Printable View
"rather due to inertia." -- I actually know of one place where the LACK of inertia prevents them from moving to .NET. It's not because they don't want to (ever since .NET first came out, it was seen as the way to go and would solve a lot of issues)... it's not because people need to be retrained (last I knew, they had the knowledge)... in the end it came down to politics.
-tg
You pre-date me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
Gee, I kind of feel bad saying something as depressing as that. You're a good sort, really, even if your gills are still showing. I remember when we first discovered fire (what a night THAT was), how about sharing an even earlier story, such as the invention of dirt. Would that soften the blow?
@FD:
:thumb::thumb:Quote:
with more spit than Cerberus
Why are they supporting the Mono project, then? Aren't they afraid of the fact that people may switch from Windows to Linux?Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
You are obviously right: in this forum most developers have already switched to .NET. I have one question, though: is there any reason why a developer who produces desktop (non-Web based) software should prefer .NET to another programming language that can do the same job without needing the Framework?Quote:
Eposito, the argument you give for sticking with VB6 (you want to run from a pen drive) is valid... for you. But the point I think you're missing is that you represent a tiny minority. For the vast majority of us VB.Net is more suitable.
There are also a lot of people who decide not to switch to .NET because they don't want their software to depend on a huge virtual machine.Quote:
The vast bulk of people who are still using VB6 are doing so, not because of a genuine technological reason, but rather due to inertia. They've got apps that are already in VB6 that they don't want to port. They've got developers who are trained in VB6 who'd need to be retrained.
Abandoning customers for purely commercial reasons can backfire: the first thing I did when I realised that MS had discontinued VB6 was look for an alternative language that was not produced by them. In short, I didn't (and I still don't) feel like investing in a development tool that, in the future, MS may abandon again. So, MS have lost a customer and found someone who will give testimony of the way in which he was left stranded. Other software houses may decide as well to discontinue one of their products or they may even go bankrupt. Nevertheless, the difference is that, when it happens, they normally sell their product to another software house and, by doing so, they show more respect for their customers. This happened to Borland that decided to stop producing Delphi and sell it to Embarcadero.Quote:
Given that MS would really like to get all those developers onto .Net, why would they release 6 as open source? Sure, they might please you and a very few others who have a genuine reason not to use .Net but they lose the opportunity to prod the foot draggers forward. In the end they just deem that, from a business point of view, you're not important enough to matter.
Thank you for having found my Web site fine. It is designed for a kind of user that is not exactly a computer wizard. Basically, I produce accounting and data management software for an Italian fairly aged public. By the way, the strange alien writing which scared you is called Italian.Quote:
Also, I looked at your site. It looked fine to me but there's all this strange alien writing all over it. which I couldn't understand I panicked, got scared and closed it down.:p
Hi Esposito there are a number of reasons, one of the big ones though is that many developers work for companies (as i am aware you work for yourself), and as a developer you need to be skilled in the languages which are in demand so that you can remain in work.Quote:
is there any reason why a developer who produces desktop (non-Web based) software should prefer.NET to another programming language that can do the same job without needing the Framework?
If you look at the job market not many people are still recruiting for VB6 developers any more where as there are plenty of .Net jobs.
This is true, but do you not think that as an when Windows 7 finally takes over from XP as the most used version of Windows some of these issue will go away as Windows 7 comes with the framework pre-installed ?Quote:
There are also a lot of people who decide not to switch to .NET because they don't want their software to depend on a huge virtual machine.
This is a good point. Yes, the fact that I am my own boss makes my situation particular. So, I'll rephrase my question: is there any valid reason why a developer of desktop software who is his own boss should prefer .NET to VB6 or Delphi?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers
The problem is, by then there will surely be a newer version of the Framework and, if you want to keep yourself up-to-date, you will have to face up to the same issue.Quote:
This is true, but do you not think that as an when Windows 7 finally takes over from XP as the most used version of Windows some of these issue will go away as Windows 7 comes with the framework pre-installed ?
That is a reasonable assumption, but it isn't actually correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Esposito has admitted on several previous occasions that MS went out of their way to give him help to move to a more appropriate tool - even tho it meant giving a customer to their competitors.
He does (or did) matter to them, but they aren't willing to hinder the masses in order to make life a little easier for a tiny minority.
