In my case, my customers don't even know what a programming language is.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Printable View
In my case, my customers don't even know what a programming language is.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Thats the same case here. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
Our customers don't either, but the IT department at our customers company sure does, and most of our clients won't sign off on a purchase until it has had a review done by their internal IT department.Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
I disagree. The strongest deciding factor governing most people is fear of change. You surely realize that there are plenty of people who have responded to this thread based on the assumption that that is your motivation as well. It was the reason I didn't even touch .NET until 2003 had been out for a year or so. I knew VB6 REALLY well, and loved it. However, once I got a bit familiar with .NET, I now have no desire to EVER go back. VB6 can go away completely, as far as I am concerned. This change was a good one.Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
There is one valid reason to go to .NET that you have overlooked. You will probably find that you write better and cleaner code. I can't say quite why that is, but the programs I have written since I switched are simply superior in design and efficiency. There are fewer bugs, and better re-use, which means faster development. Is that some benefit from OO, which I had experience with from C++? I don't know. I have heard others here say the same thing, so you might find it to be true as well.
I would love to move to VB .NET ideally but not through the path of migration. I would rather have complete rewrites instead of fixing bugs throughtout the development cycle which show no signs of ending.
This is especially true of senior level corporate management people, and it is these people who decide what products to buy and what is used internally for their own companies development needs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Well in that case I don't know of a .NET replacement for VBA. AFAIK, VBA (so far) still exists in Office 12, though in what form I am not sure.
It would be curious if MS decided to extend VBA (without migrating it to .NET) and abandon VB6 which should be considered VBA's parent.Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
Wrong. As far as I am concerned, the only fear that prevents me from upgrading is called the .NET framework. Not only do customers need to have it installed on their machines to make .NET apps work but they would also need WinXP SP2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Bzzt. The framework runs on Windows 98 and greater :)Quote:
Not only do customers need to have it installed on their machines to make .NET apps work but they would also need WinXP SP2.
It is, on the other hand, included as of XP SP2.
I tried to install .NET Framework 2.0 on WinXP without SP2 and I got a messagebox informing me the installation could not take place without that service pack. Try to believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
Ah I thought you were talking about 1.1.
Well according to this page, 98, 98 SE, ME, 2000 SP3, and XP SP2 are supported (This is the 2.0 framework)
So on XP the service pack is required, but it does run on 98. Isn't that what your school runs?
Obviously, if I wanted to start programming in VB.NET, I would start with VB 2005. I have already downloaded the Express edition and begun playing around with it. It's really great as far as its potential is concerned but it breaks my heart when I think of the framework and the byte-code issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
My school runs from Windows 98 to Windows Server 2003. Anyway, I am concerned about my own future as a private vendor. (I sell shareware programs for the Italian market)Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
You convinced me a while back that fear of change was not your motivating factor, but having re-read the part of my statement that you quoted, I see no sentence that is wrong. I hope you didn't see this as some kind of insinuation on my part.Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
I wouldn't talk about fear of change, since the only fear I have is that the number of my potential customers could drop dramatically if I used .NET. I am referring to my shareware software produced for the general public. On the contrary, I recognize that, if you are looking for a job as an employee in the programming field, the knowledge of .NET will give you more chances of being taken on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
I think it does not make any sense to say that you need WinXP SP2 to install the framework (v.2.0) when the framework itself is part of that service pack. MS should just say that, to be able to run .NET software on WinXP, you need SP2.Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
Now, I found that about 50% of the people who visit my Web site on a monthly basis do not have SP2 installed on their machines. (I use a stat service that allows me to get that kind of data.) This means the risk of losing customers is still too high for me.
Having said that, I also believe that it is a good idea to learn .NET in order to get ready for the future. (You can't rule out the possibility that, sooner or later, MS could get rid of the COM technology to force everybody to switch to .NET)
I want to be as open-minded as possible so I've downloaded the Express Edition of VB 2005.
If the Tool is free it's worth the time to take a look at it.
I'd appreciate it if any of the VB .Net Gurus could give me a detailed description of the differences between the various Visual Studio 2005 Dev tools.
I'm particularly interested in what makes the Express Edition an 'Express' version instead of the 'Standard' Version.
TIA
I was at a site today, and he had XP SP2, with up to date updates. The only thing was that there were 9 optional updates, and 2 hardware updates.
One hardware update was for the AC97 soundcard, and he called me back after I got home to tell me that the sound wasn't working! I had to have him rollback the driver to get it back.
Optional updates were Net 1.1 and also Net 2.0 framework, so I downloaded them, as well as a few Outlook Express updates.
I've had SP2 for a while, and still had to download Net 1.1 to use VB Net 2003.
I've never seen the framework that comes with SP2, unless they've changed it since they rolled it out to millions, but that wouldn't make sense.
Because I am not a trained programmer, it was much easier to upgrade from vb6 to Visual Basic 2005 instead of VB.VET. Visual Basic 2005 is much closer to vb6 than to VB.NET. It is available since 7 Nov 2005 and can be downloaded for free.
Visual Basic 2005 = VB.NET.
Well, I could not open my VB6 projects with VB.NET, but with Visual Basic 2005 it can easily be done...
Lol, sorry but VB 2005 is VB.NET 2005. You can open VB6 projects in either '05 or '03 using the conversion wizard. Neither will run VB6 code. I'd say VB.NET 2005 is further removed from VB6 than VB.NET 2003.
I read MS has made some efforts to make VB 2005 closer to VB6, e.g. now you can open a form in the same way as in legacy code (Form2.Show), i.e. without having to create an instance of the object first. But the framework is still there, and that is my main concern.Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
This means that, even if the user downloaded SP2, you can't take for granted that he or she has the framework (v.2.0) installed on his or her machine. Needless to say, this complicates things to a programmer who is undecided whether to move to VB 2005 or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by dglienna
Penegate, I must admit that I forgot to mention that the version I use is Visual Basic 2005 Express. According to MS "Express Edition products are designed for hobbyists, students, and novice developers." That is maybe the reason that I regard it as closer to VB6.
Yeah I figured from the free and Nov 7th parts :)
I use the Express editions too (until I might get around to buying VS 2005) and I can assure you they are the exact same languages as the standard editions. I haven't used VB 2005 Express yet (downloading it as we speak) but maybe the IDE makes it easier to open VB6 projects.
esposito, I wasn't aware of that. I don't follow VB much these days.
Hmm ok so your saying REALbasic requires no "run time libraries", yes this is true for windows and mac how ever this is not true for linux!Quote:
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
Ive been using linux since RedHat 5 for the most of my day to day things im current distro is ubuntu 5.10 which comes with gcc 4.0 which uses libstdc++6 as default, now i happen to know that to use RB on linux (because i do form time to time use it) that i must install (libstdc++5) in order to run my apps, to me this is a "runtime librarie" its a required pice of software that i do not want to install but have to, use any RB app made for linux.
And to be honest here I'm still unsure about .NET and have read this thread and then re-read it to make sure i fully understand the "reasons for and against .NET" and i must admit that i have VB.NET 2005 and have played with it and like to look and feel of the thing the code seems to be nice and clean too, the only real problem i have with VB.NET is this:
vb 6 code:
VB Code:
there are other small minor things that i dont like about VB.NET 2005 but i guess i can live with out them. As i have not really looked into closing and opeining a new form in .NET i know for certian that "unload me" is no longer in the language or if it is i cannot find it.
any way thats it from me, I'll still keep looking into VB.NET for job prospects at least
Thanks for the info about Linux. I have only tested RB applications on Windows and Mac and they worked fine on both OS's without any runtime files.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ixl2
Anyway, I will only switch to RB when VB6 becomes obsolete. Obviously, I will never switch to RB if MS breaks compatibility with the COM technology, in that RB is incompatible with .NET.
Me.Close is the .NET version of Unload Me.
I haven't played around much with 2005 yet. I was under the impression that it was faster, so I moved a very slow 2003 program over. The program is an evolutionary one that requires 3,000,000 generations to complete (which is why it is slow, it can take three days). There was no noticeable speed increase in 2005.
2005 is .NET all the way. I understand that it allows debugging more like VB6, which would be a plus (you can edit some running code without restarting). I was not aware that you could create a form without instantiating it. I don't much like that, since it appears to break OO principles. Can't confirm it this year, though.
By the way, this thread has become legendary for the comparison between the VB's.
Maybe I'm just 'special' but I've ONLY got .net 2.0 on my machine (i.e. no 1.0 or 1.1) and I can run my 1.1 app's with no problem....
As far as I know, you need to recompile .NET 1.1 apps against v.2.0 to be able to run them if you only have FX 2.0. Are you sure you don't have the .NET Framework 1.1 on your machine?Quote:
Originally Posted by -TPM-
szlamany already posted a link a page or two back that explains how 1.1 apps can run on the 2.0 runtime. You do not need to recompile them.
Ah yes so he did :blush: But at least you know for sure now as I tried it :)Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
This thread seems to have so many "wrinkles" going through it. ;)
The original poster has a very specific situation - they desire to create lightweight applications that are dependancy "free".
Now it appears to be a comparison between different varieties of BASIC - and that certainly doesn't appear to me to be the original issue.
