Admin: I'm not using VB .NET Because.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by esposito

Why is VB6 old? What do you mean by "old"?

---

I keep wondering about it myself either... But my best guess is that it's not based on "cool and modern" technology but old fasioned COM architecture.
BTW, framework is not a new idea - it's been arround since forever but "Dot Net" prefix gives it a bit more flavor and spice - just what new commers need.
They could've just made VB like VC++ - unmanaged language but since it's part of "framework" there won't be any talking and it would still be "very cool" I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brad jones

My focus in this thread is to understand why people have not moved to -- or are not going to move to -- .NET.

---

Simple: I have not found any application that I want to do which cannot be done in VB5 (I haven't even moved to VB6).

I would say that I probably would never "move" to VB-Net or any other language until all PC's everywhere refuse to run VB5-generated programs.

Mac

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Mac

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brad jones

My focus in this thread is to understand why people have not moved to -- or are not going to move to -- .NET.

---

Simple: I have not found any application that I want to do which cannot be done in VB5 (I haven't even moved to VB6).

I would say that I probably would never "move" to VB-Net or any other language until all PC's everywhere refuse to run VB5-generated programs.

Mac

---

That's incredible: I thought I was the last man on earth who is still using VB5! And, like you, I have no intention to switch to .NET in the foreseeable future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RhinoBull

I keep wondering about it myself either... But my best guess is that it's not based on "cool and modern" technology but old fasioned COM architecture.
BTW, framework is not a new idea - it's been arround since forever but "Dot Net" prefix gives it a bit more flavor and spice - just what new commers need.
They could've just made VB like VC++ - unmanaged language but since it's part of "framework" there won't be any talking and it would still be "very cool" I guess.

---

QBASIC can surely be considered outdated because DOS has now disappeared. But VB6 is not old simply because it targets Windows.

I agree with you: the Frawework is not a new idea at all, since it is an apish imitation of the Java Virtual Machine. The difference is, while Sun have always been working hard to guarantee cross-platform compatibility, MS will always try to do their best to guarantee incompatibility with any operating systems other than Windows.

You really love VB6 so much. I myself is attached to VB6 but learning other language like .Net or any other language is necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by esposito

...the Frawework is not a new idea at all, since it is an apish imitation of the Java Virtual Machine.

---

Any attempt by a software house to offer a comprehensive and consistent set of functions isn't an imitation of anything. It's simply a smart delivery method for that functionality. How in the world can anyone fault MS for producing the FW? How can JVM ever be considered revolutionary in this concept? Java entered the world in 1995!

Quote:

---

The difference is, while Sun have always been working hard to guarantee cross-platform compatibility, MS will always try to do their best to guarantee incompatibility with any operating systems other than Windows.

---

That is exactly the point of competition. The free-market economy allows for Sun to fill a void they feel that MS left. If MS was cross-platform Sun would have nothing to offer.

And just the fact that MS is producing Silverlight (available for Windows and MAC and also being created for Linux) counters all these arguments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zynder

You really love VB6 so much. I myself is attached to VB6 but learning other language like .Net or any other language is necessary.

---

If I like VB6 it's just because it allows me to make ends meet (I don't feel like using the verb "love" since I can only love women!:D ).

I would have serious problems if I had to sell .NET shareware programs, as most of my customers have got computers that are not exactly state of the art.

Learning .NET will only become necessary if MS decide to break the OS's compatibility with VB6 applications.

WHats are the future issues with VB applications?
WHats a good book for learning .Net and what version 2005? 2008? or are they the same code? :( Im a newbie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by esposito

Learning .NET will only become necessary if MS decide to break the OS's compatibility with VB6 applications.

---

It will in the near future. So study the language while you can so that you wouldn't be behind the times. If what you do is waiting for it to become incompatible to future OS, then there's a ton of reasons why you should advance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chrisj206

WHats are the future issues with VB applications?
WHats a good book for learning .Net and what version 2005? 2008? or are they the same code? :( Im a newbie

---

I would start learning VB.net soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zynder

It will in the near future. So study the language while you can so that you wouldn't be behind the times. If what you do is waiting for it to become incompatible to future OS, then there's a ton of reasons why you should advance.

---

How can you say that MS will break compatibility with VB6 apps in the near future?

As somebody already pointed out in this thread, you can even use DOS applications under XP, and VB3 programs work just fine under Vista.

It is a possibility. Well, how would i know?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zynder

It is a possibility. Well, how would i know?

---

Then don't say "it will in the near future" but "it may/could/might in the future".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chrisj206

WHats are the future issues with VB applications?
WHats a good book for learning .Net and what version 2005? 2008? or are they the same code? :( Im a newbie

---

They are the same code but 2008 has a bunch of new features and improvements. You can learn 2005 and carry that knowledge over to 208 when your ready.

Ah thank you, thats what i assumed.

Any good book recommendations or free tutorials online for conversions? Are there decent(100% bug free) programs that will convert my VB6 files to .net?

No, all the converter utilities I have seen and including the integrated Microsoft one doesnt completely and accurately convert any project 100% let alone convert the modest program without issues.

Its always best to reqrite so you can learn too unless its a enterprize size/complex app and then you can use interop forms sdk to integrate a .net form to run in your vb 6 app so you can make a progression of conversion.

@RD

Have you used the INTEROP FORMS SDK at all? We are about to develop routines to capture images using Canon camera's and thought it best to use .Net for this. But it needs to be integrated in our existing VB6 UI. The INTEROP toolkit seems (at least on the surface) to be a solution to this.

Steve

Nope, been wanting to check it out though. Been working on writting .net dll today. :thumb:

It should be good though as that is the exact reason why they produced the toolkit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

@RD

Have you used the INTEROP FORMS SDK at all? We are about to develop routines to capture images using Canon camera's and thought it best to use .Net for this. But it needs to be integrated in our existing VB6 UI. The INTEROP toolkit seems (at least on the surface) to be a solution to this.

Steve

---

Yeah it will likely work for you. It allows you to consume .NET controls and forms within your existing VB6 application. So if your keeping the exe (ui) in VB6 for now, then you can slowly migrate in .NET code until its all .NET code.

We went the opposite way with out conversion.... we converted our console container app into .NET, allowing it to host VB6 USer controls (which act as our screens) ... that way, new screens added will be done in .NET, allowing older screens to be converted as we can....jsut the simple act of building the new framework in .NET gave the app such an overhauled feel to it.

-tg

tg - that's very interesting. What allows a .net app to have VB6 forms within it?

Sounds like they were just using usercontrol and not complete vb6 forms. So a vb6 usercontrol hosted in a .net form.

RD - correct - our original framework was that there was a main MDI Parent form, and two child forms in the project. Then the ProgIDs of the controls were in the database. When a particular form was needed, a new child form instance was created, the ProgID of the control was passed to it, and the control is created and added to the form.

With .NET, we are getting away from that model, and going to true forms in the app. But we still needed to be able to instanciate the UCs and plop them onto a (now) .NET form.... sounds easy, but based on the grumblings that came from our architect's cube.... it wasn't so easy (it was mostly licensing issues with some of the third party controls we used.)

-tg

I've closed this thread since it's gotten away from the original question. Brad can of course reopen it if he wants to.