The vast majority of people won't move to Linux, so any loss there will be insignificant.Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
There is a big gain however, as more developers are likely to buy/use VS (which costs more than Windows), and other market based benefits.
Lots yes, but they are almost certainly the minority... because most users already have an apt framework, or can get it very easily.Quote:
There are also a lot of people who decide not to switch to .NET because they don't want their software to depend on a huge virtual machine.
Your situation is different and almost unique, but you have been well aware of that for years.
You are well aware that they did not leave you stranded at all - they just didn't make things harder for the masses in order to give a tiny minority exactly what they wanted.Quote:
Abandoning customers for purely commercial reasons can backfire: ... So, MS have lost a customer and found someone who will give testimony of the way in which he was left stranded. ...
While it would be nice to have one tool that suits every situation, it is incredibly naive to pretend that would be the best way to go - there are good reasons that there are a variety of languages available.
You like to regularly pretend that MS have been out of order, but there is no valid reason for you to do that... and by concealing the facts (such as their assistance to help you find a more apt tool, which gained them nothing), you are clearly the one who is being out of order.
There are lots of reasons, such as: the time to write software being dramatically reduced, the ability to have multiple targets (desktop, phone, web) with one code base, extra functionality, etc.Quote:
This is a good point. Yes, the fact that I am my own boss makes my situation particular. So, I'll rephrase my question: is there any valid reason why a developer of desktop software who is his own boss should prefer .NET to VB6 or Delphi?
That is virtually irrelevant... from the 2008 edition (or perhaps even 2005) onwards, you can use whichever framework version you like.Quote:
The problem is, by then there will surely be a newer version of the Framework and, if you want to keep yourself up-to-date, you will have to face up to the same issue.
If you have a reason to use just one framework (as would be best for your situation), you can do that.
Editing is too much effort, but more off-topic posts are likely to lead to this thread being closed - separate thread(s) should be created instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
They most certainly are. Bill G had a name for that project that is more colorful than can be posted here. However, they made the business calculation that ignoring Linux could cause them to be left behind, so they wanted to be generating revenue (and a bit of directional control) related to Linux.Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
While the best answer is certainly the one given by NSA, I would add that the framework is not an issue for a whole bunch of people. If you absolutely don't care about it, as I don't for my personal projects, then .NET is all benefit. Only if you care about the framework is it in any way a negative.Quote:
You are obviously right: in this forum most developers have already switched to .NET. I have one question, though: is there any reason why a developer who produces desktop (non-Web based) software should prefer .NET to another programming language that can do the same job without needing the Framework?
That's kind of funny. VB6 requires a virtual machine that made VB6 programs too large to fit on floppy disks (at least on a single one) which were the common media back in its day. Early on, the VB virtual machine was an impediment, and now you consider it trivial, and quite rightly. With streaming media, the .NET framework is already trivial in size to many people.Quote:
There are also a lot of people who decide not to switch to .NET because they don't want their software to depend on a huge virtual machine.
This is very true. MS took a look at the current market, and the trends that they saw coming, and changed strategy. That certainly left some people hung out to dry, and as a business move it may have been a bad one, but if they get crushed by Google trying to make computers online only, then who will really care? They felt that the web would be king and acted accordingly. If the model of online only apps takes such market share that the Windows OS is discarded, where will your VB6 apps be then? That was the future that MS foresaw. It may or may not happen, but they felt it likely enough that they turned the ship, and in doing so, you were cast aside.Quote:
Abandoning customers for purely commercial reasons can backfire: the first thing I did when I realised that MS had discontinued VB6 was look for an alternative language that was not produced by them.
On my own, my apps are HIGHLY multithreaded. VB6 handles multithreading not at all. How does Delphi do?Quote:
So, I'll rephrase my question: is there any valid reason why a developer of desktop software who is his own boss should prefer .NET to VB6 or Delphi?
Believe me, I'm not alone! There are 14319 developers, including 265 Microsoft MVPs, who have signed A PETITION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF UNMANAGED VISUAL BASIC AND VISUAL BASIC FOR APPLICATIONS. Click on the link below:Quote:
Originally Posted by si_the_geek
http://classicvb.org/petition/?lang=en
Multithreading is surely essential for those who deal with advanced programming, as you probably do. In my case, it's marginal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Yes you are, or at least very close to it - and it is deceitful of you to pretend otherwise.Quote:
Believe me, I'm not alone!
