Let's ask MS to make VB6 open source!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Orwell

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.

---

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.

Gary

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dilettante

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.

---

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 gep13

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.

Gary

---

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 JuggaloBrotha

esposito, I'm curious to why you keep saying that vb6 compiles to native code... 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...

---

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 esposito

Second, the size of its runtime files is marginal and, besides, these files have been present in the OS as of Windows 98.

---

And so is the .Net Framework.

http://blogs.msdn.com/astebner/archi...of-the-os.aspx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gep13

And so is the .Net Framework.

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

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.

---

I'm inclined to agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by esposito

Second, the size of its runtime files is marginal

---

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.

If 12MB is marginal, 122MB is reasonable.

It may not be perfect, but it is at least worthy of consideration.

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.

---

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:

---

I think we have already discussed it and there's no point in bringing it up again.

---

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hack

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.

---

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 esposito

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?

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jenner

You can't "modernize" VB6 without turning it into .NET.

---

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:

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by si_the_geek

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.

---

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.

You clearly did, because that was only half of what I said, and taken out of context too:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by si_the_geek

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by esposito

Why are they supporting the Mono project, then? Aren't they afraid of the fact that people may switch from Windows to Linux?

---

The vast majority of people won't move to Linux, so any loss there will be insignificant.

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by esposito

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?

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Orwell

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.

---

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 si_the_geek

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.

If 12MB is marginal, 122MB is reasonable.

---

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)

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jenner

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.

---

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 dilettante

The VB6 runtime redist package is under 1.4MB, it easily fits on one floppy.

---

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:

---

As far as using the "nice" things in the .Net Framework goes... it's a moving target. Which Framework?

---

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).

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

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.

---

About 4 years, which was VB6.

Quote:

---

Things change.

---

Indeed they do, and in this industry it is something that you have to accept.

And on that note...

Thread closed.