It may also be the END of VB.Quote:
Originally Posted by sevenhalo
Printable View
It may also be the END of VB.Quote:
Originally Posted by sevenhalo
I want to propose a new question to these VB6ers, this is something I'm really curious about. If .Net never came out, what is it that you hoped to see different in VB7? VB6 is a great language, but it pinnacled. There wasn't much more you could push the framework to do without adding layer after layer of COM.
For all intents and purposes, VB6 is complete. There is nothing more you can do that wouldn't just be add-on's and updates. After stepping back and looking at this progression, MS said to themselves "ok, we know what a language needs. We know how people are going to use it. Since VB first came out, there's alot of new technology coming up in the market that's gaining momentum. Let's culminate all of this together."
The result was .Net; not VB.Net... .Net is it's own world and own concept. It was just given friendly names like VB.Net and C#.Net the same way LiveScript was renamed JavaScript to make it fit into developers comfort zones.
If you ask me, .NET makes a lot of sense only if you use it for the development of Web based applications. On the contrary, desktop programs, which are going to be sold to home users, should always be created in a COM based technology.Quote:
Originally Posted by sevenhalo
The new version of MS Office was not developed in .NET. MS Anti-Spyware was developed in VB6 and it will be an integral part of Windows Vista. Shortly speaking, for commercial purposes, a byte-code programming language is not the ideal tool to use.
Now, what I don't like is the fact that MS seems to offer no alternative: you either upgrade to VB.NET or stop using VB. What if I don't like byte-code?
It is true that VB belongs to them and they can do whatever they want with it, but it is also true that a company is successful only if it treats its customers with great care and satisfies all their requests.
MS has abandoned VB6 lovers instead. That's why I now say
ONLY WHEN THE SUN CEASES TO SHINE WILL I .NET!
If you go to aspfree's forum, they have a different opinion. Everyone's defensive when they feel threatened.Quote:
If you ask me, .NET makes a lot of sense only if you use it for the development of Web based applications.
(without trying to sound like a hippy...)Quote:
The new version of MS Office was not developed in .NET. MS Anti-Spyware was developed in VB6 and it will be an integral part of Windows Vista.
.Net is a new language. It's like a newly planted tree that's growing too fast, and because of it; it's grown a little crooked. Right now, it's still young enough that we can put braces on it and keep it from being crooked permanantly, but in the mean time... If you're going to build a treehouse, you're going to use the tree that looks strongest, even if it is a little older. Eventually, the .Net tree will be strong enough, but for now... Only put bird feeders in it. :)
(I intentionaly didn't comment on the byte-code comment, because it would inevitably drag out the 24mb dead horse)
I think up to this point, MS has been very friendly with compatibility between languages (I can't even tell you how many wizards are in .Net's IDE). To say that they aren't treating you with great care is kinda harsh. If you are willing to make the transition from VB6 to .Net, it's like wiping with silk toiletpaper. They couldn't make this any simpler.
You've mentioned that fact in another thread and you were counter-pointed with the real-truth which was that MS Anti-spyware was purchaesd by MS. They did not develop that product.Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
Let's all be real here.
I never said that MS developed MS Anti-Spyware but this does not change anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
I find it curious that on the one hand they say that everybody should program in .NET and on the other they purchase a product developed in VB6 and include it in their OS. They are not setting a good example, are they?
Yes - it does.Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
It sounded to me - and maybe I misunderstood - that you were almost ridiculing MS for providing a product in a future release of their OS that was written in - oh my god - everyone step back - written in VB6!
But they purchased that product - so what it was written in is not relevant.
At least this shows that VB6 is not a tool to throw away yet. It looks like you can produce software with it and sell it to MS.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Didn't my tree example already explain that? :p
Industry secret - there is a team busy re-writing Anti-spyware in Java :eek2:Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
Yes, your tree metaphor explained that, whereas MS' attitude demonstrated that.Quote:
Originally Posted by sevenhalo
Provided that you are not joking, why not re-write it in .NET if it is so powerful as all .NET lovers seem to say?Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
I am joking...Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
I would imagine they would re-write it in .Net eventually...
Can .Net contain code so powerful that even it can't compile it?
There's a rogue MS Linux team working on that very question right now!Quote:
Originally Posted by sevenhalo
I have yet to report a bug to MS in .NET, but I reported several for VB6, some of them quite interesting. All languages have issues. Standardized languages probably have the least, and no VB is standardized.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Roman
It's not a question of bugs. The incriminated issues deal with the penetrability of byte-code plus the overall dimensions and distribution of the framework.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Why? Is there something wrong with a progrram written in VB6?Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
The point is the final program, not what it was written in. For example, MS took over the Links Golf game. This was written in something (probably C or C++), but it might have been written with OWL or GNU rather than VC. Both of those languages were somewhat different from VC at the time, but would it make any sense for MS to have either refused to buy the product because of the language, or to have spent the time re-writing it?
There is no condemnation of .NET in the fact that somebody wrote something in a different language. Any program I wrote in VB6 is not suddenly worthless because there is a new language. Instead, the program still works, you simply can't work with the source code in the new environment.
Another point that should be made is that legacy languages can hold on for decades, but once they are recognized as legacies, they begin to lose share. To talk about the huge number of VB6 programmers out there now, when .NET has only been around for a few years is being a bit facetious. The language is just getting started. Don't look at how the field is now, look at how the field will be in five years. Ok, nobody can really do that, but if you are going into school now, you won't be hitting the marketplace for about that long. By that time, VB6 will have been unsupported for many years. New folks will have come on to .NET. Will VB6 just be an e-bay item?
The technology we argue about today will be obsolete tomorrow. Don't get entrenched on your one beloved tool, because it will go away, love it or not. .NET is my fourth language, I find it entirely enjoyable, just as I did with VB6. However, it WILL be replaced, and I WILL move on.
Very, very well said...Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
I made quite a killing in support of COBOL programs in the 1998-2000 years - that was great!
Would I recommend someone take up COBOL because of that experience - no, not at all.
FORTRAN was great for working with arrays - back in HS in 1978 - but would I write my student scheduling algorithm in that today? No - we wrote it in T-SQL (which most people do not even consider a language - but it's what I spend 95% of my time developing!).
You talk plenty about the penetrability of the byte-code. I have yet to see any evidence of this. I agree that it is theoretically possible, but that is true for all code. You can reverse engineer anything from the machine code that is finally created, the only difference could be difficulty. Frankly, I don't think that anybody less than VERY dedicated could reverse engineer .NET programs, and that type of person could reverse engineer VB6, C++, or ASM, as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
Show evidence that penetrability is a valid concern (it isn't for me, my code is for internal use, not commercial use, but others would care).
I think I already addressed the dimensions and distribution bit, but in synopsis: VB6 has a runtime, if you don't include it, your programs won't work. This is also true for OCXs and other things. Therefore, you should include these things in an installation. This is no different in fact than .NET, only the size is larger. So what? I used to buy games based on the number of disks they filled. Now, the smallest VB6 program is larger than the largest of those games. .NET is bigger still, but my space limitations have grown at an even faster rate. Size is not sufficient to matter.
VB6 has already been replaced. The real problem now is to detect its right replacement. Is it VB.NET? No way! I am not going to deprive myself of a large number of potential customers who don't have the framework on their machines. I am not going to produce software that will be cracked even by inexperienced hackers. Either MS comes up with some new COM based programming language or I will look elsewhere when VB6 becomes obsolete.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Have you ever heard of a certain tool called ILDASM that is shipped with Visual Studio itself? Do you know what it allows you to do? Well, if you don't, I'll tell you: it allows you to open a .NET executable, disassemble it, make your changes and compile it again. Don't you believe me? Then ask around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
The VB6 runtime is included in Windows 2000, Me, XP and Vista. If you use VB5 (as I do), you will find that its runtime is even present in Win98. This means you don't need to distribute the VB runtimes when targeting the majority of Windows versions.Quote:
I think I already addressed the dimensions and distribution bit, but in synopsis: VB6 has a runtime, if you don't include it, your programs won't work. This is also true for OCXs and other things. Therefore, you should include these things in an installation. This is no different in fact than .NET, only the size is larger. So what? I used to buy games based on the number of disks they filled. Now, the smallest VB6 program is larger than the largest of those games. .NET is bigger still, but my space limitations have grown at an even faster rate. Size is not sufficient to matter.
Quote:
One thing I greatly miss from VB6 is the ability to edit your code while you Step thru it in the IDE.
That reminds me "Austin Powers " movie where one of Mike Myers's characters screamed "Give a ... bone here!"Quote:
Originally Posted by alva
So, they gave us a bone... ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
OMG that's it i can't take it anymore, i realized i said i was done but, after this last post, if that's the case why, why, WHY are you still complaining with people about VB.Net? if that's the case from this post you honestly shouldn't even care what user "vb.net lovers" have to say anyway... we all have our own freaking opions... and from what i've been reading most of us, "vb.net lovers" are still saying that vb6 is a good language, we just "CHOOSE", now there's a concept, "CHOICE", but we just choose not to use it unless we have to... and here's another thing what if VB, never had been developed then what???... just be happy with what you have... this poor person that first orignally asked this question has probably changed his mind all together and doesn't want to do programming at all anymore. my god! :rolleyes:
it almost feels like i should be in the matrix
here take the red pill, or take the blue pill
wait maybe we should just change now and code in the matrix code :lol:
That was a really great rant!Quote:
Originally Posted by vbdotnetboy
I even feel better from your last two posts!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
you should rate me then ;) :p
well i have dibs on the women in the red dress ;)
Okay, if I keep complaining about VB.NET it's because people like you are responsible for that disaster. By accepting supinely whatever MS offers you, you encourage them to do any rotten thing they want to do. It's because they know they can count on you that MS has abandoned VB6 developers. They just care about their profit, knowing that they will always find people like you ready to follow them wherever they go.Quote:
Originally Posted by vbdotnetboy
Please make your contribution to stop .NET and make MS understand that it is hard for people to sell byte-code software.
You're right, we're all too dumb to leave MS for the J2EE camp.
We like .Net - we like the CLR - we (in our shop) like that the CLR is all encompassing - that we can create extended stored procedures in MS SQL and use the CLR and use VB.Net (which wasn't possible with VB6)...Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
We like that .Net app's look different - more MS'y.
We like GDI+ - it's really great - took a long time to understand all the different font and style capabilities - but it is an incredible tool - really powerful.
Plus our customers expect us to stay ahead of the curve - I'm surely glad I have them as customers...
I came from 25 years of developing software in VAX-11 BASIC for the Number 2 computer company in the world - Digital Equipment Corporation. We thought out futures - tied to DEC - were golden. DEC worked with MS building NT concepts - we thought that MS and DEC would be partners and that all our mainframe software would simply meld into the MS world. This was back in 1990...
Then DEC died - was hard to believe.
I still have DEC customers that expect me to support and even enhance those products - I certainly wish they would all migrate with my other customers to the MS world.
Things change. Vb.Net is not bad. It is powerful - that's good.
esposito - we got your feeling - loud and clear - in that other thread. You truly dislike .Net - we believe you :D
You can say that again.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
OK everyone we all know who to blame now ME!!!! It's all my fault i confess... i'm sorry everyone i didn't mean to buy from MS... i mean i really didn't have a choice, but hey i'll take the blame i guess... beside i'm a big boy i can take it. :rolleyes:
Powerful but slow. You'd think they would at least optimize it, but it ended up executing slower than VB6. I'm sure they optimized VB.NET 2005 (hopefully),. but I would rather code in C++. It's faster than both VB6 and VB.NET hands down, and you can do more. :bigyello:Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Sorry, I didn't grasp the gist of your pseudo-joke. Can you please restate?Quote:
Originally Posted by sevenhalo
here lets ALL just switch to Delphi
http://www.borland.com/us/products/delphi/index.html
i'm going to buy my copy right now :wave:
alright esposito... Since you're regurgitating everything you read in news articles, I wanted to show you something about the ildasm:
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d1...isassemble.jpg
ISNet is a 3rd party control I bought from Intersoft. As you can CLEARLY see, I am unable to disassemble it with the utility provided.
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
With regards to Microsoft using .NET themselves, it is a reality. The only reason that everything Microsoft produce isn't already .NET-based is the complexity of the upgrade. All existing non-.NET code has to be recoded by hand. How long would it take to even rewrite the code for Word as it is now, never mind recoding it to C#. That is a mammoth job, but they are working on it. MSN Messenger is .NET already. Microsoft bought a POS system from outside, rebranded it as Microsoft RMS and released it with relatively few changes. The next version will be written in C#. Elements of future Microsoft OSes will be .NET-based. Microsoft are practising what they preach. They just can't do it all overnight. I have no specific love for Microsoft but I don't like baseless attacks either. They haven't abandoned VB6 developers. They gave you VB.NET. Had they adandoned you you would be complaining about C# instead. You can still create unmanaged C++ in VS 2005 if you don't like managed code. If you don't like that then that's something for you to deal with. It was too late to change their plans by the time the whole .NET thing got rolling. To ditch VB.NET and start redeveloping VB6 would disappoint just as many people, and it would make everything that Microsoft is trying to achieve with .NET more difficult. They are definitely a financially-driven company. If you don't like that then why are you using any of their tools?
Can someone official please lock this thread? Reading all the posts is taking too much of my time. The original poster is probably curled up in the foetal position somewhere crying for his mother and I doubt anyone has changed their opinion one iota. In fact the two sides have probably become even more polarised.
Boo-Ya
Lets agree to disagree and close this thread :)