I am well aware of the petition, and as I have told you before:
Even without those points, 14319 is a very tiny percentage of VB developers (I don't know exactly how many, but it is easily in the millions).
- I am one of the people who signed it.
- Like most people, my reasons for signing it were entirely different to yours.
- Like many others who signed it, I do not believe that it would be the right thing to do any more - but there is no way for people to remove themselves from the list.
You are part of an extremely small minority, and you just clutch at straws (in spite of previous evidence you have already seen repeatedly) to pretend that it is not the case.
You believe (probably correctly) that VB.Net is not the right tool for your situation - so simply don't use it.
Stop pretending that somehow VB.Net is wrong in general, or that Microsoft (who actively helped you personally move to something apt for your situation - which you should have done yourself) did something wrong by focussing their future efforts on what was best for the vast majority of developers.
As can be seen in the posts above, you still haven't put in enough effort to have a valid opinion of .Net - one issue is bad for you, so you ignore/forget the rest of it (which is mainly good points, even for you).
Despite the ridiculously large amount of threads where you have made the claims, there has been almost nobody backing you up at all - yet you still pretend that a large percentage are of others are in the same situation.
There is no valid reason for these claims that you keep on making (most of which you have admitted before are not valid), or for posting them repeatedly - especially in cases like this one where it is not even the topic.
That's enough for this thread, so get this back on topic, or I'll close the thread.
If you take a look at forums dedicated to Delphi, you will see that I'm not alone in not wanting to embrace .NET. All of my new applications are developed in Delphi but I still miss VB6 because things could be done much more quickly with it. I have to maintain software I developed in VB6 that took me months of work. That's why I would like MS to understand that many of their customers would be grateful to them if they sold the VB6 source code to some other software house.Quote:
Originally Posted by si_the_geek
You bet I will never use .NET in my life! Just to use a quotation from one of my previous posts, ONLY WHEN THE SUN CEASES TO SHINE, WILL I .NET! If worse comes to worse, I'll switch to Java, which is completely free.Quote:
You believe (probably correctly) that VB.Net is not the right tool for your situation - so simply don't use it.
The purpose of this thread was to explore the possibility for those who are still using VB6 to join together and ask MS to give a future to it. Don't they like money? So, why don't they want to sell a product they have binned? The future is made NOT ONLY of .NET. Native software is still an important part of it. Since we can take for granted that MS will never release the VB6 source code, let's try to see if they can be convinced to sell it and make some money that otherwise would be lost.Quote:
As can be seen in the posts above, you still haven't put in enough effort to have a valid opinion of .Net - one issue is bad for you, so you ignore/forget the rest of it (which is mainly good points, even for you).
Despite the ridiculously large amount of threads where you have made the claims, there has been almost nobody backing you up at all - yet you still pretend that a large percentage are of others are in the same situation.
There is no valid reason for these claims that you keep on making (most of which you have admitted before are not valid), or for posting them repeatedly - especially in cases like this one where it is not even the topic.
That's enough for this thread, so get this back on topic, or I'll close the thread.
And yes, I'm sick and tired of repeating that, for my purposes, .NET is worth less than junk. So I'd like not to even mention the word ".NET" from now on. This thread is about VB6 and only VB6!
I still think you should learn C++ and get away from the whole issue. Delphi is marginal and VB6 is dead. C++ will outlive .NET, requires no framework, compiles to machine language, and has HUGE amounts of support. It is the language that you wish VB6 to be.
No, but there are different reasons (perceived or real) for that - presumably most of which were the cause of those people using Delphi in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
On this site (which MS are well known to read, and still has an active VB6 presence), very few people who understand .Net to a reasonable degree share the view.
Like with any tool there are situations where it is not the best, so in those cases use a tool that is more apt.
From what I have seen the "many" you mention is an insignificant percentage - and you have made it very clear that you are not one of them yourself (you are an ex-customer, and while you were leaving you got treated far better than you should have).Quote:
That's why I would like MS to understand that many of their customers would be grateful to them if they sold the VB6 source code to some other software house.
I am one of that small percentage who would like an unmanaged VB route (which is certainly not the same as "VB6 forever!" or ".Net is bad!"), but unlike you I will not make false/misleading claims to support my opinion.
