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.
Printable View
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.
Swings and roundabouts.Quote:
Originally posted by CORONA BEER
i have used VB6 and i thought that sucked so i switched to Delphi.
:D
Anyway.
Why do you old dinosaurs insist on whinging about it being too hard to learn? Christ, if I can do it then anyone can! Take Mendhak, please. :lol:
And someone mentioned that you have to look around for all the new functions! No you don't, they are in the right places for the first time ever! VB6 had no decent library structuring, nothing was in any semblance of order and you can't even write CLASSES in VB6!! Lame.
.net is OOP which makes it powerful. Much more powerful than VB6. Yes, I know the runtimes are large but so the hell what? the new Windows OS's are shipping with the framework built in, then its just a matter of copying the binaries over, proper installation is not always necessary.
OOP = less bugs = more dev time = more power.
I am working for a consultant and here in the local market there are others working for .net but my consultant never ask me to upgrade tech and as well customers never ask upgraded version packages...
Mean while, when ever I am getting time I am looking into vb.net.
When time comes for real demand then i will scratch my head and put new vb.net in to my brain
I use .NET on my own application, but if I am distributing the application or writing a program for work I use VB6. The main reason is the runtime files. VB6 is more native in Microsoft operating systems currently than .NET. If a user needed the runtime files a 4 MB download is easier than a 21MB download for those on dial up. So if I can accomplish the same task in VB6 I will stick to that language just for my customers sake. If it means removing a feature or causing quality concerns I will use .NET.
um... have you ever used vb6 wossname?? lol - vb functions are in logical places - and as for not being able 2 write classes - well thats just wrong - course u canQuote:
And someone mentioned that you have to look around for all the new functions! No you don't, they are in the right places for the first time ever! VB6 had no decent library structuring, nothing was in any semblance of order and you can't even write CLASSES in VB6!! Lame.
and as for the 4mb runtime for vb6 DinoRoger - my msvbvm60.dll is 1.3MB's, you can just put that with the app and it'll work
Hi,
I have used VB.NET and as a language, actually prefer it. I still use VB6 because my clients still insist on it. Very few of my clients have changed to VB.NET as a standard. I use .NET where I can, but VB6 is still most often the requirement.
If the question is why, am I not buying vs.net?
My answer is that, with VSNET trial2003 nothing in the eula prevents me from entering base 36 numbers. These numbers can represent different "software products". This is legally allowed in the IDE, by stating "This command is not available without re-newing your license." By default other commands are available without re-newing your license(Most basic). There are behavioural differences as well +.:bigyello:
Thanks everyone for an interesting discussion. I'm going to unstick this thread now.
At this time, If people want to go off topic in this thread that is fine. If people want to say why they went to .NET and what they like about it over VB 6, that can now be posted in this thread too.
Again, thanks for the candid feedback.
Brad!
A very good reference for differences of vb.net
http://www.mvps.org/vb/rants/vfred.htmhttp://www.mvps.org/vb/rants/vfred.htm
From the author of Hardcore Visual Basic and what he thinks about vb.net
http://brucem.mystarband.net/vbnet.htm
I suggest you read the information on the links above.
Makes you really think who they asked when they developed vb.net
20 years ago we developed code on DIGITAL VAX mini-computers - using VAX-11 BASIC.
We actually had a syntax construct of:
At some point, DEC released a new version of BASIC and all of a sudden, UNLESS-THEN was gone.Code:unless x = 1 then
... condition...
end if
We were a large development house - we got DEC on the phone and talked to the team in charge of the new BASIC. They said they didn't even know UNLESS-THEN was an allowed syntax...
At that point we wrote a little program to scan our source code and turn all the:
intoCode:unless x = 1 then
What a nightmare...Code:if not(x = 1)<>0 then
Been ignored as a developer before - expect it again :(
Those are good reads - thanks...Quote:
Originally posted by vbgamer45
A very good reference for differences of vb.net
http://www.mvps.org/vb/rants/vfred.htmhttp://www.mvps.org/vb/rants/vfred.htm
From the author of Hardcore Visual Basic and what he thinks about vb.net
http://brucem.mystarband.net/vbnet.htm
I suggest you read the information on the links above.
