Printable View
I know they are. But if you use them in your VB5/6 apps, you will have to distribute and register them. In other words, you wouldn't be able to place a single executable in a shared folder and make it work by means of a simple link on each workstation without any installation. That's what my apps in pure VB5/6 code allow me to do. And that's why I love VB5/6.Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
No that's not why you love VB5/6 - that's why you love writing "extremely" lightweight non-dependant executables.Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
There is a huge difference.
We write SQL apps - we have to have MDAC installed. That's why we love MDAC - it gives us SQL access.
From what I can tell here - you do not want a framework - you didn't want it in VB5/6 (no dependacy's here!) and you certainly won't use .Net because of that requirement.
I think I had already made it clear in one of my first posts in this thread:Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Quote:
My concern is that, since my school distributes software to other schools, if we use VB.NET we may have problems making our software run on some old machines which are equipped with Windows 98 or Me.
Normally, when we distribute VB5/6 applications, we only provide the final users with the exacutable and it works fine. We don't use any OCX libraries because most of our programs must run in a LAN and we can't install them on each machine.
It will let your apps work. You just need both Fxs.Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
Chances are, if they haven't used apps in 1.1 by the time Vista rolls out, they're not going to use 1.1 apps afterwards. If they do, it's because of poor development and planning from the software distributors.
Quote:
The idea of having to distribute a 23MB virtual machine (which becomes much huger after its installation) is something I can't accept.
Then so be it. If you can't accept it, don't use it. As far as my development system is concerned, I don't have it bogged down with a bunch of computer games, DVD images and MP3s. I have PLENTY of HD room and if they want to add a couple hundred megs (taking your word for it) that will include a GAC and JIT compiler that assembles only the objects my application is using, therefore saving me processing time; I welcome it. I'd happily give them 2 gigs to make it even faster.Quote:
23MB is big if you consider that it's only the size of the setup file. Again, after the installation, the hard disk is deprived of hundreds of MBs.
--------------
All honesty, I hope they break compatiblity every 3 years. If it's compatible, then it's just revisions. If it breaks, it's something innovative. (Not to mention, it draws the line between developers and maintainers)
My car isn't compatible with both steam and fuel. Pretty soon, we'll have hydrogen cell cars that won't be compatible with fuel. Can I expect a similiar thread from you then?
You hit the nail on the head. That's what I have been trying to say since the beginning of this discussion. I don't think you commit a crime if you want to develop lightweight non-dependant executables.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
With that said, you are unique - you could be writing in ASM if you want...Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
But you certainly are not a candidate for VS.Net - 2003 or 2005.
All of us are coming at you from different angles, but the bare facts are that none of what we are saying changes your "lightweight" requirement.
Does your boss embrace that as well?
You could tell your boss that you are unable to provide the same deployment efficiency and ease of installation when utilising the .NET framework, as you currently enjoy without that dependency. If you care to, you might mention the benefits of a language such as C++ which requires NO dependencies (VB requires the VB runtime library after all).
VB6 does have dependancies, there's still the runtime. I forget whether it was bundled into 98, but it sure wasn't bundled into 95. Is that dependancy acceptable because it is smaller?
The place I am coming from was that I was a HUGE fan of VB6, and used it for years, even after .NET came out. Eventually, I started using .NET for the CF (eVB pretty much sucks in comparison, it isn't even truly VB, but VBScript). I found that I liked .NET so much that I have no desire to ever go back. I don't even like maintaining the legacy VB6 programs I wrote.
My point is this: Be very very sure that you are being honest with yourself as to why you don't want to go to .NET. I am not alone in being reluctant to make the move, but having made the move, I have NO desire to ever go back, even temporarily. In short order in .NET, I found I was writing better, cleaner, code, and I was writing it faster. VB6 is awkward drudgery to me now. Many folks will not move to .NET simply out of fear of change.
Be very certain that is not your major motivating factor.
Actually I know VB 6 has lots of limitations. And if you're starting a project, VB.NET is better to use.
I'm talking about the OP's application. If it is working fine as VB6, why port? Does no longer support means that in future Windows versions, they won't have the VBRuntime files as a basic install with the OS?
Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
The VB6 runtime library support period has been extended to cover the lifecycle of Windows Vista - until the end of 2008. Support for VB6 itself, on the other hand, ceased mid this year.Quote:
Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx
My boss must accept the fact that, if we don't change our ancient machines, we can just forget about .NET.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Thanks. That's exactly what I am going to tell him.Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
The VB5 runtime has been included as of Windows 98. That's why I usually use VB5 to develop my applications.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
As far as I am concerned, I have already downloaded VB 2005 Express and, over the next few days, I am going to "play" with it. Nevertheless, I will continue to develop my commercial software in VB5/6 for the reasons I have already explained.
VB .net (more pain less gain) especially if you are looking to upgrade an application that is full of spaghetti code. If your app is a modular one, then it wont create any major hassles. I am speaking from my own personal experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
However VB 6 code will not run forever. One day it will stop. As far as I know Microsoft has stopped providing support to VB6. Its in the application graveyard. So future projects need to be planned on present technologies.
Even if the runtime was no longer included in the OS, would that preclude being able to install it and use VB6 programs? I wouldn't expect that. Therefore, legacy VB6 code could become the next COBOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by abhijit
Upgrading hardware would be great.....but you talk about a school system, so it's hopeless.
I don't know if, after Windows Vista, MS is going to deprive the OS of all the runtime files that a VB5/6 application needs to be able to run. As you know, the list is quite long and includes, for example, OLEAUT32.DLL which was a real pain in the neck when VB6 first came out. (It had to be installed on Windows 98 overwriting the version included in the OS.) In that case, installing a VB5/6 application would require quite a cumbersome setup package.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
That's one of the reasons for my disappointment with VB.NET: it is incompatible with my particular situation.Quote:
Upgrading hardware would be great.....but you talk about a school system, so it's hopeless.
From http://classicvb.org :
Quote:
Attention MSDN Subscribers!
On November 18, 2005, Microsoft announced Upcoming Content Changes that included the removal of Visual Studio 6.0, Windows 2000, and Windows NT 4.0 from MSDN Subscriber Downloads, starting December 16, 2005. The Sun settlement over Java was cited as the reason for this change in product availability. However, that excuse was used two years ago as well, so it's not entirely clear how it's now an issue again. Nor do they say on what basis they choose to leave VB6 available for download until June 30, 2006.
Do you know where your old MSDN discs are?
I've followed this thread with some interest.
I've been at this programming thing for 20+ years now, and the arguments not to migrate are always the same, existing hardware, bloated run times, learning curve, and so on.
One thing has held true over the past couple of decades. If you move forward, embrace new technologoes, languages and methods, you remain a desired commodity in employment terms. If you don't the demand for your services falls off, as does the pay rates you'll be offered.
In the days when a 10Mb HD cost around $1,000, there were plenty of reasons to write in languages that allowed for very small and light executables. Today with 200Gb HD's in the $100 range, that kind of thinking really doesn't make sense.
If you want your career to stagnate, don't learn anything new, don't take any chances, write to the least common denominator (Win 95 or DOS PC's) and spend countless hours defending your decision to do so.
On the other hand, if you want to open opportunities, continue to earn more money, and have your skills be in high demand, you must move forward. It's the price you pay to remain competitve in this business.
I for one intend to retire at the top of my game, not like some old 'COBOL' programmer churning out maintenance coding in my final working days. I'd like to retire right after I write the absolute best application I've ever written in a state of the art environment, for state of the art machines.
Just my .02.. YMMV
-Bill
To billcoupe:
Believe it or not, I agree with you entirely: embracing new technologies is essential to survive. The problem is, I doubt .NET represents the future as far as commercial software is concerned.
At present, deploying a 23MB VM is a big problem if you distribute shareware applications downloadable from the Web. The majority of Windows XP based machines are equipped with v.1.1 of the framework and not v.2.0. If you use VB.NET 2005, you can't ignore this issue.
Shortly speaking, .NET is not the ideal tool to use if you want to develop standalone software. If on the one hand it is true that .NET put an end to the DLL hell, on the other it is also true that it has introduced a worse problem: the framework headache.
I wish VB.NET was like REALbasic 2005 which generates standalone executables and allows you to produce software for Windows, Mac and Linux. As you can read on the company's Web site, RB is "cross-platform development that really works!"
You may object to what I say by pointing out that Windows Vista is going to be shipped with Framework 2.0 pre-installed. Unfortunately, for the time being, Windows Vista is not on the market yet and the framework hell is something you have to cope with
It certainly doesn't as far as my company is concerned, and that is not because anyone has anything against .NETQuote:
Originally Posted by esposito
In fact, we have .NET versions of all of our base products, and to date, none have sold. In fact, we only have two customers who have even expressed an interest in seeing a demo of our .NET versions.
All off our products that are being sold continue to be our VB6 versions.
I don't have any prejudice against .NET too. On the contrary, when it first came out in 2002, I was enthused about it... until I learned about the framework!Quote:
Originally Posted by Hack
You have summarized my point of view in few words: .NET software does not sell.
I can't predict the future, but, I can tell you that from where I sit it's a major player in commercial development *now*. I know of several (large) commercial websites that have shifted entirely to the .Net platform, and several hundred more currently in development. Is there a market for other environments? Absolutely, Java, Ajax and many, many others.Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
I'm also involved in two commercial projects that are major rewrites to .Net from VB and FoxPro.
Others have said it, I'll simply concur. It's a non-issue to anyone who's doing it. Both versions can coexist, and the 1.1 CLR is almost common place on existing PC's. I continue to develop in both 2003 (1.1) and 2005 (2.0), migrating the older applications via a recompile as changes are requested.Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
You don't ignore it, you simply inform the user that if they want to DL and run the software, they'll have to DL and install the newer CLR.
I'm confused, are you writing shareware? or commercial, for resale, software? Or is it the 'trial' version is free, and then you pay to get the registered copy?
Once again, the framework is not a headache for anyone developing in .Net, although as you're not yet doing so, I can understand how you might view it as such.Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
I'll trade off the DLL problems of the past for the framework (non) issue, any day.
.Net does not claim to be 'cross-platform' and never has. If you desire that environment, you shouldn't even be considering .Net. On the other hand, if you're writing web based applications, they're all cross-platform at the client side.Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
I don't object in any way to your opinions, you're certainly entitled to them, as I am to mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
I just feel you're making an issue, where one doesn't exist. I too had concerns over the framework requirement as I was making the 'switch' to .Net.
The reality has been that not one client has ever balked at having to DL and install, or install from the CD, the Framework and MDAC required to run what's been developed for them. I also got no negative complaints about the upgrade to version 1.1 when it happened.
In my experience clients are much more concerned with deliverable times,and solid code, and stable applications. They'll pretty much do whatever is required to get those things.
.Net has given us a stable platform, with stable applications, that I can deliver in far less time than I could just a couple of years ago. Again, a trade off I'd make any day.
In the end you've got to make your own choices, based on what your clients or employer's needs are, and your intentions for your career's direction.
It depends whether you are in direct contact with your customers or you distribute your software via the Web.Quote:
Originally Posted by billcoupe
Again, if you don't have the possibility of informing your users in advance, the framework is a problem.Quote:
Others have said it, I'll simply concur. It's a non-issue to anyone who's doing it. Both versions can coexist, and the 1.1 CLR is almost common place on existing PC's. I continue to develop in both 2003 (1.1) and 2005 (2.0), migrating the older applications via a recompile as changes are requested.
You don't ignore it, you simply inform the user that if they want to DL and run the software, they'll have to DL and install the newer CLR.
I do all of what you have said: I produce software for the shareware market and for my School. I don't develop Web based applications, though.Quote:
I'm confused, are you writing shareware? or commercial, for resale, software? Or is it the 'trial' version is free, and then you pay to get the registered copy?
On the contrary, I will not.Quote:
Once again, the framework is not a headache for anyone developing in .Net, although as you're not yet doing so, I can understand how you might view it as such.
I'll trade off the DLL problems of the past for the framework (non) issue, any day.
In the original statements made by MS, .NET was conceived to be cross-platform but, actually, it supports Windows systems only.Quote:
.Net does not claim to be 'cross-platform' and never has. If you desire that environment, you shouldn't even be considering .Net. On the other hand, if you're writing web based applications, they're all cross-platform at the client side.
If .NET-based software does not sell, the issue does exist.Quote:
I don't object in any way to your opinions, you're certainly entitled to them, as I am to mine.
I just feel you're making an issue, where one doesn't exist. I too had concerns over the framework requirement as I was making the 'switch' to .Net.
Again, if you are in direct contact with your customers, the problem does not exist. In my case, it does.Quote:
The reality has been that not one client has ever balked at having to DL and install, or install from the CD, the Framework and MDAC required to run what's been developed for them. I also got no negative complaints about the upgrade to version 1.1 when it happened.
In my experience clients are much more concerned with deliverable times, and solid code, and stable applications. They'll pretty much do whatever is required to get those things.
VS 2005 is so stable that it needed a patch before its official release! I'll just wait and see and, in the meantime, I'll play around with .NET simply because I don't take anything for granted.Quote:
.Net has given us a stable platform, with stable applications, that I can deliver in far less time than I could just a couple of years ago. Again, a trade off I'd make any day.
In the end you've got to make your own choices, based on what your clients or employer's needs are, and your intentions for your career's direction.
For Esposito:
I'm in direct contact with some of my customers/clients, not so direct for others. When the project is over, I often never see or hear from them again, unless a change is required.
I develop on muliple platforms, I try to match the environment to the task, but often it's completely the clients call.
There are always as many reasons, for, or against, any particular environment or language as there are developers using, or not using, it.
You obviously don't want to switch, that's your decision. You've crafted a great set of reasons why not to, so why debate it? Just go with the decision you've made.
All I've tried to do is tell you about what I've experienced, nothing more. I have no vested interest in what you decide, I've already made my transition. So far, it's been a good move for *me*. Everyone's situation is a bit different, and their (your) decisions have to reflect the world you find yourself in.
I wish you well.
Wise words. I do appreciate what you said.Quote:
Originally Posted by billcoupe
You may not like what I am going to say, but I'll say it anyway.
I have a feeling MS seem to be accustomed to abandoning their users for commercial reasons and this is not only unprofessional but also revolting.
Not a long time ago they abandoned millions of fully satisfied VB6 users to their destiny, today I found that "VS2005 does not support accessing SQL Mobile Data in anything other than Tablet PC's and Smart Devices." I would like you to read the following post I found in another VB-dedicated forum:
http://visualbasicforum.com/showthre...08#post1090208
My conclusion: MS are not reliable and one more reason for not switching to .NET is that, as soon as they find something more convenient (commercially), you can be sure they will abandon their customers again.
P.S. I also found revolting the forum administrator's answer to the user who posted up the message:
And do you call it professionalism?Quote:
USER: You need SQL Server ($3700+). SQL Server Express does not work. There are possibly some work arounds but distributing desktop applications which access SDF files is illegal according to MS.
If you develop Mobile data applications in VS 2005 you must use Mobile SQL. You can't use Access. You can't even write sequential CSV within mobile apps. and then import into desktop apps.
I invite you and other developers to join me in pursuing this matter.
_________________
FORUM ADMIN: Microsoft's software belongs to them. They can charge whatever they want, and make whatever rules they want. There's nothing to pursue.
You're right, I think you have made an excellent case....for switching to C++. After all, VB6 has a big ol runtime overhead (as you have pointed out), and is an MS product which is prone to being abandoned. C++ has an ANSI standard, is not owned by MS, has many compilers built for it (some of which are free), creates faster and smaller code, and has no runtime at all.
If you are opposed to MS, and seriously concerned that they are going to cut off your language of choice, it is irresponsible of you not to switch to a language that has none of these problems.
Oh, as for creating CSV files in mobile apps, don't worry, you can always do that. As long as you can create strings, you can create CSV files, and strings aren't going anywhere!
I'll take your advice and get a copy of C++.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
I agree. It is extremely easy to create text files using VB6. I'm afraid the user who posted up that message does not have much experience on his shoulders.Quote:
Oh, as for creating CSV files in mobile apps, don't worry, you can always do that. As long as you can create strings, you can create CSV files, and strings aren't going anywhere!
It amazes me how different a view a person can have from another person!
Our customers would never chose anything but MS products. They feel those are the only reliable products and are industry standard.
And I am talking about school boards and town halls with 1000's of employees - not small time operations.
MS SQL and ORACLE are probably the only two big time players in the enterprise database arena.
I feel no lack of support in the "developers" world from MS - actually quite the opposite.
I think I provided you with concrete reasons for my lack of trust in MS's reliability. If you believe there's no lack of support from MS, please accept the fact that your opinion may be considered at least debatable. Just ask VB6 users.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
We develop enterprise app's that our customers pay anywhere from $50,000 to $500,000 USD to develop.Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
That is proof enough to me that MS is a respected partner in the computer world.
Form the day VB6 was released (or at least soon after), MS made it public knowledge what the support plans were - and extended the period to our advantage when it was clear that .Net wasn't taking off as well as they wanted.Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
The fact that support is limited now isn't a major blow, as VB6 is a pretty stable platform - the only issue that I forsee is that apps will no longer work when 32bit apps aren't supported on the OS.
As for the CLR issue, when installing a VB6 program it is irresponsible to not make a proper installation package (roughly 15mb or more) for each program if you use anything other than basic components, and at the very least the runtimes (a few mb by themselves). Requiring 25-50mb which covers all programs seems tiny to be honest.
Si - this thread has really gotten on my nerves.
This person wants to code light-weight non-dependent executables that can run from Win95 through XP-Pro/2003.
And then wants us to feel like we are idiots for using MS sanctioned products!
I have absolutely no problem with this persons point-of-view. A business decision always has to be made in relation to the business model at hand. But I cannot understand the trend of the later posts in simply bashing MS for choices that in my opinion make a better product for decades to come (sorry - my point of view showing through).
When we embarked on the "migrate-from-mainframe" path that we started back in 2000 we looked at many options. We decided that MS SQL non-ANSI standard T-SQL queries were the best way to leverage the "MS SQL SERVER" boxes our customers would buy. We could have done ANSI-standard, cross-platform, might work in ORACLE or mySQL - but that would be the lowest common denominator - and that certainly isn't our business model. We sell highly customized app's to large clients - so even once taking the "easy" way out would be against what we promote we are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
It may be biased but it's very factual.
Either way, MS has 'screwed the pooch' with .Net .
I've generally been a fan of MS as they brought standards to the development community, like them or not.
The decision to completely ABANDON tens of thousands of it's own customers makes absolutely ZERO sense.
VB.Net and the whole .Net idea is nothing more than an attempt to coerce a migration that wasn't needed or wanted.
VB.Net and a 25MB+ Runtime environment get you class inheritance as the major 'advantage' of migration. BFD.
If MS wasn't scared of the screwup they wouldn't be offering an Express version for free.
I'm migrating to RealBasic and getting cross-platform support for a fraction of the price of single platform support with Visual Studio .Net.
Oh, yeah...no runtime dependencies.
I have bought my last copy of Visual Studio.
Tens of thousands? They are millions! I'll quote again the following extract from http://www.bitwisemag.com/copy/byteg...ytegeist7.html :Quote:
Originally Posted by tmarkoski
Quote:
Start with some numbers. Say there are six million VB6 users out there (in the following calculation, you can add or subtract the odd million depending on your preferences, but the results are of the same order of magnitude). It seems that something like 2.5 million .NET licences have been sold. Let’s be generous and say that 1.5 million were for VB6 to VB .NET upgrades - the rest being C#/C++. So that leaves around 4.5 million of the great unwashed VB6 users who haven’t seen the light and upgraded to VB .NET.
Now three years after the launch of VB .NET, to have 4.5 million users who haven’t upgraded is a bit of a problem.
Look at this thread - check out the link in post #2...
http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.p...ighlight=cobol
Open your minds a bit ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
Espo-
I used the phrase 'customers'.
I would stipulate that there are far more users than customers who purchased licenses.
As tmarkoski has just pointed out, "if MS wasn't scared of the screwup they wouldn't be offering an Express version for free."Quote:
Originally Posted by si_the_geek
Thank God, VB6 still represents a stable platform. That's why MS shouldn't have withdrawn it from the market. If some software sells, why on earth get rid of it? Obviously, mine is only a rhetorical question, to which everybody already knows the answer: they want to force VB6 developers to embrace the .NET technology, above all for purely commercial reasons.Quote:
The fact that support is limited now isn't a major blow, as VB6 is a pretty stable platform - the only issue that I forsee is that apps will no longer work when 32bit apps aren't supported on the OS.
I only use basic components, so in my case a setup package is optional. As I have already said, the VB5 runtimes are included in the OS, so you don't need to distribute them.Quote:
As for the CLR issue, when installing a VB6 program it is irresponsible to not make a proper installation package (roughly 15mb or more) for each program if you use anything other than basic components, and at the very least the runtimes (a few mb by themselves). Requiring 25-50mb which covers all programs seems tiny to be honest.
Do you mean the figures in those statistics take into account VB6 "pirate" users?Quote:
Originally Posted by tmarkoski
The statistics shown in the link you posted do not distinguish between VB6 and VB.NET, so I'm afraid they can't help us understand whether VB6 users decided to migrate or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Not at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
There are far more developers employed doing dev work with VB6 for their employers.
The employer is a single customer.
Take it easy, szlamany, and please don't put words in my mouth: I have never called anybody stupid in my life. I am perfectly aware that, in some contexts, VB.NET reveals to be a very powerful programming tool. My point is another, i.e. in some cases VB.NET may not fit your needs and I find it unfair that MS have deprived VB6 users of their wonderful tool. (If I wanted to buy a new license, I couldn't!)Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Just for the record, it is not possible anymore to downgrade a VB.NET licence to VB6. You can only downgrade VB 2005 to VB.NET 2003. Of all the nerve!
You have every right to rant - but your take on the fact that MS is doing this to us poor programmers just for the monetary gain they will receive - in some kind of "ill begotten" evil corporate mindset - is unfair. You keep talking about trust being broken.Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
VB6 (and prior versions) were a primitive tool from days gone by. VB.Net is a huge leap towards a new platform that embraces the PC's of this century.
They do not have to keep selling a product - nor giving a license to it - it's over for them. It's a brilliant business move on their part to not give out licenses anymore. If they did that then they would not push people to .Net - which as a business, they must do.
Nothing evil in that at all - simple business model.
Only a true MS Kool-Aid drinker would call VB6 a primitive tool.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
MS made this decision SOLELY based upon money and they got it wrong.
There is NOTHING revolutionary in .Net .
There is certainly nothing INNOVATIVE in .Net.
In fact, they DELIBERATELY abandoned COM as an effort to muscle the C and C++ developer community.
As already pointed out, MS doesn't control C or C++.
When the blowback was deafening, they give us COM interop.
C# exists solely to take a slap at Sun. It's similarity to Java is easy to see.
CLR? BFD, why have a runtime at all? (let alone a 25MB+ Runtime affectionately called a 'Framework')
If .NET were really superior to VB6 in the development of desktop applications, then all VB6 users would spontaneously upgrade to the new platform.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
This has not happened and, in spite of this, MS has abandoned VB6 users completely, ignoring the reasons which prevented them from upgrading.
You call it "a brilliant business move", I call it exploitation of their customers. Of these customers, 9682 signed a "A PETITION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF UNMANAGED VISUAL BASIC AND VISUAL BASIC FOR APPLICATIONS" including 262 Microsoft MVPs since March 8th, 2005.
If MS cared about their customers, they could certainly do something to satisfy - or even "humour" - them, e.g. sell the rights of VB6 to another software house or release VB6 as freeware/open source.
Unfortunately, I know very well they will never do it. That's why I keep talking about trust being broken.
You are all welcome to your opinions - I hope I've not offended in debating a different point of view :wave:
This is only the case for certain OS's (Win 2000 and up I think), so as long as you state that the appropriate OS is required then you are OK.Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
Untrue. Many non-upgraders are keeping VB6 due to legacy software which does not need to be re-written at this time (new developments are higher priorities). The company which I worked for until recently has something like 20 VB6 licences (as well as some VS.Net licenses), and only actually uses one copy of VB6.Quote:
If .NET were really superior to VB6 in the development of desktop applications, then all VB6 users would spontaneously upgrade to the new platform.
If you take into account companies like this, and all of the people who bought the Student Edition for when they were at college/university (and no longer use it), you will find that the number of people still using VB6 is much less than the figures above.
Oh, and by the way: VB.Net is free, and always has been. You can develop for it without having VS.Net, you can use one of the free IDE's, or even NotePad if you like. The Express editions are just an extension of this, allowing you to have an IDE at a very cheap price (Free until late next year).
This proves that MS are more interested in numbers than money, disproving a large portion of your argument.
I disagree... VB6 is essentially an extended version of QuickBasic (from the days of DOS), much of the syntax is exactly the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by tmarkoski
It is no doubt powerful, however there are many things which are not possible (such as proper menu icons, automatic form resizing, or threading) without at least writing lots of code, or paying for components. VB.Net includes a large proportion of these features as standard.
VB6 certainly has it's uses, and is still a great tool (it is my personal language of choice), but it has a limited future. Before too long Windows will have moved on, and VB6 will not have the ability to work with the new features it provides - which users will be demanding.
Sorry but this is a as phoney a claim as 3 card Monti on 42nd St.Quote:
Oh, and by the way: VB.Net is free, and always has been. You can develop for it without having VS.Net, you can use one of the free IDE's, or even NotePad if you like. The Express editions are just an extension of this, allowing you to have an IDE at a very cheap price (Free until late next year).
You might as well say you could develop for VB6 without the IDE.
Complete Nonsense. It's why they call it B-A-S-I-C but that's where the similarity ends.Quote:
I disagree... VB6 is essentially an extended version of QuickBasic (from the days of DOS), much of the syntax is exactly the same.
You can't compile a DLL in QuickBasic. etc. etc.
Your claims:Quote:
It is no doubt powerful, however there are many things which are not possible (such as proper menu icons, automatic form resizing, or threading) without at least writing lots of code, or paying for components. VB.Net includes a large proportion of these features as standard.
Menu Icons= False
Form Resizing=False
Threading= partially true
VB6 has a limited future because Microsoft wants it that way.Quote:
VB6 certainly has it's uses, and is still a great tool (it is my personal language of choice), but it has a limited future. Before too long Windows will have moved on, and VB6 will not have the ability to work with the new features it provides - which users will be demanding.
They more money from it's OS.
Its OS is the real revenue stream and FORCING developers into their toolkits is part of that.
How can you call VB the same as QB? QB wrote CONSOLE apps, and had problems running more than one program at once (except for a few TSR programs that would suspend execution while they ran)? QB ran on Windows 3.1 in a Window, and couldn't communicate with the OS.
The learning curve was steep, but I stuck with it, and a lot of it fell into place.
But, saying that MS should keep VB is like saying that they should have kept QB (which they actually did, as DOS programs still run under XP).
They have invested a lot into VBA though, and I don't know if they plan to keep it in the next version of Office. I hope the macro recorder works better than the VB.Net upgrade wizard, if they don't!
Visual Studio Tools for OfficeQuote:
Originally Posted by dglienna
Of course you can. And Si was talking about VB.NET, of which the same is also very much true.Quote:
Originally Posted by tmarkoski
You're missing the wood for the trees.Quote:
Complete Nonsense. It's why they call it B-A-S-I-C but that's where the similarity ends.
You can't compile a DLL in QuickBasic. etc. etc.
How so? Explain... Unsupported arguments carry no weight ;)Quote:
Your claims:
Menu Icons= False
Form Resizing=False
Threading= partially true
Of course they want more more money, they're a business. Complain all you like, it won't make one iota of difference to them now :)Quote:
VB6 has a limited future because Microsoft wants it that way.
They more money from it's OS.
Its OS is the real revenue stream and FORCING developers into their toolkits is part of that.
I'd like to see the Express Edition of that. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
I just spent 5 minutes searching their site, and still haven't seen a price. They referred me to a retailer, who had no matches for my search!
Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
Oh really, how are you going to compile it?
I guess you and Si have never used the WIn32 API for more complex tasks.
Claiming you can't properly iconize a menu or resize a form is just nonsense.
If you like .Net, GREAT!
I'll stick with migrating to REALbasic and REAL SQL Server 2006.
When .Net can compile cross platform, let us know.
Thanks for playing :rolleyes:
Here you go: .NET Framework 2.0 Software Development Kit (SDK) (x86)Quote:
Originally Posted by tmarkoski
You can, however you still need the compiler/linker, which only come with the IDE - and as the IDE has intellisense etc I see no reason to code without it.Quote:
Originally Posted by tmarkoski
:lol: It's been about 5 years since I wrote a program without at least a few API calls. Try searching the forums, and see if you can write API code (not copy it) of a similar level of complexity that penagate does regularly on this site.Quote:
I guess you and Si have never used the WIn32 API for more complex tasks.
If you read what I posted, my argument was that in VB6 these all take a fair amount of code, or additional components.Quote:
Claiming you can't properly iconize a menu or resize a form is just nonsense.
