Printable View
i do like to use VB.Net but the problem is, there's still more to learn in VB6, and if ever i want to switch or use VB.Net i want to it to be in my interest and i know at least 90+% of VB6. 'Coz for now, im really confused on many aspects of VB.Net and one more thing...i can't find enough time and enough money to study VB.Net.
This is exactly the problem.Quote:
Originally posted by RobDog888
You just need to know where to look. :D
Quite a few VB6 developers move to .NET but get SOOO frustrated that something that should take 5 mins in fact takes 2 days to write.
:confused:VB Code:
Yea...it's bloody obvious the function was there...wasn't it?! :confused:
At this moment in time I would go out of business if I switched to .NET :( However, I am learning, and fast.
I have noticed that a lot of peoples concerns is that it's broken compatibilty with VB6. Since VB.NET is VB7 (sort of), people automatically expect basic syntax, and the same commands...which is understandable.
I am trying to work out if there would be as much negative thought and reactions from people if MS had named it Woof.NET???
errr...That's because it's Woof.NET :DQuote:
"There's no print function :(
Are people clinging to the fact that MS has named it's new flag ship development tool, Visual Basic? Was that a mistake on MS behalf?
Also...not trying to put people down, put I would say a high proportion of VB6 developers are just average coders, working on their own, developing tiny back office applications for tiny companies so their boss can spend more time on the golf course instead of writing up reports. Sorry, but I do not class you as true developers (waits for a beating from VBF members). Hang on, that's not what I meant. Before you lynch me I'll explain:
When was the last time you wrote a large 100+ userbase application over 5 tiers, using SQL Svr with replication, and using vb6's OOP capabilities to it's limits and using implements? Applications like these are screaming out for .NET, but the majority of developers work on applications that do not even utilise VB4's functionality and capability let alone VB6, sit on one PC and do nothing more that store data in a local access db that isn't backed up...so why on earth should they move to .NET? There is no benefit what so ever.
From what I have seen, .NET is not a toy, unlike VB6, which has been used like this in the past by a lot of developers.
Being able to do *click*-*click* "WOOHOOOO I have a DB app!!!" does NOT make you a developer, nor does it mean you can code in VB.
Rant over :D
Woka
PS. I feel that I am going to get ripped to bits for this post. Sorry if it's offended anyone. I am crap at putting words down, so things may come across differently from how they are in my head.
Yes - you are going to get ripped :DQuote:
Originally posted by Wokawidget
This is exactly the problem.
.
.
.
Rant over :D
Woka
PS. I feel that I am going to get ripped to bits for this post. Sorry if it's offended anyone. I am crap at putting words down, so things may come across differently from how they are in my head.
But I do agree with what you are saying...
I happen to own my own business (nearly 20 years now). We converted to the PC world from Digital VAX minicomputer world 3 years ago. The only reason we choose VB6 (which was a whole new language to us then anyway) was that .NET was a bit too new for us to gamble on.
The syntax curve going into VB6 was a nightmare for us alone - we aren't afraid of .NET - just don't have the time to switch - but do have the desire. (I can still remember my first experience with trying to get a RECORDSET from a SPROC into VB with ADO)
We have several major customers - one is a school district with 1000+ teachers all connecting to a SQL SERVER backend - talking large scale enterprise applications here...
I have a copy of Visual Studio .net Enterprise Architecture 2003. If you fly to Russia it only costs About $5 there! I plan on learning VB.net but I imagine it will not be like learning VB. VB was very easy to pick up as I had learned C previously. Also I have learned Oracle, SQL, VBA, and some Java. I think that Java will make it easier for me to grasp .net (hopefully).
It is tough being a developer for my own software company. I can't just stop working to learn .net So I continue to make my apps in VB. But I plan to be doing .net entirely for future projects.
I have friends that still shun computers in general. It appauls me but thats what they want to do. They will be a sorry, lost, confused, indifferent, igorant, and out-dated.
A comfortable life is a boring life. You should relish change and be an independant forward thinker.
Woka has many good points in regards to how many of us call ourselves coders, I myself have called myself one for nearly 4 years but in that time have done very little in the way of using VB6 to it's true potential.
Secondly I also believe it was a mistake to call it Visual Basic.Net as it does lead people to believe it just the next natural progression from VB6 which as we know it is not. I would have preferred a name such as B#.
