it into something big and intimidating, do the marketing to the max... That way all the smaller and medium companies (at first) get scared into tranfering so not to get left behind...
I dont know, its my opinion, but it all looks like a big (and good) move to destroy the competition completely and have monopoly on the market.
I've found that .NET has a much wider appeal when it comes to creating web based applications, rather than window based.
Since I do not do web applications here, I'm curious about your statement.Quote:
Originally posted by Memnoch1207
I've found that .NET has a much wider appeal when it comes to creating web based applications, rather than window based.
Are you saying that if a user wanted a web-connected client program to, let's say, connect to a MS SQL server then using VB.Net would be the choice for the "client executable"?
And if that is what you are saying, then wouldn't a more lightweight "client" be even better (not like I know what I'm suggesting here would replace it) ?
With what everyone here is saying about the size of .Net executables and the install requirements - wouldn't .Net be a lot of overhead?
No, as an ASP.NET solution would not require ANYTHING to be installed on the client machine outside of Internet Explorer.Quote:
Are you saying that if a user wanted a web-connected client program to, let's say, connect to a MS SQL server then using VB.Net would be the choice for the "client executable"?
And if that is what you are saying, then wouldn't a more lightweight "client" be even better (not like I know what I'm suggesting here would replace it) ?
With what everyone here is saying about the size of .Net executables and the install requirements - wouldn't .Net be a lot of overhead?
Hes talking about ASP.NET applications. Try writting a web app in classic ASP using inefficient VBScript, then try an ASP.NET web app using everything that is available to you in .NET. Including compiling. Also try debugging an asp app then an asp.net app and see the power of .NET.
It amazes me people still worry about overhead and system requirments. We no longer live in the age of mainframes where we had to use 2 digit dates to save space.Quote:
With what everyone here is saying about the size of .Net executables and the install requirements - wouldn't .Net be a lot of overhead?
Basically, everything people are saying against VB.NET, are the same EXACT things said against VB repeated many years ago. So why did people leave Basic when VB was expensive, redundent, could do anything VB could do, was virtually a new language, etc?
With computers becoming more powerful, .NET was a natural progression. Try reasearching a bit more folks instead of repeating what has been said on a few web sites by elitist VB developers afraid of change. You can still stick with Vb6, but at least be a little more informed about .NET and the past of other languages before commenting on the future.
Since the clarification to my question was "no .Net executable installed on a customer machine" - then your response makes no sense. Since only IE is used for the front-end then no install is required - as pointed out by DAVE SELL.Quote:
Originally posted by Cander
Hes talking about ASP.NET applications. Try writting a web app in classic ASP using inefficient VBScript, then try an ASP.NET web app using everything that is available to you in .NET. Including compiling. Also try debugging an asp app then an asp.net app and see the power of .NET.
It amazes me people still worry about overhead and system requirments. We no longer live in the age of mainframes where we had to use 2 digit dates to save space.
Basically, everything people are saying against VB.NET, are the same EXACT things said against VB repeated many years ago. So why did people leave Basic when VB was expensive, redundent, could do anything VB could do, was virtually a new language, etc?
With computers becoming more powerful, .NET was a natural progression. Try reasearching a bit more folks instead of repeating what has been said on a few web sites by elitist VB developers afraid of change. You can still stick with Vb6, but at least be a little more informed about .NET and the past of other languages before commenting on the future.
You quoted me way out of context - the quote you answered was negated by the earlier points in my question being answered differently.
I was looking to understand how .Net played into the WEB world - where I do not work - we do large scale "inter-office/multi-building" enterprise applications.
And worrying about system requirements is very important in our real-world business life. School districts I work with finally have PC's on every teacher desk - but they are 800x600 - old machines. They have to support "educational" software for the kiddies and also support my administrative applications. That's a tough balance.
And with some school districts having over 1000 PC's on the network, sending a tech to each one to do an install, or pushing them out nightly is a monumental task.
It wasnt necessarily pointed at just your comment. I just used a piece of your comment as it was one of the often used complaints about .NET. Again, the same argument you are using about why the requirements are too high for you, thats fine and all, but I am trying to get the point across that these are the same arguements used years ago, and that people need to look at .NET as something that they will see the benfits of in the future. They dont have to see it now, but you should at least know the facts about it.
I am simply trying to keep people from snubbing .NET all together for all the wrong reasons.
