Printable View
That's amazing: 3(!) years later still arguing about it. :)
Anyway...
But for that you have to deploy the whole Framework! Overkill !!! :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
Let's be realistic - VB.Net can no longer be called RAD tool - development time is even longer than it was in VB6. Common Rob, really.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
20+MB file was overkill in the 90s.... not in 2007 where people are downloading mp3s, movies, and tv shows by the GIG on a daily basis....Quote:
Originally Posted by RhinoBull
This argument is getting as old as the time period its based on, and doesn't really hold much ground anymore...
Not to mention that Vista comes with 4 .NET framework versions preinstalled...
Quote:
Let's be realistic - VB.Net can no longer be called RAD tool - development time is even longer than it was in VB6. Common Rob, really.
Maybe you don't call it RAD, but obviously Rob does, and so do I... maybe you are not as productive in .NET, but maybe Rob is, and so am I.
The VB6 IDE was the best thing ever, until .NET came out. Visual Studio has grown by leaps and bounds, and the IDE is worlds ahead of VB6 at this point.
The extra productivity provided by the IDE makes it was more of a RAD language than VB6 ever was.
Sorry if you don't feel this way, but its clear that the people who have actually made the move to .NET fulltime do feel this way. Perhaps you have not embraced it enough to see its strengths, from all the posts I have ever seen regarding .NET that you posted in Rhino, you only like to jab at its weaknesses, which for the most part are not really weaknesses.
I'm afraid you're missing a point here Matt - when we had to spend days writing code in C++ just to produce a button on the form and then VB, Delphi came alone and it was like WOW!
Those were a true RAD tool because you could create a darn button in no time - just paste it and you're done. Just this thing saved you lots of time.
Yes, I agree COM architecture was a major disaster but darn thing worked much faster.
Also, you should not look at "how many MBs" user has to install/download - that's (whith all due respect) a newbies way of looking at deployment.
The thing is that everyone's forced to have it regardless of what was utilized in your program - all 400+K objects are loaded onto the destination machine.
It's 20MB today but it could 400 tomorrow.
Yes, hardware is cheap these days but not to everyone and you have to remember that as well - vast majority of home users cannot afford any upgrade.
I am not by any mean saying that .Net should not be used - I'm using it on a daily basis - I'm saying that there are lots of things to consider so you cannot just push to hard toward one tool vs another - try to ballance and be more philosophical about it too. :)
Technology is only a tool, and that's what .NET, VB and VS .... a tool. The tool is only as good as the person using it. Just because I know how to swing a hammer and use a hand saw, doesn't mean I'm capable of building a house. Heck, I'm not even sure I'm capable of building a birdhouse....Doesn't mean the hammer is defective. It means the builder is.
Same goes for a programmer.
I'm doing things in .NET that I only dreamed I wish I could have done in VB6. In fact, I have conniptions everyday because I'm still tied to the VB6 code base (at least for now) at the office. It's very hard. For nearly 5 years now, I've been doing something in VB6 muttering "If only this was in .NET, I could do....."
I can prototype things up faster in .NET than I could have in VB6. ... much to the chagrin of some of my clients.
As for the WYSIWYG.... what ever... VB has been drag and drop, since I don't know when, ....Oh the beginning. So that argument does hold water. As for the wizards... you don't have to use them. I don't. I still code all my DB connections by hand. In fact I've started building up a re-usable library that I can easily port from one project to another, that allows my apps to talk to both SQL Server and SQL Server CE... eventually, if I get the chance, Oracle and Access, and possibly MySQL will be added to it as well.... that's another thing I wouldn't have been able to do so easily in VB6. Cross mojo-ination as a coworker would call it.
And then there's the automated tasks you can setup in the IDE before, during and after a files gets checked out/in.... but that's a topic for another time.
-tg
your posts makes it sound like you can't plop a button on your form anymore...
see you look at it like that, and I look at it like, now in .NET I can drop a button on a form, and set any number of properties at design time that I used to have to tap into the win32 API to configure, or it simply just was not configurable at all...