:wave: :thumb: :wave:
Let's put the correct pe
please delete me !!
Let's put the correct perspective on this.
There are billions of people on this planet, and how many people that can make applications? The percentile your in, is fairly high even for a basic coder.
Also, I think that it is how, or why you code, and not nessesarily what you code.
Also a good point
That makes no sense what so ever :confused:Quote:
Originally posted by TTn
Let's put the correct perspective on this.
There are billions of people on this planet, and how many people that can make applications? The percentile your in, is fairly high even for a basic coder.
From the billions of people on this planet developers are a VERY VERY VERY VERY tiny minority.
Rubbish. We are not talking about little kiddies in their bedroom here who code for fun to make their CD tray open and close. I think this discussion was more aimed at professional developers who work for companies, where switching to .NET could make or break a company and not whether a 14 year old goes to bed at 10pm or 4am because he's been learning .NETQuote:
Originally posted by TTn
Also, I think that it is how, or why you code, and not nessesarily what you code.
Woka
PS You can edit your own post and click the delete button to delete it :)
I've hired dozens of programmers over the past 25 years - and I gotta tell you that "term" is widely misconstrued.
People think that after one or two computer science classes that they can program - develop code. Well, taking a "user requirement" and developing an application that makes the users life easier, is a far stretch more that just doing "hello world".
Most of my friends and family have no idea what I do as a software developer. It's all magic to them - they think using WORD or EXCEL and making a document is somehow like writing a program (I think - I can't get in their heads either :D ). They have no idea what goes into developing a program - a sellable product.
Personally the syntax change in .NET means nothing to me - I can code in ASSEMBLER, FORTRAN, COBOL, DIBOL - and several 4th generation languages. It's all the same thing - different day. They all have strengths and weaknesses.
Now you're just showing off :DQuote:
Originally posted by szlamany
Personally the syntax change in .NET means nothing to me - I can code in ASSEMBLER, FORTRAN, COBOL, DIBOL - and several 4th generation languages. It's all the same thing - different day. They all have strengths and weaknesses.
Woka
I don't know C yet ;)
That's what I call REDUNDANCY.Quote:
Originally posted by RobDog888
FYI, the majority of VB6's functions are still in VS.NET. You just
need to know where to look. :D
VB Code:
> Wokawidget
>That makes no sense what so ever
>From the billions of people on this planet developers are a VERY >VERY VERY VERY tiny minority.
Duh, that's what makes it the upper echelon...
>Rubbish. We are not talking about little kiddies in their bedroom >here who code for fun to make their CD tray open and close. I >think this discussion was more aimed at professional developers >who work for companies, where switching to .NET could make or >break a company and not whether a 14 year old goes to bed at >10pm or 4am because he's been learning .NET
I see, you have a superiority complex.
Why does this have to be about working for a company?
Whatever, I wasn't speaking of simple code either, but coding for a company is non-innovative. Period.
The Microsoft.VisualBasic namespace and functions are only there to appease the backward compatibility folk.Quote:
Originally posted by RhinoBull
That's what I call REDUNDANCY.
It shouldn't be as it is redundant - why do I have to type all that crap. Providing function name should be (and always had been) more than enough.
Oi! You don't have to type all that crap all the time. Just import the namespace.Quote:
Originally posted by RhinoBull
It shouldn't be as it is redundant - why do I have to type all that crap. Providing function name should be (and always had been) more than enough.
VB Code:
Works just as well.
Yea, yea, ... but that is also similar to c++ coding technic which was why I abandoned it and use only for some extremes to write something that vb cannot handle efficiently (strings manipulation for instance).
Not in the slightest.Quote:
Originally posted by TTn
I see, you have a superiority complex.
Why does this have to be about working for a company?
Whatever, I wasn't speaking of simple code either, but coding for a company is non-innovative. Period.
Just when MS was creating .NET I don't think they had comedy coders in mind.
non-innovative :confused:
Some companies maybe...others definately not.
Just depends on your job.
You think when MS wrote Windows Server 2003 they took into account 5 year olds, who may use it, and so made the control panel in pretty colors and easy to understand??? :D
Woka
Hi
I was forced to use .NET because VB6 dont suport threads and my applications (SCADA), need this functionality.
In all others applications, i continuer to use Vb6.