We here see .NET as inevitable - and will be leaving VB6 someday.
Right now our "pile" of software requirements that customers need us to address today is still "years high".
I love new syntax - new language - I'm a programmer from the 1980's - been through FORTRAN, PDP-11 BASIC, COBOL, DIBOL, VAX-11 BASIC, VAX-11 Assembler and even small stuff like TRS-80, ThinkerToys BASIC - could even program my TEXAS INSTRUMENTS TI-xx calculators if I wanted to (really need to grasp RPN to do that) :D
HP clacs use RPN, never saw a TI one that did.Quote:
Originally posted by szlamany
-- could even program my TEXAS INSTRUMENTS TI-xx calculators if I wanted to (really need to grasp RPN to do that) :D
You're right - those were HP calculators - I had one of those 25 years ago...
The TI is more "step" oriented...
Why haven't I switched?
I'm an old dog and new tricks come hard.
I have hundreds of apps written in VB that I refer to often when I forget (often) how I did that particular thing.
I also have a "bag of tricks" collection of literally hundreds of functions, subs, classes etc. that I call on again and again to handle the rudimentary tasks. Lately, when I write a new app the bulk of it is cut-n-pasted, tried-n-true, proven routines. Isn't that what OO is all about?
In playing with VB.NET and converting some apps I've found that most of my routines won't work and need to be tweaked, sometimes substantially.
In my opinion, .NET is a new language. Fine and dandy, and it looks well built and powerful, but I've gotten very comfortable with VB6 and feel competent with it.
What will it take for me to use .NET? My boss to say "do it!"
heh. I miss my programs I wrote on my TRS-80 CoCo and model III(Floppies the size of dinner plates!) years ago.Quote:
Originally posted by szlamany
Assembler and even small stuff like TRS-80, ThinkerToys BASIC - could even program my TEXAS INSTRUMENTS TI-xx calculators if I wanted to (really need to grasp RPN to do that) :D
:thumb:
I'd have to say: no, that's what code re-use is all about, which transcends programming languages and paradigms.Quote:
Lately, when I write a new app the bulk of it is cut-n-pasted, tried-n-true, proven routines. Isn't that what OO is all about?
I'd counter that .NET is a better means to achieve the end, being OOD.
Quote:
Originally posted by Cander
I am simply trying to keep people from snubbing .NET all together for all the wrong reasons.
I want to post again to help keep this thread on focus.
For the purposes of this thread there are no wrong reasons. I'd like to keep this thread friendly and open to hear what people is really keeping people dedicated to version 6 and what it would take to drop that deciation and go to .NET. Later we can address some of the issues this thread identifies.
It seems like there are a number of great side-topics are being identified that would be good to continue on in the general development of other appropriate forums.
Thanks to everyone for the comments so far. This has been interesting and enlightening. I look forward to hearing anyone else's comments that is still using VB not.NET.
Brad!
Brad, this is a good thread and I would echo the sentiments of you and others to keep it on topic. If I may ask, do you have a specific agenda in posing this question? The phrasing "what it would take to drop that dedication and go to .NET" from your last post jumps out at me (almost like "what would take for you stop using punched cards and go to CRTs?").
To summarize my earlier post:
VB6 is familiar, powerful, and does what I need it to do.
.NET is a slow, cumbersome, overly-complicated mess.
I'll go to it if and when I have to.
We had no particular need to migrate but we were starting a new project and decided to keep up with technology - and we've never looked back.
There is no comparison between .NET and VB - we are very impressed.
also the college i am just starting we will be studying primarily VB 6 (2 years)
so i might as well pass this with flying colours first :)
You are right....but that goes for a new language too....C++ or Java...doesn't take much time that either...Quote:
Originally posted by Mosabama
Actally I think that any one knows how to use VB6 .. Can learn .NET in 2 days ....
its all about finding out what are the new functions and the new classes .. thats all ???
I mean the syntax is allmost the same ?? So I dont think it will take much time to learn for those who say that they have no time to learn ..!!!
To answer the off topic question that is relevant to the thread --
I have heard that a number of people were still sticking with VB6. This raised my curiousity. I figured this forum was the best place to find out if it was true and if so, why people were sticking with it.