Lets say you want to have a button with a red background, and white text...
in .NET you drop your button on the form, set the backcolor to red, set the forecolor to white, and you are done.
in VB6 lets see, you first set the style property to graphical, then you set the backcolor to red, then you.. wait a minute, where is the forecolor property??? RAD indeed.... just declare about 10 Win32 API calls, a few more constants and types and you can subclass the control to set the forecolor. Yeah thats pretty productive...
Don't even get me started on extending controls via inheritence in .NET versus VB6 (aka you can't)
And for you to try to make a point by saying "it may be 400MB tomorrow" is pretty rediculous, wouldn't you agree??? I wasn't trying to compare what people download to how big an installation should be, I was just making the point that when VB6 first hit the market and everyone was on slow 28.8 modems, downloading the VB6 runtime was pretty close in time taken, to downloading the framework now on a 10MB+ cable/fiber connection. Does everyone have one? no of course not, did everyone have a 28.8 modem 10 years ago? nope, most people had no internet...
That's hardly arguable - every new tool is more powerfull then its predecessors. It must be or it's not new but rather bunch of fixed bugs release - like it was with VB5/6, .Net 2001/2003 ...Quote:
Originally Posted by techgnome
IMO, bottom line is that if you want fast and weak apps then use VB 6. If you want robust, powerful and rad development times when considering the scale and complexity of the .net app over vb 6 app, go with .NET
Its almost like comparing apples to oranges.
VB 6 took tons of code and time to produce the same features that .net can do simply and quickly. How on earth could that be considered less rad then VB 6.
Try reading what you just said once again. Does it still make sense? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
Yes it does. ;)
You have to consider that they are not equally comparable unless you factor in things like .net is at a higher level being able to easily write complex apps that are much harder to write in vb 6.
With that being said I dont think there is any more point to trying to compare old technology vs new. Thus I digress... :)
Define complexity... But I'm going to rest my case too - pointless.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
see my post above Rhino #185
just a simple task like customizing a button in VB6 proved to be difficult compared to doing it in .NET
Why all the comparisons still?
Use what suits. It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks of it, or what they use.
I do not have time to learn the language. I have heard that it is totally different from VB 6.
Sorry Matt but you're still missing the point so let's just stop here.Quote:
Originally Posted by kleinma
It would probably be nice if this thread is closed - it really is pointless to continue.
Thank you.
Why would this thread be closed? you can unsubscribe if you like, but others may want to contribute to it and continue to discuss.
I generally agree with you, except for one thing: working with anything in the System.Net.Socket name space. It takes 3-5x MORE code and object handling, plus listening threads to achieve the same thing that the old WinSock used to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
First: I don't subscribe to anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by kleinma
And second: this thread can be closed because it serves no purpose what so ever now nor it did 3 years ago when it was created plus it is very controversial.
I believe there is a true benefit to discuss the merits (or lack of merits) of VB.Net compared to VB6.
I see posts appears regularly with people wanting to know how to still buy VB6 - so there are obviously people still just getting into all this. We are all not seasoned programmers with opinions steeped in our experiences.
So the issue of why we do or don't use either of these products is important to the forum.
I only got into the PC world 6 or 7 years ago - so my history with VB6 is small. One thing I can say is that I was never able to achieve good use of the Win32 API functionality. The documentation I found was never strong - the idea of subclassing to achieve a simple result was not clear to me.
And I came from a extensive background in mainframe programming where using system libraries to achieve results was common. But we also had a 10 foot shelf of manuals to support us in these goals.
Now when I work in .Net with the framework I feel like I've finally gotten back to having the power at my fingertips and having it truly well doc'ed for use.
The framework in my opinion is the whole reason to use .Net.
Our latest app on pocket PC's using the compact fw further convinces me that MS made a smart decision to repackage the development environment.
And what I see coming down the pike with 2008 and LINQ and other stuff I see on the MS horizon really excites me.