Daniel
You shouldn't have to Inherit all kinds of objects just so you can eliminate the "This.That.System.Whatever()" syntax into "Whatever()". It would be best just to call the function on demand. That's how it was in Visual Basic and that's how it should be. They should have left it to where it was only like this.
MyObject.Myfunction()
Not like this:
MyObject.MyClass.AnotherClass.YetAnotherClass.MyFunctionFinally()
It's less typing that way. The Inherits command helps, but it would have been best to make all those functions and subs Public so you can call the function right then and there. It would have helped a lot.
:confused:Quote:
Originally posted by Jacob Roman
You shouldn't have to Inherit all kinds of objects just so you can eliminate the "This.That.System.Whatever()" syntax into "Whatever()". It would be best just to call the function on demand. That's how it was in Visual Basic and that's how it should be. They should have left it to where it was only like this.
MyObject.Myfunction()
Not like this:
MyObject.MyClass.AnotherClass.YetAnotherClass.MyFunctionFinally()
It's less typing that way. The Inherits command helps, but it would have been best to make all those functions and subs Public so you can call the function right then and there. It would have helped a lot.
Inheritance has nothing to do with eliminating lengthy syntax.Quote:
Originally posted by Jacob Roman
You shouldn't have to Inherit all kinds of objects just so you can eliminate the "This.That.System.Whatever()" syntax into "Whatever()". It would be best just to call the function on demand. That's how it was in Visual Basic and that's how it should be. They should have left it to where it was only like this.
MyObject.Myfunction()
Not like this:
MyObject.MyClass.AnotherClass.YetAnotherClass.MyFunctionFinally()
It's less typing that way. The Inherits command helps, but it would have been best to make all those functions and subs Public so you can call the function right then and there. It would have helped a lot.
And thats why we have something called Imports.
According to whom? The other real OOP languages that also use namespaces and classes properly like .NET does?Quote:
That's how it was in Visual Basic and that's how it should be
I think Jacob Roman meant Imports, not inherits.
Jacob...try to look at .NET as having nothing to do with VB at all.
It is after all essentially a whole new language.
Wokafish
There is only one thing that I absolutely love about VB.Net, and that is the ability to create code "Regions" that can be expanded or minimized. I wish there was something like this in VB6 :-(
It's going to take me the rest of my life to get the hang of VB6 :D
I'll tell you what I don't like about the .NET IDE though. There's no single procedure view like in VB6. That made things much easier, at least for me.Quote:
Originally posted by ae_jester
There is only one thing that I absolutely love about VB.Net, and that is the ability to create code "Regions" that can be expanded or minimized. I wish there was something like this in VB6 :-(
I liked VB6, but I love vb.net...
anything that leans more towards OOP is to me a more cleaner organized way of writing code. When I did vb6 it was all hell broke loose...people posting bad code...etc.
Its more of an object orientated approach in vs.net and I'd never switch back to the old stuff. I used to complain too like many in here "why change from VB6..it would require me to learn"
Well welcome to reality, if you don't change you aren't gonna be a good programmer, nor a good business person. Get used to change it happens.
Jon
Nobody likes change. I think part of the issue is there are some
programmers who are afraid of change or are just plain stubborn.
Upgrading to .NET would require them to learn it all over again
from square 1. Well maybe not square 1 but close. I too didn't
want to learn the new stuff, but once I actually took some time to
look at it, I decided it was worth it to make the effort to learn
.NET. I am not afraid of change but more concerned about the
time needed to get up to speed.
Like that famous quote, "Time is money"
Yeah that's what I ment. The Imports statement, not Inherits. I only been in VB.NET class for like 2 months ya know. I'm pretty much learning VB all over again, and I've been a VB programmer for like 8 years. Still got a lot of learning to go. VB changed big time. And you are right. It might as well not be called Visual Basic.
My biggest fear (100% justified) as I dive into VB.NET
is that as soon as I feel comfortable and somewhat competent
M$ will come out with VB# (code named Bill "Open the Money Flood" Gates) and change all the rules again.
Maybe by then I'll be ready to retire and get out of this rat race.
This thread has been all over the place - but I gotta put more of my two cents in.
VB6 - and it's prior incarnations - might have been a great tool, but it does not fit into the "future concepts" that MS is banking a lot of development effort on. The CLR (common language runtime) is probably the biggest one of these.
I come from a mainframe platform where all code written in any language was "callable" from anyplace.