I'm also considering writing an article on the topic because I believe it is very interesting and very relevant. Understanding both sides of the question -- why are you sticking with 6 and what would make you change -- is what would make for an interesting article. If I write the article, then I'll probably follow up with a few people in this thread to ask if I can quote them and to possibly get some additional details.
Brad
Quote:
Originally posted by zuperman
Guys...you all need to undestand that every language has good and bad points, and depending what are your needs use one or other.
That was the first to lines in the first programming book I ever bought:
I have always said that, and always got a lot of critizism for it...but thats what I belive in. Not getting a language to fit for a job, but find the language that fits it best.Quote:
Finding the right tool for the job...
three words for me: edit and continue
i cannot live without it !!
also waiting for it to be explored and tested thoroughly so that most bugs that were in it are fixed.
and as long as vb6 is doing the job, why hurry change to .net? i dont have anything against it. i even think .net got more potential.
i think i will change by the release of official VS 2005, as i heard that it contains edit and continue,
and also a great new profiler (which is also an important feature)
i wish that vb can keep with its old style in that u dont have to save after each compile, and if this thing would be change in c++, that would be great too.
If .NET sticks around for the long haul, which it looks like it will, I think I will have no choice but to migrate to it. As another poster stated, it would be a career decision, you have to have new skills to advance. I'm comfortable with VB6 as is the company I work for. As for why I'm not running full speed to convert to .NET - vb6 works for me and the needs of my company. I've yet to run into anything major that couldn't be done with vb6. I'd love it if vb6 were improved upon and stuck around for years to come, but career wise, you have to adapt so I probably will. I only hope moving to .NET is as easy as some have said it is, I really get apprehensive when I see the "whole new language" posts.
I still use vb6 a fair bit - I use it if I want to test some vb.net code, as part of it's similar to .net and the ide loads up in 2 secs rather than waiting hours for .net to create me a test project & blank form.
I also use it for writing small, test code for vba outside of other office applications too.
The 3rd reason I keep it around is it's help files are second to none - no namespaces, base class information etc, if I need to know a simple vb command like instr, or want to lookup the properties of an HTML div element, I ALWAYS use the vb6 MSDN version as it's basic & gives me the info I need.
yep :thumb: ...Quote:
Originally posted by NoteMe
That was the first to lines in the first programming book I ever bought:
I have always said that, and always got a lot of critizism for it...but thats what I belive in. Not getting a language to fit for a job, but find the language that fits it best.
if i want to develop web application and dont have money i use php, but if i had i could use asp.net...
if i want to develop game applications i use c++, else if i want to develop database application, i can use VB.
Thats the spirit...and its not so hard to understand...
We can't say that this language is better than the other... if they exist must be a purpose...
My advice is:
try to establish a relation cost/benefict of using both languages, and choose the one that fits your needs...
My guess is you must work for the marketing department for MS.
I've been coding since 1969, having been through various languages and various 800 pound gorillas, Microsoft being the most recent.
The purpose of any computer language is to accomplish some task. What language is really unimportant. PL1 was supposed to be the "THE" language -- most newer programmers never heard of it.
I see NET as just another way for Microsoft to get people to spend there money, which is why they're in business.
IMHO 100% Opp is not the way to go. Like all things, it has some major disadvantages. For example why tier through 100 different classes just to get to one function which is wrapping the API function. Why not just call the API directly????
So, the bottom line is -- why change if I can accomplish my objective with the tools I know how to use effectively.
---------------------------------------
I stumpled across the following after posting the above. It is a good discussion and testing of NETs performance:
VB Code:
Based on the above, why doesn't MS publish statistical comparisions of the strength and weaknesses of using various languages -- Maybe Marketing has something to do with it ?????
I really have to agree with this point - very strongly.Quote:
Originally posted by dw85745
So, the bottom line is -- why change if I can accomplish my objective with the tools I know how to use effectively.
We spent over 2 decades on DIGITAL VAX mini/mainframe computers. If DIGITAL didn't make the mistakes it did - it would still be the #2 hardware vendor - the ALPHA chip - OPENVMS and ALPHAVMS operating systems - the ALPHA was supposed to run both WINDOWS and VMS at the same time. Bill and Ken were busy planning how they were both going to concur the world together. WinNT pretty much comes from DIGITAL DECNET concepts - ETHERNET - the whole 9 yards is DEC. By I'm rambling...