Not in this thread. Common.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
I understand the fact that we must choose the right technology for the job etc, but as technology professionals (Not hobbyists) we must keep moving. The ins and outs of it are fairly simple VB6 is dieing and there is no point in fighting it. As things progress and new technology's arise Vb6 will not be able to keep up. .Net is an amazing tool it offers a lot of power and flexibility (Which vb6 didn't offer) and as stated above there are some exciting projects on the horizon.
Just my 2 cents
If I was starting out I would find alot of this thread very useful as it contains comments from people who work and are involved in the industry, you must learn to stop stamping your feet when people dont agree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by RhinoBull
Pino
Well, this IS a long thread, and I will be brief:
I stick with VB6 because, primarily, my entire customer base consists of institutions which basically would have to upgrade their hardware in order to load and run .NET, and then pay again for the .NET version of my app as an upgrade.
And I have a VERY hard sell that they should do so just to get a .NET version of my app which does essentially the exact same thing as their current version except it runs slower...
Where is the bang-for-the-buck from the end user point of view?
And if the day comes that we do move to .NET, I will certainly NOT learn VB.NET, I'd prefer to use the language that .NET was clearly designed to support - C# - since it's easier to learn an entirely new language than to unlearn my existing language (VB.NET syntax, structure, etc, etc, ad infinitum are just similar enough to VB6 to be dangerously confusing).
I agree with the posters above who stated that Microsoft has abandoned the VB programmers!
amusing.... considering it came from someone who just jumped off the VB ship.Quote:
Originally Posted by sigid
Here's what I think:
shaaaadup! Everyone has their opinions, and both sides think the other is wrong. Do we need to draw up mascots for each side? One could be the donkey and the other the elephant. Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? That's what this thread is starting to feel like. I'm starting to agree that it needs to be closed down. It's gone on far too long and it doesn't have the appearance of ending anytime soon, and it's just going to get nastier.
I don't think MS abandoned anyone... I think they forgot who a great deal of who & what their VB base is. The hobby developer. The express versions of VS were a great step forward to re-gaining that.... BUT, until they can figure out how to create, and deploy a FrameWorkExpress, I think the hobby market is lost.
Once they can do that, then there needs to be a configurable redistributable stripped down version of the Framework. I don't see why that can't be done. I seriously doubt Embedded device apps have the full-blown .NET FW in it.... and SQL Server also has SQL CE (compact edition) which run on just 7 DLLs... SEVEN! Ok, there's some functionality lost (no stored procs) .... but if I have to exchange my SPs for tiny & easy deployment, I will.... in fact I have done it.
I don't think MS has abandoned anyone. I think they have lost sight of the audience, looking at that bigger (enterprise) picture. But it's up to us in the development community to make sure that our voices and complaints are heard. It's those squeaky wheels that got the VB6 compatibility layer into .NET. It's that squeaking that got "default form instances" back in to VB (a step back if you ask me). If MS has truly abandoned the VB developer, they could have easily said "forget you, learn the new way or forget it." ...but they didn't. They went back and figured out a way to get some of this back in there.
I don't think MS has abandoned anyone, I think it's the opposite. I think people are abandoning MS and VB.
Sad really.
-tg
.NET is too complicated ,if I had to move to another language,it will be Visual C maybe or some other type of Basic
Are you saying that because of the framework or the VB.Net syntax itself??Quote:
Originally Posted by horazio
ClickOnce makes it as simple as setting a few settings, and clicking a few buttons to deploy a .NET application. It also handles automatic updating from the web and other great things for the "hobbyist" to use to get their apps out there. What did VB6 offer? the PDW (aka worst installer utility EVER)Quote:
Originally Posted by techgnome
Not sure what you are getting at with the "Stripped down" version of the framework, but MS has the .NET COMPACT framework, which runs on Windows Mobile devices and can target a number of different platforms.
It is a "Stripped down" version of the full framework, and a good % of the methods are common to both the full framework and compact framework, which means MANY libraries can be written to work on both, and you can then just use those libraries and build GUIs on them depending on if its mobile or a standard Windows app.
Quote:
Originally Posted by horazio
yeahhhhhh.. cause Visual C isn't complicated :sick: :sick: :sick: :sick: :sick: :sick:
Yeah, I get all that.... Can the .NET Compact FW run on a Windows Desktop? If it has all the functionality I want, can I jsut use that, and include that as part of the install, and be done with it? That's where I hear most of the gripes. "I don't want my users to have to down load 20+M install for the framework for my puny 400k app. Seriously, how many times have we heard that around here? Personally, I couldn't care less, I don't build general use apps, and I haven't yet had a client balk at the .NET download. For me it's a non issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by kleinma
-tg
The compact fw is missing tons of features - just search the MOBILE section of the forum for my username and see all my gripes!
It does the job on the pocket pc but I would never want to be limited by it on the desktop.
I don't even think you can target the desktop with the compact framework.
As far as the never ending argument of a 20MB runtime file, its a one time thing. Many users already have it anyway. Any Vista user has it preinstalled. Its NOT A BIG DEAL! If you use click once (which any dinky 400k app should be using), the entire process is totally transparent to the user. They don't know if they are getting 1MB or 20MB, and while I can't speak for other countries, the majority of US internet users are on high speed connections.
Sorry for the old stats (looking for newer ones) but here is some stats on framework installation base
from hereQuote:
More than 120M copies of the .NET Framework were downloaded and installed (using either Microsoft downloads or Windows Update)
More than 85% of new consumer PCs sold in 2004 had the framework installed. More than 58% of business PC had the .NET Framework preinstalled or preloaded
Between Q303 and Q204 there was more than 30% increase in the number of .NET Framework installations in the business segment.
Most of the installations of the .NET Framework are in Windows XP and Windows 2000 machines.
Mst all serious users are on high speed but I doubt that most are because the infrastructure is just not there(rural areas).Quote:
Originally Posted by kleinma
Both ! even VB.Net is more demanding than Visual Basic, I'm not fluent in VBnbet but I took a look at some books and I can tell it's more difficultQuote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
The framework is certainly not complex. It's comprehensive. And that's a good thing for a professional developer wanting to leverage all the capability of the OS that your app runs on.Quote:
Originally Posted by horazio
And in my opinion the syntax has simply gone through a cleanup where by it is more consistent. The IDE makes coding with this syntax nearly effortless.
Looking at books won't tell you a thing. Writing an app or two will show the light...
No point in me switching. I don't write code for a living anymore. I was always a system person who chose the best tool for the job at hand . Initially I was an assembler person. VB 6 has always been very simple to use and get the job done. Granted that I don't do skins or make great looking apps, but I believe functionality comes first and that's where VB 6 came in. I could get the job done without having to think about the tool. Just imagine how hard it would be to use a simple car if you had to think of the physics that made it work... I prefer to get in the car and drive instead of attempting to figure out how it rolls...
Since I am NOT needing a job writing code, what I have is good enough. You don't get rid of something just because it's old...
Currently using vb6 to convert some older apps into three tier before moving them onto more modern technology, don't ask issues with the original code, needed to do something real fast.
Our company looked at .net, looked at our environment, and said to hell with that lets go with other technology. Currently learning new stuff to move all apps into an intranet environment that doesn't involve .net. TCO with .net is freakingly high end of day, if you have a few hundred end users to take care of.
So probably have 1 year at most on vb6 and then it's gone baby gone. So at least this is one company not jumping on the Microsoft .net bandwagon. We have one server running some framework stuff for third party software that is getting canned next year.
I have been test driving VB 2008, most of the code samples crash!!!
The Help has at least one error(sample code in Help does not work)
it drives nice, has a nice paint job.
time will tell.
I cant even get VS 2008 to install. I run Setup.exe and it says "program too big to load in memory" :( I have 2 gig. Tried on 5 different PCs running various different OS builds.
:(
I had no problems installing so far.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wokawidget
You don't have any beta versions or anything like that do you?
Nope RTM Developer Team Suite edition freshly downloaded from MSDN. Twice I've downloaded and 8 DVDs I have ripped and all do the same thing :(
Hmmm... Across 5 unrelated PCs ?. Difficult, except to say try comparing the download and disc(s) properties to compare the bytes/folderes etc downloaded and written to the discs. If they're the same it probably isn't the download. RTM is beyond my (hobbyist) needs, if certainly not beyond my wallet, so I can't compare. I don't know how RTM runs across discs, but it MAY be possible to extract the image files (IsoButer, Roxio easy Media Creator, etc, etc, etc) to HD folders and try an install from there. (Obviously, if it works, try burning the discs from that.)
Back on topic.
--------------
As I've stated, I'm not a professional programmer anymore (don't do it for my bread and butter) but I've had more than just a quick look at VB2005 & VB2008 express. My opinion as a dumb bus driver ? VB net may look a little complicated at first, but it doesn't take long (maybe 1/2 hour) to realise that because a lot of the former APIs are now "built-in" properties, creating an app has becomes so much easier. To use VB6 effectively, it was always necessary to use APIs, with net it's become a doddle. A 50 line function can become a 1 liner in net. Great for professional and hobbyists alike, and their end users - something that most, in their (sometimes lack of) enthusiasm have failed to mention.
Am I impressed ? Well, yes and no. Even in my short experience with net, I've found that some things that are difficult in VB6 are actually impossible in net without resorting to the Win32 APIs. I suppose it would be too much to expect for everything to be taken into account - but that's normality for you.
I can't say I'll ever move over entirely to net (I'm 55 years young), just as I haven't given up using batch files, VBDOS (don't laugh) or using the command prompt. Net isn't the whole answer (55 years have taught me that "complete solutions" are a fantasy)
I have to agree with penegate here. In my profession as a driver, it would be ludicrous to expect to only ever drive the same vehicle (from a bicycle to a HGV). Whoever's heard of a toolbox that only contains 1 spanner ? (DO NOT mention adjustables :mad:)
I agree with you entirely. If you can get what you want using VB6, IMHO it does not make any sense to do it in .NET. In spite of modern ADSL connections, forcing the final user to download the framework is still an issue. Besides, do not forget that .NET executables can be easily cracked -- much more easily than VB6 executables can.Quote:
Originally Posted by randem
My only concern is that MS could make VB6 applications incompatible with the future versions of Windows...
For the time being I have switched to Delphi, whose executables do not need any runtime files. Nevertheless, my concern remains the same: what if Microsoft decide to break compatibility with non-.NET software?
Eh, unlikely - you can still run QBasic and VB3 on XP machines without any problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
Future OS releases may however make it harder to setup environment.
If by "setup environment" you mean the installation of VB6, then it is already a problem under Vista. If you don't take specific measures, you won't be able to develop in VB6 on the latest version of Windows.Quote:
Originally Posted by RhinoBull
Anyway, I am worried because I heard some rumours about Windows 7 - the next version of Windows after Vista. It seems that it will only contain some basic libraries -- those which are necessary to the kernel --- and the user will have to download all the rest from the Internet.
I hardly think that, among the basic libraries that are going to be shipped with Windows 7, MS will include MSVBVM60.DLL and all the other VB6 runtime files.
I wouldnt worry about the next windows yet. They are targeting 2010 for it anyways.
Yes, I've seen a lot of complaints on the internet but I had not encountered any issuses so far.Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
Honestly, I don't develop in VB6 under Vista much but what I've done so far gave me no headach what so ever.
Well, you know that time flies... The catastrophe may take place all of a sudden and, if you are not ready for it, your software could stop working and, more importantly, you would stop selling it.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
So, exploring what MS's intentions are for the next release of Windows may make a lot of sense.
Well they just announced its Windows 7. But as I was getting at is that it wont take you 3 years to plan or implement changes as any information at this point will change and you will have to change anything you may have already done type thing ;)
You wait for the Beta release before you can really even start planning for anything.
I don't develop in VB6 (or in any other programming languages) under Vista either.Quote:
Originally Posted by RhinoBull
Believe it or not, I bought a new computer equipped with Vista Premium just to test my software and make sure it is compatible with this new OS version.
I find it depressing to have to close tens of pop-up wiindows asking for confirmation whatever intentional action I do. XP allows me to work in a decent way instead.
Unfortunately, I can't neglect the fact that Vista is inevitably going to replace XP in the foreseeable future and, if I want to continue to sell software, I am obliged to take it into serious consideration.
For the same reason, I think every programmer should worry about future developments in the field of operating systems and should try to anticipate them in terms of compatibility issues.
Yes, but you shouldnt take it to the extremes ;)
Ive had no issues working with VB 6 on Vista for a couple of production apps so far. I only use my XP system for email and testing of my apps for compatibility.
My .NET apps have been more developed on my Vista system without issue either.
Ps, you can easily turn off the UAC. :)
Sure. We should cross that bridge when we come to it and avoid putting the cart before the horse (just to use a couple of idiomatic expressions) since a lot of things may change in three years.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
Yet, I still believe in the importance of prevention and, for this reason, I think it is essential to collect information in order to get ready for the future. Right now, I am not going to change anything in my software development, since we don't have reliable information on the future of Windows yet --- just rumours.
I think history can teach us a lot of things: for example, the Sendkeys issue had been in the air for months before Vista's final release and, thanks to that, people could take the necessary measures.
Now, if MS's intention is to make VB6 applications incompatible with Windows 7, this is vital information that needs to be verified as soon as possible.
I would think that if that was dropped in windows 7 then they wouldnt say anything until its beta because once the OS is out its more set in stone and you know how much of a stink there will be made if its true. But in order to make any forward progress, the past has to be let go of at some point.
I am firmly convinced that VB6 does not represent the past. It is a reliable programming tool that allows you to develop any kind of software you may need in an office/working environment.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
What's the point in making it incompatible with the OS? The only reason I can see for it is commercial: MS may want all of us to switch to .NET for purely commercial reasons. That's what I am afraid of.
Could be true but technology-wize I would think there are some backward compatibility issues that are just not cost effective or possible to keep supporting in future OS versions as new OS' advance forward.
That's the whole point. They may not be cost effective for MS but they might mean a tragedy for those who have invested years and years in developing VB6 applications. Let's wait and see...Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
Are 2005 and 2008 using same code/syntax? 2008 just has more options im guessing?
I'll make the switch once i've created me current application, guessing we can have colored tabs in VB2008 ? in vb6 is requires alot of code :(
I hope so! ...but how can you be sure? Is it official ? 100% confirmed ?Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
I'm afraid there was a misunderstanding.Quote:
Originally Posted by horazio
My sentence was, "I hardly think that, among the basic libraries that are going to be shipped with Windows 7, MS will include MSVBVM60.DLL and all the other VB6 runtime files."
So, "I hardly think..." should mean "I don't think it is likely/probable that..."
Consequently, I was not saying that MS are going to include MSVBVM60.DLL and all the other VB6 runtime files in the next release of Windows. On the contrary, I am afraid they are not.
P.S. I have just realized you are Italian. So, just to avoid any doubts, I'll translate it for you: Non penso proprio che Microsoft si preoccuperà di includere le librerie di runtime di VB6 nella versione di Windows successiva a Vista.
I don't use VB.Net because I don't have enough time to learn it yet. But i will in the next few months.
The thing is, even if VB6 can do easy apps for me, it doesn't stop me from stepping to the next level. Admit it, VB6 is old and we should catch up with times and i'm sure everyone of you is aware of the compatability issues in the future.
Why is VB6 old? What do you mean by "old"?Quote:
Originally Posted by zynder
i am afride to learn Dot.Net, because i might forget vb6 (part of my life) syntaxes. So i just signed this http://classicvb.org/petition/ , but seems an outdated petition.