Yes, and that attitude is the problem.Quote:
You bet I will never use .NET in my life! ...
It is an extremely good tool, and it is very likely that at some point in the next few years it will be the best tool for you (for one thing in particular, or for everything you do), but you will choose to ignore it because of your unjustified vendetta.
I on the other hand use it when it is right for me, and will almost certainly use it more as time goes on.
I don't believe that, because a very large percentage of your posts over the years repeat the same claims (even after you are well aware that they are not valid), often as an attempt to persuade relative newbies to join your vendetta before they have had a chance to learn the facts.Quote:
And yes, I'm sick and tired of repeating that, for my purposes, .NET is worth less than junk.
As has already been pointed out by others in this thread, in order for VB6 to be of any use in the future, it will take a large amount of redesign by people who know what they are doing in other languages - which will take a lot of money in itself.Quote:
...Don't they like money? So, why don't they want to sell a product they have binned? ...
There are many VB6 alternatives already available (several of them free), which means that only a tiny percentage of developers would be willing to pay for whatever was created.
Due to that, there is very little chance of anyone being willing to take the risk of paying for the work involved - let alone pay extra for the rights for it before they can even see what needs to be done.
The desire for unmanaged VB is very likely to reduce over time (more people will have the framework, etc) so the time scale to make any money at all is slim, which reduces the chances further.
Even if it was done (which would probably take years), Shaggy Hiker's recommendation is likely to be a better option for you.
I suspect a cheaper/easier/quicker option would be to create a new unmanaged .Net language which looks like VB6 (so that you get the benefits of the IDE etc), but I am not sure of the legal issues with that. In fact, there may well be something of that nature already, I haven't checked.
C++ does not have a form designer which is as easy as VB6 or Delphi and it would surely reduce my productivity. The fact that Delphi is marginal is highly debatable. There is a large community supporting this language and Embarcadero are seriously investing in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Nevertheless, VB6 is so user-friendly that no other development tool on earth compares to it. Any other programming language which had been discontinued by its producer would have disappeared completely after such a long time.
Don't be so sure. Just the fact that the VB6 section of this forum is sometimes more crowded than the other (I don't want to mention its name!) should make you understand that a VB7 (a real VB7!) would make a very high percentage of developers happy. And, needless to say, those happy people would buy the product.Quote:
There are many VB6 alternatives already available (several of them free), which means that only a tiny percentage of developers would be willing to pay for whatever was created.
If MS themselves came up with something like that, I'm sure it would be a winning strategy.Quote:
I suspect a cheaper/easier/quicker option would be to create a new unmanaged .Net language which looks like VB6 (so that you get the benefits of the IDE etc), but I am not sure of the legal issues with that. In fact, there may well be something of that nature already, I haven't checked.
There are options which are very close, and you could make your own too.Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
Like most people who have used both VB6 and VB.Net, I disagree - VB.Net is noticeably more user friendly in many ways.Quote:
Nevertheless, VB6 is so user-friendly that no other development tool on earth compares to it.
There is the initial OO hurdle to get over (and because you have VB6 experience, dropping your old habits), but that is about it.
I basically agree.Quote:
Any other programming language which had been discontinued by its producer would have disappeared completely after such a long time.
The forum user counts is a fairly rare occurrence (and gradually getting rarer), and means virtually nothing anyway.Quote:
Don't be so sure. Just the fact that the VB6 section of this forum is sometimes more crowded than the other (I don't want to mention its name!) should make you understand that a VB7 (a real VB7!) would make a very high percentage of developers happy. And, needless to say, those happy people would buy the product.
There are many reasons why people might be in the VB6 forum, and very few of them translate in to potential customers, let alone ones who would pay.
Some of the most frequent reasons are:
- Maintaining old apps that haven't been re-written in .Net yet.
- A pirate version of VB6 has become available fairly recently, and a surprising amount of people have admitted that they are using it simply because they could get it for free - and that they didn't realise that the legitimately free edition of VB.Net has more features.
- School/college based work... When the schools do move on from VB6, there is little/no gain from using unmanaged-VB (which should not be the same as VB6) rather than VB.Net
It would be for you, me, and some others... but would the potential return they get be enough to risk the initial investment?Quote:
If MS themselves came up with something like that, I'm sure it would be a winning strategy.