If DEC didn't evaporate, my customers would still be using those machines. We were forced to find a new platform due to "no more support for HARDWARE or OS".
The real point is getting the job done. With the size of the enterprises we deal with, the application program isn't even 50% of the picture. It's operations - it's nightly jobs - it's BACKUP. It's training - support - designing reports. Helpdesk.
I came from 25 years of using equipment that never crashed - never. Memory management - real - not fake (system space vs program space). We had boxes that had uptimes of over a year - typically.
Now we have customers with MS SQL on INTEL boxes - backup stinks - operating system is over-layered beyond belief - can't even tell where the real OS is anymore. Authentication stinks.
I just had a customer loose 2 or 3 of the drives in the RAID ARRAY of there main authentication/e-mail server. So redundancy wasn't working - drives failing. At the same time the backup drive was faulty. They "lost data" - with nearly brand new servers.
That's why big insurance companies in the US are still using IBM mainframe and COBOL apps.
Any .NET developer would disagree with you on this.Quote:
Originally posted by BruceG
.NET is a slow, cumbersome, overly-complicated mess.
I have expressed my opinion on why I haven't converted yet.
What would it take to get me to convert?
1) A simple, concise book (or document) on using classes and OOP, designed for the VB programmer that came up from Quickbasic (and all iterations since).
2) A program that would convert all my code to .NET, in proper .NET syntax.
3) A reasonably priced upgrade of the software.
4) A simple document explaining the ramifications of the migration (what I would need to do to the development machine, what I would need to do the the client machines).
5) MS deciding to not support VB anymore.
6) This forum going away.
I'm sure they would - I was not stating that as a fact, but rather my perception of .NET the few times I have used it. To reiterate what I have said before in response to Brad's thread topic, with VB.NET, my view is that the "flavor" of BASIC is gone - ease of use, very high-level language programming, etc. VB.NET, as far as I am concerned, is NOT VB. This is not like the move from VB 4 to 5 or 5 to 6. This like moving from VB to Java - nothing wrong with that, and I'll do what I need to do to work in this field, but right now I am a "VB" programmer - and I strongly resent the "pressure" (real or imagined) to jump on the .NET bandwagon without a compelling reason to do so.Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BruceG
.NET is a slow, cumbersome, overly-complicated mess.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any .NET developer would disagree with you on this.
:confused: are you talking about me :confused: ...and if so...please explain why...Quote:
Originally posted by dw85745
My guess is you must work for the marketing department for MS.
I'm sure this will come off as an off topic post, since I mainly use .NET now and this is an argument both for .NET and against it.Quote:
Originally posted by RhinoBull
I would imagine someone's already mentioned this: for me VB.NET is too redundand coding wise plus has tons of features that will never (or once in the blue moon) be used.
Although, there is almost nothing that can be done in VB.NET and not in VB6 (one way or another).
I can name three very important things you can't do in VB6 that you can in .NET, inheritance, polymorphing (vb6 has interfaces butnothing else), and reflection. This falls in line with .NET having true OOP. Now for me having already moved from VB6 to .NET this is one of the greatest strength gained from .NET but at the sametime I think this provides the conceptual changes in code and the language that makes some people NOT want to change. For me I save 10 times more time using OOP then it took me to learn OOP but sometimes that up front cost of the learning curve is too much for people.
Which brings me to another point like that which was just made:
"2) A program that would convert all my code to .NET, in proper .NET syntax."
The reason the conversion is not that great is because switching to .NET, or at least to take FULL advantage of it requires concept changes which an automatic wizard can't do for you. Now at work we have a VB6 app, a .NET version of it with only new clients, and a C# web app so I get a little bit of everything. For me working on the VB6 takes much longer because of the non-OOP design.
So I think for some the biggest strength of .NET is also the biggest change and thus the biggest reason not to change.
Also just for background I programmed in vb6 for 4 years and now in .NET for about 2.
Well I was going to post this on Friday, but then I lost my Internet connection so its abit out of date but I'll add some amendments later
OK....
I have finally read all the posts in this thread and it seems that everyone loves VB (don’t worry I do to) and the only thing pushing us toward .NET is peer pressure and inevitable time :(
I do agree with DUNSEL that VB is the most logical computer programming language ever devised, I mean why should a new form1 object have to be declared first if a “physical” form already exists just to change a forms caption (in relation to vbgamer45’s response)
Also a big factor in my opinion is speed and size – not just of the final application but also of the runtimes. I also was not impressed at the fact that the .NET Framework had to be installed, thus making CD autorun’s etc fail to load unless the Framework was first installed. In VB this could be easily overcome by placing the MSVBVM60.dll in the same directory as the application and you would never have to worry about compatibility, as long as the user was using a PC with Windows of course. It also somewhat shocks me to know that some programmers have the mentality to be amazed that “people still worry about overhead and system requirements” (Cander); of course we should be worried about requirements. Most programmers try to optimize their code – now tell me what would be the point in optimizing code if only to have an even greater speed impediment placed on the program by the build engine?
As for .NET Migration, I will eventually be forced to follow the trend, but certainly I (or the company I work for) are certainly not interested in transferring at this point in time. Everything in VB.NET can be done in VB6. As for price, in Australia at least you can pick it up for about $100US for the enterprise developers edition if you are either a programmer or a student so price seems no major hurdle. But regardless of the cheep tag over here, there is certainly no major advantages that will push me into purchasing .NET, and certainly not using it over VB6.
Last year I went on a Microsoft course, upgrading asp to asp.net and I was overwhelmed with the vastness and complexity of it all. I mean, I was used to hand coding everything in Homesite and I knew exactly what was where in my code, as I'd put it all there myself. The huge amount of xml code generated in the .net framework was mind boggling and, although possibly necessary and useful, was a tad off-putting.
Then came the issue of deployment. Blimey! I think that's when I switched off. Whatever happened to a few clicks in IIS and a touch of ftp and job's a good 'un?
This experience has made me cautious of following a similar route for vb6. I can do (virtually) everything I need in vb6 and it's a huge leap for the place I work at as when I got here 6 months ago they were writing applications in Access 97 (no, really).
The following put me off learning .NET (in no specific order)
- Annoying and un-userfriendly UI (well less friendly than VB6)
- Crappy help files. Well hard to find the exact thing you are looking for.
- Different language. Feel like a beginner. 10 mins to do something in VB6, 10hrs to do it in .NET. Although I am sure this will improve as I learn more.
- Not sure how to design apps correctly, what to use, and what not to use.
- Larger deployment packages than VB6, requires .NET framework on Target PCs.
- Naming conventions...still don't know if we are supposed to use str, lng and bln etc.
- I still have something against the gargabe collection...this is because I don't understand it yet 100% yet.
- Way slower to test with...requires faster PC.
- I REALLY REALLY do not like the fact you cannot change code during runtime!
- Still not 100% happy with compiling code and people reverse engineering. This can be fixed I know, but I don't know how.
- Still don't know how to deply apps. I am sure this is easy, but it's anothing thing I have to learn.
- Binding...! I don't like this, but it seems .NET is based around datasets and binding them...again, this is probably something I will learn to work around.
However, saying all the above, .NET does have some VERY nice features. Obviously what Edneeis said is true. .NET does give you some very powerfull OOP functionality :D Aslo, web services...how good are they! :D
I have been learninf .NET for for a total of a month. Few days here and there over the last 4 months.
I can now create a 1/2 decent ASP.NET web page which access my SQL Server. I stole VBF's forum design...and colors :D Brad, can you sue me over stealing your colors?
Authentications and stuff like that is easy, and I'm quite impressed with .NET in this respect. I still only know about 0.01% OF .net and I'm sure my skills will improve.
I am a VB developer by trade, and thus, sooner or later will be forced into learning .NET to further my career. This is currently the case as I asked for a large rise and they said they would give me one once I have learnt .NET, or enough to develop apps in it anyways. This gives me a target to aim for. I can see how people would not learn .NET if they didn't have to.
I have put it off for 3 years now, although it is growing on me, but I still have some serious issue with it, although this is probably just me being an akward badger :)
Brad, why are you asking?
Are you going to use our replies in some sort of statistics for something serious? Or are you just curious?
Reagrds,
Fishman
Because I haven't decided if I wanna learn VB.net or C#. I am leaning towards C#. If I have to do anything in VB it will be done in VB6.
The other reason is as was mentioned, it involves learning an entirely new way of doing things for almost no benefit. I have seriously had no reason to learn .net other than I know I have to to keep up in the industry, but right now that isn't enough motivation.