Makes you really think who they asked when they developed vb.net
Back in real BASIC languages I've worked with we could "dim arrays" and also pre-fill them with fancy little compile-time "text strings". So when the code ran, the arrays were pre-filled. Having control over the "executable" was a good point - most people in the VB6 world stop thinking at the point of compile/executable - it become magic at about that moment...
Respect of memory is not a strong point of VB6...
I didnt switched yet because i think it just SUCKS
(too bolted / broke compatibility / too slow etc),
but, as a professional Programer/Analyst,
i know that early or sonner, ill just have to do it...
I can remeber, just as .Net got out (end of the beta testing)
of some companys im my contry (Brazil) searching
for .NET developers with 1+years experience in it... just ridiculous.. IMHO
Well MS is just the standard, so it´s their (default/actual/newer)Development Plataform. (In Brazil)
just my .02 cents..
haha...finally...Quote:
Originally posted by brad jones
If people want to go off topic in this thread that is fine.
If you don't know .NET....xxxxxxxxxxxxxx :D
ADMIN: edited by admin. You can go off the original topic, but posts should still fit VB.NET vs VB classic. Additionally, you still need to follow forum rules -- no insults towards other. - Brad!
I HATED .NET a few months back. Really HATED it :(
Now that I have been given loads of time at work to learn it, and not the 10 mins I had to sneak here and there, I am starting to come round to it.
I am no web developer, and yet, using my VB6 knowledge and a little help from a few of VBF's members I have managed to create a very nice forum for my web site...adminttedly it looks like VBF...Hahahaha...I had nothing else to base it on ;)
Also...Web Services...how cool are they?! :D
I am still a VB^ man myself, but am slowly moving to .NET
One of the main reason is that in 2 months if I am at a standard to maintain out .NET software at work then I get a promotion and pay rise. So all good for me.
I also own my own company, and .NET allows me to create much better client server multiuser applications...all that work on my multithreading DLL out the window...:( Booooooooooo Bad .NET *sulk*
Woof
Personally, i waited a few months before even concidering trying vb.net.
One day i was bored and installed it. I started trying doing the same things i normally needed to do. Text File parsing, Web Parsing, Basic XML access. After a few quick references from a book i was programming in it just as i was in vb.net except faster( prolly because of the IDE features :D)
One of the bigest things to get use to was instantiating forms.
I reinstalled my development machine a few months ago and never bothered with vs6. I havent had a need fpr it since.
Although the 23mb .Net framework is a big pain but i develop mostly for automating my own personal tasks so its not that big of a deal.
How does it compare to VB6 in terms of COM Class creation (ActiveX EXEs, DLLs), and Win32 API calling?Quote:
Originally posted by <ABX
Personally, i waited a few months before even concidering trying vb.net.
One day i was bored and installed it. I started trying doing the same things i normally needed to do. Text File parsing, Web Parsing, Basic XML access. After a few quick references from a book i was programming in it just as i was in vb.net except faster( prolly because of the IDE features :D)
One of the bigest things to get use to was instantiating forms.
I reinstalled my development machine a few months ago and never bothered with vs6. I havent had a need fpr it since.
Although the 23mb .Net framework is a big pain but i develop mostly for automating my own personal tasks so its not that big of a deal.
Didn't Microsoft steal .NET from Borland?
Those guys are funny.
I wanted to drop a couple comments into the thread.
First -- With some time I'm hoping that some of the VB.NET users and I can help provide information on VB.NET for everyone here. I most likely will post articles to CodeGuru that I will link here. Others should feel free to do the same (Get articles posted on CodeGuru and then have me add a link here).
There are many reasons stated in this thread as to why people are not using .NET that are unfounded. I think that many people will find that VB.NET is not the ugly step sister they picture.
Additionally things such as the Intellisense,the coming IntelliTask, and the "My." features will also alleviate some of the issues.
I'll work on more specifics to provide in article format of some of these things.
There are also some concerns that were brought up that are very valid.
I had a great conversation yesterday with Craig Symonds who is the General Manager of Visual Studio at Microsoft. I'm working on incorporating some of what he and I discussed into an article that will hopefully be posted late next week. Craig is responsible for the overall strategy of Visual Studio -- which obviously includes VB.