I look forward to stricter rules and better adherance to stronger concepts.
MS will not be killing VB.NET - they didn't kill VB6 - it simply was not up to the task - the bar has been raised - and that's a good thing.
Why is that a fear? How long have you been in the development industry?
Anyone has has been around a while knows languages change eventually and you have to adapt to the differences.
This opinion that VB.NET should not have been named VB is just plain..well...stupid. You think this is the first time the Basic language has gone through a big change? Basic is the name of the syntax. The syntax has NOT changed, just some of the rules. Anyone from pre VB for Dos knows what I am talking about as they have seen big changes in how they develop Basic. And it still has the Visual Basic moniker.
I agree with those who say they shld change to VB.Net. VB has been a gr8 tool and we all use it but VB.Net aint that difficult. Most of the original VB 6 flavor has been retained with some minor changes like Text1.text has become TextBox1.text but these can b learnt quick.
Also I had the chance to lay my hands on VB 2005 code named project Whidbey. I must say therez no gr8 difference between VB.net & VB 2005. Infact there has been some gr8 enhancement & features like Advance Intellisense, Refactoring, Object Control, Compile time Error notification So all those who r planning to learn VB.net get VB 2005 from the MS site. Its a seperate download called the Express edition. Even though its a Beta edition, the IDE is pretty stable and can b used till the original version comes out slated for mid 2005 release. :wave:
I said maybe it should be called Visual Basic...since VB3, 4, 5 and 6 have all followed the same rules, admittedly more rules and functionality have been added along the way. but each one still works the same...same code etc. a VB3 project will open and run in VB6.Quote:
Originally posted by Cander
This opinion that VB.NET should not have been named VB is just plain..well...stupid.
Yea, the basic language has gone through changes. I was merely saything that people should view VB.NET as Visual Basic 7, which people are clearly doing, and then whinging about .NET as it's losely matches VB ...like me :D
This is clearly not a stupid statement...although you think otherwise.
No. Im talknig about the people who said it shouldnt be called VB at all.
Ahhh...sorry, just re-read my last message. It wasn't supposed to sound that harsh. Wasn't have a go at you or anything. Hope you understand.
Woooooooooooooooooooof :D
Im the rude one remember. ;)
I know this thread has been sleeping for a long time but I just stumbled upon this quote here:
"Still not sure? Here's what the legendary VB Guru Dan Appleman has to say about the idea that you have to switch to VB.NET immediately:
These ideas are basically nonsense. ... The magnitude of the change is such that the transition to VB.NET is likely to be measured in years rather than months -- and for some applications, it may not make sense to switch at all."
im not switching becoz not even 1 in every 1000 users have .net framework installed, the .net framework is 25 mb so no1 goes for it just for making one program work.
so im just waitng for Windows Vista which is said to have been based on the .net this wud make peeps aware and then next year ill learn VB.net and C#.net
because.......No one has volunteered to pay for my retraining [yet]
I installed 2003 a month or two ago, and have written a couple of small apps. I managed to get them working satisfactorily, although I needed help with a few items. I wish the samples on the Net forum were complete, as many are in VB.
I've downloaded 100's of apps to troubleshoot for someone, and it's made me a better programmer.
I am getting programs from the Codebank, and learning how they work, but there aren't all that many of them. This causes my learning curve to be extended. I'm not ready to start rewriting my main vb app, yet.
Over time, I should get better, but I'm waiting, and proceeding slowly.
Nutterz.... I really wish people would SEPARATE THE IDE from the LANGUAGE. It's not VB.NET that allows you to do that... it's the friggin IDE.Quote:
Originally Posted by ae_jester
Again, the differenced are in the IDE, not so much the language. Any language changes come as a result of moving to .NET2.0.Quote:
Originally Posted by toughcoder
That's the best advice I've seen to date on the issue. It's one of the reasons that our app here is still in VB6. Up to now, it didn't make sense. Now it does and we're begining the careful foundation work before we begin to re-write everything we have. But not everything will be done in .NET.... we'll have a couple of peices that will remain in VB6 simply because there's no need to migrate them.Quote:
Originally Posted by krtxmrtz
Tg
I really want to move to .net. But few reasons had slow down it.
1. My boss is ordering me to do things using VB6
2. Need to know lot of things and haven't enough time.
3. .Net need more resources (specially RAM) than VB6
4. It is taking more time to track errors than VB6 (Because of lesser experience and lesser knowledge)
So I'm moving slowly
I've swithed over to .net 2005 since july this year and aocmplished to convert all my code to vb.net
But now, i keep banging my head with some strange issues that remind me the time some people dit webprogramming with frontpage and frontpage messes up your code.
I want total control over my code. and no strange behavior that throws my work 1 month back.
So bye bye .net, welcome back vb6. sorry that i even thought to leave you.
;)
My reasons:
1. Cos its SLOW (IDE)
Otherwise I like it and only use it for certain things which are easier to be done in .NET than VB6.
I think everyone has gone through this. I know I have, and continue to do so, but there is no way I would go back to VB6. I have managed to resolve all head banging issues to my satisfaction generally with the help of the folks in our VB.NET section. Have you tried posting some of your issues in there?Quote:
Originally Posted by hassa046
And you have that with .NETQuote:
Originally Posted by hassa046
A language is not a marriage partner; it is a tool—nothing more, nothing less. You can't code everything in one language so why even try.
I'm going to go ask for my ring back from VB then...Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
You also write SQL so it is more than one language that you use. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by kleinma
VB.Net is fine - especially since we're using it in our Enterprise-level applications. There are still large systems in our code that are VB6 which may convert slowly despite the desire of some here. Those who would have it converted quickly are not the ones doing the work - so I take those "let's convert it all" goals with a grain-of-salt.
For my own side-development projects VB6 is far more than adequate. All the pieces fit and until the platform no longer supports it I will continue to use it.
-Max
In 2008, you have LINQ, which brings the power of query directly into your code...Quote:
Originally Posted by Hack
If you haven't checked out LINQ, then you should, because its freakin awesome...
you can even run queries on .NET entities, like run a query on the controls on a form and the query returns a collection of controls that are comboboxes (for example)
LINQ is awesome, superb idea! :thumb:
I cant see not running .NET because the IDE is "slow". Get a faster computer or optimize it for better performance. We have members that are using it on very slow systems as the benefit of using .NET outweighs the "slowness".
A long thread for sure. Why not .net?
Its a WIZIWIG like Front Page. The coders (I have interviewed for the clients) dont fully understand what the code behind does, and cannot correct any errors they encounter. They are wizards. Click on a tab and let some one else write the code, not true programmers in my opinion.
I write code and build prototypes for a living. .net is not RAD. In VB4 I could peek and poke to the I/O, but no more. Now I need to build an OCX to do so. .net made this even worse.
My clients hire me to get the job done. One client had 4 coders come in to update an existing aspx system and after 4 months, the login didn't work, when it did, the drop downs failed to fill and the DB connections failed as well.
The managers asked for a fast fix, I built in in plain old ASP and with in 48 hours, the got their data. That was 3 months ago, and the ASPX system STILL does not work correctly.
I was a good supporter of MS products, but this .net stuff? Bad design
That sounds like coders that don't know the language properly (No offense) but if the combos are not filling it sounds like a coding error. You obviously know ASP allot better than .NET
Pino
Sounds like you have shoddy coders.... I am at least 10x more productive writting in .NET than I ever was in VB6Quote:
Originally Posted by juliemac
if 4 guys couldn't get an ASPX site working, then there obviously were not professional developers who know how to use ASP.NET
don't fault the language because developers fail to learn it correctly, its VERY obvious that there are MANY MANY MANY sites running fine in ASP.NET
No, its not a WYSIWYG editor at all. You dont edit the designer generated code but you can easily write code to modify any and everything, even extend/customize built in controls for less need to create a custom control.
If they dont understand something then they shouldnt knock it until they get a understanding of it.
Amen!
A simple example is setting a form to be the top most window like the task manager. In VB 6 it takes an API declaration and call. In .NET is a simple form property - TopMost. .NET is more of a RAD language then ever, just if you get into it and start doing more advanced stuff then VB 6 ever could handle it may actually take a few lines of code :D
how about the fact that you don't have to correct EVERY syntax error as it happens like you did in VB6 (yes I know there was an option to turn off the messagebox) but still, in .NET the syntax error handling is about a million times better than VB6.
Don't even get me started on traditional ASP, which was next to impossible to properly debug, versus ASP.NET which supports full debugging (hell you can even cross debug between VB.NET code in your code behind and Javascript on the HTML page)