If they did it and it fails, then we would be back in the same situation again - but with the extra effort of learning the changes for a short-term fix.
it's too much effort do quote about the mono project, but i will say this:
.net 4.0 is about to come out, and apps that need 3.5 are becoming mainstream. The latest mono is just now coming into a decent 2.0 compliance. At the speed microsoft is releasing these things, it will never keep up.
esposito, I'm curious to why you keep saying that vb6 compiles to native code. It never has and never will, none of the VB versions have ever compiled to native code. QBasic (before VB ever existed) could compile to native code, but put the limitation of needing DOS to run. VB has always required a runtime, period. It's just the runtime in .Net is a much larger set of files and only shipped with Vista and up.
I've also noticed that you tend to nit pick everything spinning the same lame story under different views so before you nit pick this post and spin the same "native" code crap I'll simply say that if a program is compiled to native code that means it can run on any MS OS without trouble. So that means a vb6 app can run on Win95, but oh wait, it can't you have to install the vb6 runtime files before it can run. OMG vb6 has a runtime dependency. .Net has a runtime dependency... wait a minute .Net really is the next version of vb6.. Oh snap son. Maybe you should consider just migrating to .Net and quit your whining.
I mean if someone tries running your vb6 app from a flash drive on Win95c (the only version of Win95 with usb support) then they're going to get a program crash and you'll have to make an installer to distribute with your apps, just like you would have to with the .Net Framework like everyone else...
have you never dug into your menus? both vb5 and 6 have a "compile to native code" option in the project properties.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuggaloBrotha
plus, i'm not necessarily disagreeing with any point you're trying to make, but to say that vb.net is a direct sequel to vb6 is really stretching it. Up until that version, vb was completely backwards compatible. While the programming structure is the same, it could also be said it's the same as any basic. While it's a new visual basic, it's a complete ground-up rewrite.
VB6 can compile to native code as thoroughly as VC++. They both rely on runtimes and external libraries though, and why not? Reinventing the wheel is pointless. Your definition of "native code" is way off in the weeds. I believe the issue there is the relative ease of reverse-engineering a program's source from its EXE and DLLs.
QBasic was strictly an interpreter, perhaps you meant QuickBasic?
Trotting out Win95 is pretty silly. It has almost no relevance today, and even Win2K is dead as of July.
What I don't understand is why people who use VB.Net want to argue any of these points. They wouldn't even have come up if we just stuck to the original issue about releasing VB6 as open source software.
The topic of the thread was covered exhaustively long ago. The thread was started by Esposito, and he can take it wherever he wants as far as I'm concerned.
The drawbacks mentioned for C/C++ are too minor to overcome the advantages. Those languages have all the versatility you could ask for, compile to machine language, and nobody will cut you out. Learning them wouldn't be that hard. After all, you learned an entirely new language just to spite MS (VB6 is still around, so why else did you go to Delphi so quickly?), so why not learn a language that isn't owned by some company. You are betting that some new company will survive and continue where Borland failed. Fat chance. They're a niche market at best. Sure, they could be around for a couple more years, possibly even a decade, but what then? VB let you down in shorter time than that. If you switch to C/C++, you have an ANSI standard language that isn't owned by any company, so all kinds of different companies can build compilers, IDEs, and so forth. Choose C if you don't want to deal with OO design, choose C++ if you are fine with OO design.
In an earlier thread there were several links for viable IDEs that would allow form design. VB isn't any easier or harder other than the form design. Heck, I loved VB6, but after using the .NET IDE, the VB6 IDE is frustrating and awkward, so it isn't like the pinacle of design. Far from it, actually, as MS was able to improve on it considerably (and the IDE has nothing to do with the framework, .NET syntax, or any such thing, so it COULD have been put into earlier VB if it had been thought up back then). Furthermore, if VB6 was really so easy to learn and so easy to use, then why are there so many people asking questions about it? It isn't easy. The IDE is fairly good, but there are vastly better ones out there already. The language isn't particularly easy, and if you learned it, then learning C wouldn't be too tough for you. The code constructs would be the same, there would just be a change in the syntax for those code constructs.
There is no sound reason for you to stick with Delphi, which will ultimately disappoint you, other than that you don't want to learn the language that is obviously the most suitable for your needs.
Granted, Mono will always be behind what MS is bringing out, but what else can you expect. I personally think that the guys over at Mono are doing an outstanding job, and several .Net 3.5 technologies already working, and more in the pipeline.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
Gary
vb for dos can compile qbasic programs. Quickbasic was actually purchased by microsoft and used as the foundation for vb for dos, which incidently, was released AFTER vb 1.0 for windows was. I never said qbasic could compile. It was however completely capable of doing assembly calls with tricky programming. My qbasic programs had mouse support, and i wrote a floppy disk sector editor in qbasic.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
If only the alky project worked that hard... Oh well. I was actually surprised to see how far along the mono project has come in a short time.Quote:
Originally Posted by gep13
You must be joking. First, VB5/VB6 does compile to native code. Consequently, applications developed in VB6 can certainly be cracked but never reverse-engineered. Second, the size of its runtime files is marginal and, besides, these files have been present in the OS as of Windows 98. Regarding Windows 95, only a fool could use it today.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuggaloBrotha
And so is the .Net Framework.Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
http://blogs.msdn.com/astebner/archi...of-the-os.aspx
I think we have already discussed it and there's no point in bringing it up again.Quote:
Originally Posted by gep13
I was merely pointing out that you are saying that the necessary files to run a VB program have been included in the base OS, so it isn't a problem. How is this any different from me saying that the .Net Framework is also included in the base OS?
Gary
I'm inclined to agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
From what I remember they are about 12 MB... and a quick check shows that the .Net 2.0 framework is 122MB, which is well within comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
If 12MB is marginal, 122MB is reasonable.
It may not be perfect, but it is at least worthy of consideration.
In pre-XP (or is it pre-2k SP4?), they have a large amount of bugs... in the opinion of many people, only a fool would rely on those.Quote:
and, besides, these files have been present in the OS as of Windows 98. Regarding Windows 95, only a fool could use it today.
Coming from the man who repeats the same unjustified argument (with the same invalid excuses) in almost every thread he posts in, that is absolutely legendary!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:Quote:
I think we have already discussed it and there's no point in bringing it up again.
In every discussion on this topic (and there have been many) one of the most salient points seems to be continually missed.
Of what possible relevancy is any .NET language if the company that issues you a paycheck specifically dictates that VB6 is going to be used for all development?
Many of you know this story, but for those who may have missed it, the one and ONLY reason my place of employment even has a copy of VB.NET is because I told the IT management people none of their VB6 programs would run on Vista...in other words, I had to lie just to get .NET in the door.
Now that Vista is no longer in the picture, my rewrite of their VB6 apps into .NET has been cancelled, and all development is back in the VB6 house (in fact, rather than moving forward with VB.NET, I'm actually moving backward into VBA :mad: ).
This is the very important point that everyone seems to miss, or overlook: I would love nothing better than to ditch VB6 and move on. However, I have no control over that. Unless you own your own software development business you, as the programmer, have no control over what language you use either. That is dictated by the people that pay your salary. If you don't like that, then my experience has been that your only option is to find another job.
On topic, to transform VB6, which is still, and will continue to be, a money maker for Microsoft, into open source would be tantamount to a car manufacturer giving away free automobiles to anyone that wanted one.
Like anythig in this world, everything that comes in existence once is young and energetic, then gets old and finally dies. This applies to software as well. I'm happy that VB6 died a graceful death while it was on the top of the charts. And its descendant is even more powerful.
Yes, releasing the source of VB6 for nothing is probably inconceivable for Microsoft. Since they still make money with it, why not try to convince them to make MORE money by releasing a new version?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hack
Simple, because VB6 can't go anywhere else. Yea, they can make it fully object-oriented, use WPF, allow it to use ADO.NET providers, give it LINQ, etc... but you end up with VB.NET in the end.Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
The systems that VB6 relied on: COM+, GDI, etc are an afterthought for Microsoft now only retained for compatibility. They've been replaced by Assemblies, and WPF. You can't "modernize" VB6 without turning it into .NET.
About all you can do with it is fix some bugs and that's what service packs are for.