He and others have skimmed through most of this thread and they took the comments seriously. While he and I didn't get down into the nuts and bolts of Visual Basic, we did discuss many of the issues raised here. For those of you that contributed to this thread so far, I appreciate the comments as I believe he did as well. I also appreciate the fact that the comments have been presented in a very constructive manner that didn't prevent him from taking them seriously.
As mentioned, I'd like to see this thread now turn a little bit to address some of the concerns that have been raised such as cost, speed, and more.
Brad!
Quote:
Originally posted by CORONA BEER
Didn't Microsoft steal .NET from Borland?
Those guys are funny.
Um. No.
They hired Anders Hejlsberg from Borland, but my understanding is that Microsoft had started .NET already. Anders did a lot of the C# language and is credited with it. He is also the person who did things such as Borland's C++ and Delphi.
Anders is a very sharp guy whom I've talked to briefly once or twice and who I've hear speak on several occasions.
Brad
You can create COM classes are not quite as simple as vb6 but all the extra work is adding a few attributes and marshaling the data types.Quote:
Originally posted by Dave Sell
How does it compare to VB6 in terms of COM Class creation (ActiveX EXEs, DLLs), and Win32 API calling?
Win32 API calling varies. With some you can drag and drop a declaration (from vb6 code) and call it. While others require a little more work depending on the complexities of the data types.
There are no ActiveX EXE's.
in my opinion you cant compare languages. because they have good and bad points. so it just depends on what you need. i dont like vb.net at all because its just to much web based. and i cant afford time and money.
so for ex i use VB6 for my client(simplicity and fast development) and C++ for my server(for the speed so that i wont get slow server)
so not one language is better then the other nor worse
Slightly OT....Quote:
Originally posted by brad jones
I had a great conversation yesterday with Craig Symonds who is the General Manager of Visual Studio at Microsoft. I'm working on incorporating some of what he and I discussed into an article that will hopefully be posted late next week. Craig is responsible for the overall strategy of Visual Studio -- which obviously includes VB.
We had a similar talk on the DirectX mailing list with the Visual Studio Program Manager (sendt by Daniel Roman [MS]) regarding the concerns/issues game developers have had with VS.NET 2003. And one of the replies was "We can do without C#, VB, Visual fox pro, visual J#, WinCE and all the other junk"....do you know anyting about this...Since you said that VB will be in it, then I guess you are talking about the whole package, but what about buying just one of the IDEs with compiler and docs.....?
Sorry got more OT then I wanted..:D
ØØ
[Edit]
Yeah the Danish people can be proud of Anders Hejlsber. Like we Norwegians can be proud of Ole-Johan Dahl and Kristen Nygaard that had the first big break through with a OOP language called Simula in 1960.
Code:Begin
while 1=1 do begin
outtext("Hello World!);
outimage;
end;
Quote:
Originally posted by NoteMe
Slightly OT....
.....but what about buying just one of the IDEs with compiler and docs.....?
MS sells (and will sell) Visual Studio containing several languages in the IDE. They will also sell individual language products just like they do now. So my understanding at this time is that you will be able to buy just VB 2005 or VC++ 2005.
Is this what you were asking?
Brad!
I haven't moved over to .NET because it's object oriented.
Quote:
Originally posted by brad jones
MS sells (and will sell) Visual Studio containing several languages in the IDE. They will also sell individual language products just like they do now. So my understanding at this time is that you will be able to buy just VB 2005 or VC++ 2005.
Is this what you were asking?
Brad!
Yeah thaty was what I asked for. Thanks.
When They Rip It from My Cold, Dead Fingers
By Bradley L. Jones - Published 10/18/2004
Is the continued use of Visual Basic 6.0 going to take your career 6 feet under?
http://www.developer.com/net/vb/article.php/3422891
I wrote the above article based on this thread, conversations with Microsoft product people, and more. I quoted a few of you.
Feel free to send criticisms to me via email :).
Brad!
i just have to say that this is one of the best forums i think i have ever been to. I am like a baby at the web. this stuff is so easy here a lot better than clothes design.
its good. if I get it for free for watching the webcasts, then my issue becomes a moot point. I may end up having to learn it!
I don't have a problem with accepting .NET, just the time needed
to become fluent so I can make my project deadlines and
budgets.