We like to produce "feature-rich-MS-friendly" applications - our customers like to be using "well-supported" state of the art products (at least in their eyes) - so .Net would be an obvious choice for us.
When MS set out on the "create a common framework" that many languages can access, they didn't have speed in mind - they had functionality. That doesn't mean speed could be ignored - but it wasn't #1 on the list of reasons to re-develop the wheel! Backwards compatibility is always a good thing to do - but sometimes a company must weigh the cost of holding on to the old vs letting it go.
OO programming concepts are great - but we were doing "object based programming" on mainframes 25 years ago - that's a mindset that any good programmer should embrace. The fact that .Net holds OO in such high regard is great.
Linux and MAC's are cool - but in our world they have no place to fit.
Lately I've run into a major VB.Net problem - MEASURESTRING is not returning the same size for text as the old VB6 TEXTWIDTH used to. I've just installed VS 2005 in hopes that some new GDI TEXTRENDERER will work better.
Programming is a challenge - but the language is still just a tool to achieve a result. I've programmed in COBOL, DIBOL, FORTRAN, all kinds of 4th generation languages and we even developed our own 4thGL report/formula tool in the 80's.
How you load or unload a form is so not important to the end result...
Putting SP2 on a machine should be a no brainer - not keeping a machine up to date is also not part of our world...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ixl2
Wrong-
Linux Requirements
Linux IDE and Linux Compiled Application:
Any x86-based Linux distribution with GTK+ 2.0 (or higher), glibc-2.3 (or higher) and CUPS (Common UNIX Printing System), which includes:
Novell Linux Desktop
Red Hat Desktop
To tell the truth, the article suggested by szlamany stresses that backwards compatibility is not complete:Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
Quote:
Microsoft is having compatability issues with the upcoming .Net Framework 2.0, but says the problem will not delay the release of the Visual Studio 2005 toolset planned for later this year.
Applications built on .Net Framework 1.1 have been breaking, or changing behavior, on version 2.0, according to the company's white paper.
The document said the company desires to have .Net Framework 1.1 applications work smoothly on .Net 2.0 with the exception of a set of documented changes. "During the beta 2 release, we have not yet achieved this goal and are seeking feedback on issues that can be addressed before the release of the .Net Framework 2.0," the white paper states.
In its application compatibility testing, Microsoft found fewer than 10 changes in .Net Framework or Visual Studio that have been found to affect an application, the white paper said.
Breaking changes were made for reasons such as standards compliance, customer feedback, and correctness, Microsoft said. The company believes many of the changes will affect very few users.
The company also states: "On occasions where application code built against the .Net Framework 1.1 is loaded by the .Net Framework 2.0 and encounters a breaking change, the application may fail."
Back to the original issue again...Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
Is it the fewer then 10 items that didn't "upward grow" from framework 1.1 to 2.0 that is keeping you in VB6?
And to go off-topic again, do you think that the MS statement:
Breaking changes were made for reasons such as standards compliance, customer feedback, and correctness,
is reasonable?
What is keeping me in VB6 is just the fear that I could lose potential customers because they don't have (and/or don't want to install) the .NET framework on their machines. One more reason is the penetrability of byte-code that would allow even inexperienced hackers to crack my software.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
It may be reasonable but does not solve my problem.Quote:
And to go off-topic again, do you think that the MS statement:
Breaking changes were made for reasons such as standards compliance, customer feedback, and correctness,
is reasonable?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmarkoski
Before you say im "Wrong" i would do my home work!! take a look at RB's forums!! http://forums.realbasic.com/viewtopic.php?t=88
The library i said is also a requierment! for any linux system like the forum admin and a developer of REALbasic said.
Please do your home work before you tell some one they are wrong!!!.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ixl2
YOU ARE WRONG!
The 'problem' is Ubuntu Linux.
THere is NO problem with Novel or RedHat!
Try actually reading the entire thread before you open your cake hole!!!!!!!!!!
POST EDITED - Internet.com - Brad
Honestly, I think no contribution posted up in this thread is off-topic simply because the aim is to spot the pros and cons of switching to VB.NET or sticking to VB6 or moving to an alternative programming language.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Comparisons between different varieties of BASIC languages may help us make up our minds to migrate or not.
Moreover, if you propose an alternative language, such as REALbasic, it is legitimate to show the advantages and disadvantages of that development tool without being afraid of going off-topic.
The more this thread grows, the more it becomes a sort of case study providing an answer to any questions one may have about the original issue: is it really convenient to move to VB.NET?
This thread has been getting out of hand off an on throughout the thread. So I feel its served it purpose and it is now Closed.