Delphi comes out with newer and more powerful versions every two years and nobody has said that it must be turned into byte code so far. A programming language like Delphi is not going to die in the foreseeable future, so why should VB6? Native software is here to stay as this link shows:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jenner
http://blog.marcocantu.com/blog/olym...gs_delphi.html
I think that making VB6 survive would also be beneficial for Microsoft. VB6 can only produce software for Windows and this means that the attention of those who use it or buy applications developed with this language will not be drawn to alternative operating systems. It wouldn't be a stupid move for MS to resume the "VB.COM" project or sell it to some other software house. Let's make sure they are aware of it!
I hope I misunderstood the gist of the sentence above, because if you think that MS pay more attention to the sales of VS than those of Windows, then you have a serious problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by si_the_geek
You clearly did, because that was only half of what I said, and taken out of context too:
The first part of what I wrote is saying that the effects of Mono will have very little effect on the sales of Windows - I would be amazed if the difference is anywhere near the effect of cheap linux based netbooks (which was very small from what I've seen), because most people want to use computers that are fully compatible with their friends etc, and work in the same way as the other computers they use.Quote:
Originally Posted by si_the_geek
The second part is saying that the sales of VS will improve, because the developers who create linux based systems can use it to target multiple OS's (and therefore multiple paying user bases) with just one set of code.
The increase in VS sales may not be huge, but the quantity should be bigger than the quantity of the drop Windows licences.
I don't know about the prices in your area, but here the price range of VS is about 20 times higher than the price range of Windows - which means even if the loss of Windows customers was 15 times as many as the gain of linux based developers, the overall income is likely to rise.
VB6 is VB6 and Delphi is Delphi. Delphi has no intention of moving on and as such, continues to develop their language within it's predetermined confines. Comparing Delphi to VB.NET is like comparing a P51 mustang to an F117 Stealth Fighter.Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
VB6 on the other hand is made by Microsoft and Microsoft has moved on with .NET. The new version of VB6 already exists, it's called VB.NET. So what if it's not a native code compile? It's Microsoft's choice to take it there and in my opinion a very good choice.
You don't like it, then tough. It's ultimately your own decision what language you use for your own projects. If you want a language that native compiles that's like VB and continues to have support then learn to program in Delphi rather than waste time whining about the death of VB6 here.
QuickBasic was developed in-house by Microsoft. QuickBasic was loosely based on the earlier GW-Basic intepreter's language syntax. Eventually QBasic was created as a replacement for GW-Basic, using parts of the QuickBasic runtime and editor (which was based on Edit).Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
The VB6 runtime redist package is under 1.4MB, it easily fits on one floppy. Service Pack 6 for Visual Basic 6.0: Run-Time Redistribution Pack (vbrun60sp6.exe)Quote:
Originally Posted by si_the_geek
As far as using the "nice" things in the .Net Framework goes... it's a moving target. Which Framework? Once 4.0 (April 2010) is out you have to be sure to stick to 3.5 features or even Windows 7 machines can't be assumed to have the Framework you need. Are you ready for 4.0?
.NET Framework 4.0 to become less SOAP-centric, embrace REST
Umm... ever heard of System.Enterprise.Services? That's a .Net wrapper on COM+. GDI is heavily used by Windows itself yet. The GAC is very much a form of component registry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jenner
I must have been remembering the amount with the standard Components/References I used at the time... just goes to show how long it has been since I packaged a VB6 app!Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
Indeed, but the same applied to earlier versions of VB too - and arguably to a bigger degree due to the SP's (whereas the .Net SP's get automatically applied by Windows Update).Quote:
As far as using the "nice" things in the .Net Framework goes... it's a moving target. Which Framework?
Just like with the earlier versions of VB, you pick the one which is right for your situation.
Based on the link Gary gave... for those distributing to non-local users, 3.0 seems to be the best choice, as it is pre-installed on Vista and 7.
What is the longest timespan that any version of VB has been the most recent? I would guess that the answer is about 2-3 years, but it's just a guess. Things change.
C/C++ is the best possible choice for you. You just have to find a compiler.
However, I wouldn't be all that surprised to see MS come out with a tool that compiles .NET to machine language. I seem to remember seeing that such tools exist, so it would be an obvious addition for MS....except that lots of people probably shouldn't use it.
About 4 years, which was VB6.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Indeed they do, and in this industry it is something that you have to accept.Quote:
Things change.
And on that note...
Thread closed.