Sorry Brad, didn't feel like sending email.Quote:
Originally posted by Brad Jones (in his article)
... If you are a professional developer doing VB 6.0 development, the days of developing new systems with your tool ofchoice are numbered. It may be time to start looking at VB .NET even if you have to do it on your own. Otherwise, you may be working with the guys who didn't want to upgrade from VB 3.
After all, Visual Basic 3 could do almost everything in its day, too!
...
I totally disagree with this statement and btw there are plenty of businesses (mostly small) that still using VB3 ... and Clipper ... and FoxPro 2.0 ... and ...
But on the personal note - learning new stuff doesn't hurt.
In my opinion working in a small shop that uses VB3 in-house makes you a support person - not a professional developer.Quote:
Originally posted by RhinoBull
Sorry Brad, didn't feel like sending email.
I totally disagree with this statement and btw there are plenty of businesses (mostly small) that still using VB3 ... and Clipper ... and FoxPro 2.0 ... and ...
But on the personal note - learning new stuff doesn't hurt.
I have been a professional developer for 25 years and using the newest tools to deliver the best products to my customers is what makes me a living. Part of me still wishes that I was on my Digital-VAX minicomputer with "green-screens" and no mouse - but the customers demanded MICROSOFT. They will be demanding the CLR run-time next. They like to demand...
In my humble opinion.. . . If it isn't broken.. don't break it. - I mean fix it.
Granted - Most people want to be able to tell their toaster in the kitchen to start making toast via a nice ASP.Net Web Application from their waterproof PDA while they are taking a shower in the morning. Those people migrate to .Net.
Visual basic 6.0 does what I need it to do - very efficiently and it requires less space on my HD than the fancy splash screens .Net has to offer.
Plus they cluttered up the IDE - it's not as intuitave as they want you to believe it is.
I've installed and used both .Net and .Net 2k3 and the only reason I keep them is for C# because I need it for work and school. When I do personal projects - I go back to my archaic favorite :D
I haven't downloaded the new Beta 2k5 yet.. and I doubt I will.
Having two different development environments on my computer from the same vendor - with the "Same" languages seems kind of retarded to me.. I wouldn't want to have to add a third.
Move to .NET or you will all be crushed under the onslaught of skilled .NET programmers stampeding into the market place to steal jobs you could have gotten, but were too lazy to put forth the effort to learn .NET.
Bow do to the superior knowledge of the .NET programmer.
Sincerely,
Bill Gates,
Chief Dork
Microsoft.
I have just as many years but that is NOT the point. And the point is that there are stil many using VB3 to DEVELOP regardless of your or mine opinion. Personally I am familiar with C# and VB.Net but am NOT thrilled with either as both are very redundant coding wise. Waiting on 2005 release to see if there will be any improvements.Quote:
Originally posted by szlamany
In my opinion working in a small shop that uses VB3 in-house makes you a support person - not a professional developer.
I have been a professional developer for 25 years and using the newest tools to deliver the best products to my customers is what makes me a living. Part of me still wishes that I was on my Digital-VAX minicomputer with "green-screens" and no mouse - but the customers demanded MICROSOFT. They will be demanding the CLR run-time next. They like to demand...
However, I noticed that when someone expreses any opposition to .Net in general - he/she faces one of those "you will be crushed ..." or "... years of experience ..." or "... your days are numbered ..." kind of stuff which greatly bothers me. Disliking (if that's the right word) doesn't necessary means that person isn't familiar with the subject - in fact he/she must be familiar at the pretty good level to be able to oppose. Don't you think it's true?
BTW, VB3 was very cute language - much better than say VB4 16 bit.
Best regards.
Since I was literally 2 years old, I loved to play video games. I remember back in the days of the Atari, Nintendo, and the classic Arcade games. Over the years I was always fasinated of how these games were made.
When I was 10 years old, I learned how to program for the first time and self taught myself. I use to program in Amiga BASIC and the AppleIIc BASIC. What was cool about those is that the games were always, no matter what, open source! I also loved the BASIC syntax. It was easy to learn, easy to use, and easy to read and debug code.
When I was 15 back in highschool, I chose Computer Programming 1 as an elective, which had Visual Basic 4.0 Professional Edition. It was so relatively easy to port what I know from the ol' BASIC era to this. VB has many of the similar commands you would see on almost every BASIC language.