In .Net, these are built in, and simple to use.
As I said before, I prefer VB6. That does not mean however that I should take a blinkered approach and ignore/berate other tools.Quote:
If you like .Net, GREAT!
I didn't. I said: "VB6 is essentially an extended version of QuickBasic".Quote:
Originally Posted by david
I am not saying that VB6=QB, far from it. There is no question that VB6 is far superior, however it has evolved from QB (admittedly with a few large leaps, like DLL's/ActiveX). A large proportion of the proprietary QB syntax (but not all) is still in use in VB6.
.Net is where the break came, it wasn't an evolution as all of the versions of 'legacy' VB were, but a complete re-design to post-DOS requirements.
I have been using REALbasic by REAL Software (www.realsoftware.com) for a month and I am impressed by how similar to VB6 it is in its syntax.Quote:
Originally Posted by tmarkoski
I think REALbasic could be the real successor to VB6 in that the VB user won't have to make any effort to learn a new syntax. VB.NET, on the contrary, is a completely new language which has very little to do with its "pseudo-predecessor".
The advantages a VB6 user may get by switching to REALbasic are enormous: he will be able to create stand-alone executables for Windows, Macintosh and Linux using the same code. So, your applications will require no runtime libraries and they will really be cross-platform.
If you want to take full advantage of the potential of RB, you need to buy the professional version, since the Standard one has some limitations.
I developed a complete database with RB and compiled it against Win, Mac and Linux. It works great on all the operating systems. The satisfaction it gives you is just addictive!
REALbaic is equipped with an external tool that facilitates the migration of VB6 forms to RB. Most of the code could even be cut and pasted since it is identical but there are, of course, minor differences.
REAL Software has recently shifted its attention to "disappointed" VB6 users who are not willing to learn a new complex programming language such as VB.NET.
The previous versions of RB for Windows were only an attempt to compete with other Windows-based programming languages. Nowadays, the attention is focussed on former VB6 users and REAL Software is trying to do its best not to disappoint them.
The following is an excerpt from the REAL Software Web site:
When VB6 becomes obsolete, I'll start creating my apps in REALbasic. REAL Software promised they will never abandon their users as MS has done.Quote:
The REALbasic language is very similar to Visual Basic, so porting your applications will likely be a straightforward process. REAL Software provides a Visual Basic Project Converter that will assist you in the process. Most developers find that their projects port in hours or days, rather than the weeks or months required in other environments.
Nobody is taking a blinkered approach to other programming tools. Like you, we prefer VB6 to VB.NET but, unlike you, we see no valid reason for upgrading if you just need to develop desktop applications.Quote:
Originally Posted by si_the_geek
No, I see no reason to upgrade to anything - unless you have a need, or the tool you upgrade to has a worthwhile benefit.
If you have VB6 and it suits your purpose (even tho support is limited), go for it.
If you want to upgrade to RealBasic ($399.95 + $199.95 p.a. for support) for your project, then go for that.
If a .Net language is better for the situation ($0 + $0 p.a. for support [with a non-MS IDE]) then use that.
If you want to broaden your skill set, rather than just being able to say 'I can compile for a Mac/Linux', then I see no reason to not give .Net a try.
It may not be right for you, but dismissing it on the grounds that it has different syntax seems strange to me - especially with the amount of people on the forums who say that even tho they didn't want to change to .Net, they will now never want to go back.
I'll tell you what I consider to be the only real good reasons to switch to .NET:
1. If you are looking for a job, you will have fewer problems if you can use .NET. (Fewer and fewer companies use VB6 because they could not purchase it even if they wanted to.)
2. The COM technology has its days numbered, you may like it or not. M$ could even break compatibility with COM when they release the new version of their OS after Windows Vista. They would do it for profit, of course.
3. The code you use in your desktop applications also works in Web apps if you use ASP.NET. This way, you can kill two birds with one stone.
4. Even if you switch to an alternative language (such as REALbasic), in the future you could find yourself unemployed if MS breaks compatibility with COM. Moreover, very few companies take into consideration non-MS development tools.
VSTO is $799. One version only - Add-In type, not a standalone. Not supported in the Express versions at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by dglienna
reason #5...
my customers would never allow me to use a language that is no longer supported by the vendor.