If...Then...End If
For...Next
While...Wend
Cls
Line
PSet
Sub...End Sub
etc etc etc.
Sure the old BASIC's has had their limitations, but I was excited about the fact that VB was a massive improvement of BASIC, yet still maintained that BASIC syntax everyone loved!
I have been a hardcore programmer in Visual Basic for 8 years now. I am now 23 years old. And I'm in my second term in college. One of the courses I am in is VB.NET, and I am not happy what they have done to the language at all. In fact, I am pissed! Here is why I do not like it:
1) This is everyones major complaint so far, but they nearly completely changed the syntax. The sacred tradition of all Visual Basics or BASIC languages's syntax that was kept since 1964 has been broken off right at VB.NET. It is now more of an Object Oriented and Class Oriented language rather than been a regular high level programming language. So now we are forced to keep up with current techlogy by Learning a completely new language which a lot of us don't have time to do, even to us VB6 vets it is an entirely new language. Now thanx to the new syntax, our code takes longer to code cause of the this.that.this.that(), which also makes it harder to read, hence, harder to debug. What ever happened to tradition? Bring VB back the way it was only with the features VB.NET has for crying out loud!
2) They took out some commands or hidden it deep in a class.
Here is a very short (but not complete list) of the changes they've made.
----------------------------------------------------------------
- Type...End Type is dead. It is now Structure.
- Option Base # is now dead. All arrays no matter what will begin with 0.
- Can't specify arrays within a range. So no more declaring arrays like this: Num(3 To 10) as Integer or something like that. All arrays are now 0 based.
- No VarPtr, ObjPtr, StrPtr, etc. Question is do pointers exist in VB.NET?
- And, Or, Not, and Xor now are Boolean operators. The bitwise versions are BitAnd, BitOr, BitNot, and BitXor. That really aggravates me there. Should be the other way around.
- DoEvents. Ahhhh the most widely used function in every Do or While Loop. Guess where they hid this baby.
VB Code:
Took me forever to find that. Doesn't that tick you off?
- No more "As Any" datatype. I really question whether pointers even exist anymore in VB.NET. I use them a lot whenever I need them.
- LSet is dead.
- No more Fixed Length Strings.
- App.Path is dead. Now they hidden it deep in this class:
VB Code:
- The classic yet widely used Print statement is dead. Now we are forced to do this:
VB Code:
- The classic Line statement is dead. Now you have to do it like this:
VB Code:
- The Set statement is no longer used to assign object references.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The list goes on and on.
3) The learning curve. Put a never before programmer in front of VB and that person will learn it fast. Like within minutes or hours of playing around, that person can really get into it. And that basic programming knowledge can easily be taken to C++. Cause then, they will think like a programmer logically. And not to mention C++ has been created around the era of BASIC. So even though the syntax's are different, the majority of the commands are similar. Like Print as to printf, For...Next as to for{}, While...Wend as to while(){}, etc, etc etc. It just takes longer to work with C++ cause of the advanced functionallity and features that BASIC never had until Visual Basic came out. Can you imagine This.Blah.Huh.That.Myfunction located all over the place in a C++ program? Anyways, it sucks that programmers are forced to dig into classes to look for the functions they need. It was better off to just type the function on command like in Visual Basic. What would you prefer, DoEvents or System.Windows.Forms.Application.DoEvents()?
Now put a never before programmer in front of VB.NET. As they progress after days, weeks, and maybe months of playing around their thought process will be in an OOP/Class Oriented style.
They would think mostly in terms of This.That.What.Huh() just to obtain some basic functions they need to use. And that is pitiful that Microsuck even made a language in that kind of syntax. Then when you take a VB.NET programmer and have them learn C++...who knows what the outcome would be.
Now what is good about VB.NET is that they are trying to make it like C++ in many ways. It now compiles directly to an EXE, like C++ does. So IDE mode is dead. It can now overload functions/subs like C++ does. "True" Inheritance like C++ does. Variable initialization can now have starting values (i.e. Dim Number as Integer = 10) like C++ does, same holds true for arrays. Data types that came from C++ are now used in VB.NET. Like Char, Short, etc. Structures are now used in VB.NET like C++. Etc etc etc.
The downside after these major changes to make it like C++. It is now slower than VB. So VB.NET isn't exactly a good language to make games on. They made it to be like C++ but forgot to make it just as fast as C++ and fogot to at least make it a little faster than VB. If they kept the original VB syntax, added all these new features from VB.NET without the class oriented look, and created it with the same language used to create C++ so they can be just as fast as each other, then VB.NET would have been worth the $$$$$.
Note: If I made any mistakes in here, let me know. I'm only human ya know. Mistakes are eneviatable.
I think you got a lot of points here.
Moreover running vb6 vbnet side by side, can cause problems.
As far as I know vba 6.4 runs in compatiblity mode, which apparently stinks, since my old project suddenly stoped working after being upgraded to vb.net.(into new folder ofcourse)
Although having both, can be advantageous over having just one, or the other. Right? If I cannot do a function with net, I can integrate with 6.0, and the reverse if need be. This is a new learning curve as far as I'm concerned.
This would be great software!
Run both vb6, and vbNet simbiotically using the older interface style. Ofcouse it takes people like you and I, and others to compile the insufficient interchanges. And then make them work through the old ide.
Yeah that was another thing I forgot to mention. Backwards compatibility. They should have made VB.NET backwards compatible with the previous versions of VB. Microsoft really messed up. I know how profession programmers are when they say "Oh, C++ is better than VB" and all that, but Microsoft did not have to kill off VB's BASIC syntax. It's like they purposly want to ruin BASIC by making it like C++, change its syntax, and say that that is current technology and better than VB, when in fact it is not in many areas. Although some of the new features and commands would be nice to have in VB. They broke a tradition that's been held for 40 years with major improvements in BASIC as it evolved over the years yet still maintained that BASIC syntax. Can you imagine what Microsoft would potentially do to C++? It's scary if you ask me. Errrr wait, they did do something to it somewhat. They made C#. LOL!
They also could have had it to where it is both syntax's! That way there it would allow a programmer to choose whatever syntax they wanted while they are programming. Maybe even use both at the same time.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jacob Roman
2) They took out some commands or hidden it deep in a class.
Here is a very short (but not complete list) of the changes they've made.
----------------------------------------------------------------
- Type...End Type is dead. It is now Structure.
No comment
- Option Base # is now dead. All arrays no matter what will begin with 0.
(Almost) all other languages work in this fashion. I never really liked how VB6 allowed you to do this.
- Can't specify arrays within a range. So no more declaring arrays like this: Num(3 To 10) as Integer or something like that. All arrays are now 0 based.
Same as above
- No VarPtr, ObjPtr, StrPtr, etc. Question is do pointers exist in VB.NET?
No comment
- And, Or, Not, and Xor now are Boolean operators. The bitwise versions are BitAnd, BitOr, BitNot, and BitXor. That really aggravates me there. Should be the other way around.
Never heard of Bitxxxx operators in VB :confused:
- DoEvents. Ahhhh the most widely used function in every Do or While Loop. Guess where they hid this baby.
Took me forever to find that. Doesn't that tick you off?VB Code:
In .NET, the use of Threads is more encouraged than DoEvents
- No more "As Any" datatype. I really question whether pointers even exist anymore in VB.NET. I use them a lot whenever I need them.
With overloading, there is no need for an "As Any" declaration
- LSet is dead.
No comment
- No more Fixed Length Strings.
No comment
- App.Path is dead. Now they hidden it deep in this class:
No commentVB Code:
- The classic yet widely used Print statement is dead. Now we are forced to do this:
I'll give you this oneVB Code:
- The classic Line statement is dead. Now you have to do it like this:
With more coding comes more controlVB Code:
- The Set statement is no longer used to assign object references.
[b]Everything is an object in .NET. Don't you think that would get a bit tedious?
[QUOTE]
I use threads myself. My loops are way faster than.
VB Code:
Also I use the GetQueueStatus API to handle DoEvents in my loops to make it even faster. The loop by itself is literally 10 times faster than an ordinary Do...DoEvents...Loop.
VB Code:
FYI, the majority of VB6's functions are still in VS.NET. You just
need to know where to look. :D
VB Code: