VB6 is DEAD!

Shaggy, you are probably right in almost everything, but VB6->VB.NET and C++ future. Regarding VB, .NET doesn't produce native code, and regarding C++, I believe it's safe for the future. Even if MS drops it, most (if not all) C++ code can easily be moved to Linux. And that's probably what will happen if MS keeps treating costumer like they are doing lately.

Mobile is another story, specially for MS. Unless they provide something simple and efficient so developers can easily make programs for it (like VB), they will die before VB6.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carlos Rocha

That's because things evolve that programming languages should evolve too, not killed w/o a true replacement, and please don't say again that VB.NET is a replacement or an evolution.

Thanks for the link.

---

VB6 is fundamentally broken. It made more sense to start from scratch. VB.Net fixed all that was wrong with VB6 and it added all the amenities of a modern language, all of which VB6 lacked. VB6 as great as it was really weak when you compare it to other languages. Even Javascript is more advanced than VB6. For a long time C++ had a few features I wished VB had, like method overloading which I was a big fan of, when I finally decided to ignore people like you who were crying about how much VB.Net sucked and tried it for myself, I was quite elated when I discovered it had all those cute language features that Javascript and C++ had. It was such a dream come true. I loved it and I never looked back.

VB6 is a primitive and broken language. It was state of the art once but no more. It was great once, but there is far better now. Even the IDE is better. Guys like you who continually debase MS for abandoning development of VB6 really have no clue what you're talking about. Truth is, you guys are too lazy to learn VB.Net and you hide your laziness behind cynicism and spite for MS. VB.Net is different and the Gods be damned that you should spend any effort trying to learn these differences which aren't that many by the way. VB6 still works, its runtime still works. You can still maintain your VB6 apps with VB6 so there is actually no reason to complain. MS didn't break it, they just chose not to continue developing it. And why should they when they came up with a much better alternative.

Quote:

---

Sounds like a broken record since Linux has made it's appearance.

---

True. I'm trying to make the move for more than 15 years, but I never saw it so close as I see now. The problem with Linux is that it's done by...Linux guys :rolleyes:

I voted to bring it back.


VIVA VB6!!!

This thread is more alive than VB6.

Quote:

---

dclamp, I thought you were a super moberator.

---

Taking a temporary Hiatus. I will be back shortly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niya

VB6 is fundamentally broken. It made more sense to start from scratch. VB.Net fixed all that was wrong with VB6 and it added all the amenities of a modern language, all of which VB6 lacked. VB6 as great as it was really weak when you compare it to other languages. Even Javascript is more advanced than VB6. For a long time C++ had a few features I wished VB had, like method overloading which I was a big fan of, when I finally decided to ignore people like you who were crying about how much VB.Net sucked and tried it for myself, I was quite elated when I discovered it had all those cute language features that Javascript and C++ had. It was such a dream come true. I loved it and I never looked back.

VB6 is a primitive and broken language. It was state of the art once but no more. It was great once, but there is far better now. Even the IDE is better. Guys like you who continually debase MS for abandoning development of VB6 really have no clue what you're talking about. Truth is, you guys are too lazy to learn VB.Net and you hide your laziness behind cynicism and spite for MS. VB.Net is different and the Gods be damned that you should spend any effort trying to learn these differences which aren't that many by the way. VB6 still works, its runtime still works. You can still maintain your VB6 apps with VB6 so there is actually no reason to complain. MS didn't break it, they just chose not to continue developing it. And why should they when they came up with a much better alternative.

---

That's interesting bait you are using. A bit more pungent than what I currently have, but it's hard to say whether the aroma is really the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

That's interesting bait you are using. A bit more pungent than what I currently have, but it's hard to say whether the aroma is really the point.

---

Its called truth bait.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niya

Its called truth bait.

---

Are you going to reel it in or let it run for a bit, and tire itself out. I don't think you are in any danger of the reel catching fire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SJWhiteley

...or let it run for a bit, and tire itself out.

---

Like I have a choice in the matter.

One can only wonder why there is so much fear among .Netters.

Some of this may be because .Net has been deprecated except as a scripting alternative for WinRT and ASP.Net for those too challenged to write in C++. Still this is hardly enough reason, since desktop .Net now has the same status as VB6: i.e. "It just works!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dilettante

.Net now has the same status as VB6: i.e. "It just works!"

---

VB6 hasn't been updated in like a 15 years or something. The .Net Framework was updated as recently as last month. How can both these technologies have the same status ?

True, the .Net Frameworks do indeed comprise a gigantic attack surface, and require frequent security patches. I'm not sure how this is relevant though.

The last VB6 runtime update was January 2008 or so. It's pretty solid now.

Quote:

---

FORTRAN, COBOL, punch cards, and green screens.

-tg

---

Foxpro and Clipper...

Dilettante: How do you interpret ANY post in this whole thread as fear? As far as I can tell, the whole thread is made up of VB6 coders angered over a perceived (and valid, to be sure) slight by MS, a bunch of other people egging them on, and a bunch of off-topic discussions about food. I don't see any fear or anxiety in any of that.

As for .NET going away. It will one day. That's how things work. I'd sure like to know what the future holds (aside from death and taxes), but the reality on the ground is that all the people who are or will be using my apps for the next several years will be running Windows 7 or 8.1 using the desktop. .NET is the way to go for that, so that is what I am writing in. When those people move to a different platform, then I'll move to a different language. They get to go first, though.

I voted for tablet, too, but my tablet runs the Windows desktop.

Quote:

---

I'm not sure how this is relevant though.

---

It's relevant because it implies that there is active development and support for .Net. If you're not seeing security patches for VB6 it's not because there are no vulnerabilities, it's because Microsoft aren't bothering to fix them.

You're right though, VB6 is pretty stable. It has, in fact, reached a point of total stability.

My 2 cents:

VB6 developers (including myself back when I wrote in it) should of realized that with the evolution of technology in programming languages that when .net came out VB6 wasnt broken because it wouldnt open or convert to vb.net. Its like some have posted here that its the evolution of programming. We dont expect BASICA program to open in VB6 do we? No. So just because its a similar named language its not the same. It needs to be looked as a new separate language with similar syntax.

We all hate change but change is good if you embrace it. If we stay developing as our primary language in an out dated language then we dont grow or make ourselves marketable (and thus make more $ per hour etc).

If you are that much of a VB6 koolaid drinker then thats cool. Just dont expect MS or anyone to keep developing the language. You can always learn new languages while still developing to some degree in VB6 as needed

@RobDog,
VB6 was/is a RRAD (Real Rapid Application Development), and is the best choice, imho, to produce 32-bit COM binaries. VB.NET doesn't replace this and thus can't be seen as a VB6 "evolution".

So, for who wants to keep working with COM and doesn't want to move to C++, MS doesn't provide a real alternative, and one must leave to Delphi/Lazarus or whatever, or be docked in the past (no 64-bit, no full unicode, no OOP). That's why I insist that it makes sense to move VB6 to the next level within Win32/Win64 platform, not .NET

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carlos Rocha

@RobDog,
VB6 was/is a RRAD (Real Rapid Application Development), and is the best choice, imho, to produce 32-bit COM binaries. VB.NET doesn't replace this and thus can't be seen as a VB6 "evolution".

So, for who wants to keep working with COM and doesn't want to move to C++, MS doesn't provide a real alternative, and one must leave to Delphi/Lazarus or whatever, or be docked in the past (no 64-bit, no full unicode, no OOP). That's why I insist that it makes sense to move VB6 to the next level within Win32/Win64 platform, not .NET

---

Yea I know VB6 is RAD but as I posted, you would use it when needed as you should always use the best tool for the job. Also, that if that is your only or main function at work then your good but if its a once in a while task to write a COM binary then you are not moving forward and learning the newer technologies.

Quote:

---

That's why I insist that it makes sense to move VB6 to the next level within Win32/Win64 platform, not .NET

---

It doesn't matter what you insist. Your opinion doesn't count for a hill of beans. Neither does mine or anyone else's in this thread. The only people who's opinions matter are the opinions of those making the strategic decisions at Microsoft and they've made it crystal clear that they disagree with you. They're not going to provide you with the tool you want. So:-

Quote:

---

one must leave to Delphi/Lazarus or whatever

---

...why don't you?

What's the deal with COM binaries, anyways? I write programs...and squeeze fish. In all these years, I've never had a need, nor heard of anybody who had a need, to create something that was special because it was a "COM binary". After a bit of searching, I realize that it's a term that has multiple definitions, so I may be thinking of something different from the rest...or not.

So, Carlos, since you are using the term, I'll let you define it and will use your definition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

It doesn't matter what you insist. Your opinion doesn't count for a hill of beans. Neither does mine or anyone else's in this thread. The only people who's opinions matter are the opinions of those making the strategic decisions at Microsoft and they've made it crystal clear that they disagree with you. They're not going to provide you with the tool you want. So:-
...why don't you?

---

So relevant and right to the point. You even know what matters and how MS thinks internally. I'm impressed :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

What's the deal with COM binaries, anyways? I write programs...and squeeze fish. In all these years, I've never had a need, nor heard of anybody who had a need, to create something that was special because it was a "COM binary". After a bit of searching, I realize that it's a term that has multiple definitions, so I may be thinking of something different from the rest...or not.

So, Carlos, since you are using the term, I'll let you define it and will use your definition.

---

ActiveX DLLs, ActiveX OCXs, ActiveX EXEs. They can be consumed from almost any programming language, including mine. And there's a market out there for them, and some COM products are already 64-bit

Quote:

---

You even know what matters and how MS thinks internally

---

I assume that was sarcasm so I'll respond. I've used your definition of "what matters". You've laid it out enough times including in these two sentences.

Quote:

---

VB6 was/is a RRAD (Real Rapid Application Development), and is the best choice, imho, to produce 32-bit COM binaries.

---

Quote:

---

one must leave to Delphi/Lazarus or whatever

---

I don't think I've put an interpretation on that or spun it in any way. You've been quite clear.

As for what MS thinks internally, again, they've been extremely clear and explicit. They're not bringing back VB6. They're not enhancing VB6. They've given a very public and lengthy statement to that effect. Again, I don't think I'm putting any interpretation or spin on that. They've been quite clear.

So given that you know this:-

Quote:

---

move VB6 to the next level within Win32/Win64 platform

---

...is not available as an option (at least, not if you're expecting MS to deliver it) I ask again: why don't you switch to something else?

As I see it here are your options:-
1. Continue to use VB6 and "be docked in the past (no 64-bit, no full unicode, no OOP)" (your words, not mine)
2. Switch to an alternative language (I'd recommend .Net but I know you don't agree so source an alternative yourself).
3. Wait for someone else to update VB6 (It won't be MS but there are various Open Source projects out there that might come to fruition)
4. Update it yourself or get involved in an existing Open Source project

This, however, is not an option:-
5. Wait for MS to update it

So now you know what your options are (and aren't).

Pick one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carlos Rocha

So, for who wants to keep working with COM and doesn't want to move to C++, MS doesn't provide a real alternative, and one must leave to Delphi/Lazarus or whatever, or be docked in the past (no 64-bit, no full unicode, no OOP). That's why I insist that it makes sense to move VB6 to the next level within Win32/Win64 platform, not .NET

---

If this were my forum, I'd ban you for continuously and deliberately posting misleading information. Its posts like this that kept me in VB6 for as long as I stayed. There were a couple apps that would have benefited greatly if I wrote them in VB.Net instead of VB6 but no, I actually believed nonsense like this and missed out.

First of all, VB.Net can produce COM servers and COM clients. In fact, I produced a small COM server in VB.Net to enhance a VB6 app. I needed the abilities of SMO which can work with SQL Server 2005. VB6 only offered DMO which I discovered has major trouble working with SQL Server 2005. The SMO libraries were only available as .Net assemblies so I wrote the app in VB.Net and exported the functionality as COM classes. It works flawlessly to this day.

Secondly, if you're so hot on ActiveX, know that VC++ is a far superior tool for producing all manner of COM servers, more so than VB6 ever was. You can write the IDL yourself if you're building a COM server in VC++. This gives you much finer control. VB6 doesn't expose this to you. If this is soooo important to you then you should learn how to do it in VC++. I dabbled in it myself and successfully produced a COM server in C++ that a VB6 app can consume. Its not easy but its not really that difficult either. I recommend this as the best option. For you to make that ridiculous statement that MS didn't provide any alternatives for creating COM apps is blatantly false. VB6 can do it fine. VB.Net can do it fine. VC++ can do it best.

You want to move to Delphi or Lazarus or whatever, then do so, but stop spreading this misinformation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

I assume that was sarcasm so I'll respond. I've used your definition of "what matters". You've laid it out enough times including in these two sentences.


I don't think I've put an interpretation on that or spun it in any way. You've been quite clear.

As for what MS thinks internally, again, they've been extremely clear and explicit. They're not bringing back VB6. They're not enhancing VB6. They've given a very public and lengthy statement to that effect. Again, I don't think I'm putting any interpretation or spin on that. They've been quite clear.

---

Yes, it was sarcasm, glad you found it. My english is getting better.
I know they are not bringing back VB6, what I was hoping is that they could develop it to the next level, not with an "interpreted" VB like in the old days.

Quote:

---

So given that you know this:-
...is not available as an option (at least, not if you're expecting MS to deliver it) I ask again: why don't you switch to something else?

As I see it here are your options:-
1. Continue to use VB6 and "be docked in the past (no 64-bit, no full unicode, no OOP)" (your words, not mine)
2. Switch to an alternative language (I'd recommend .Net but I know you don't agree so source an alternative yourself).
3. Wait for someone else to update VB6 (It won't be MS but there are various Open Source projects out there that might come to fruition)
4. Update it yourself or get involved in an existing Open Source project

This, however, is not an option:-
5. Wait for MS to update it

So now you know what your options are (and aren't).

Pick one.

---

Good advice, I could never get there by myself, thank you.

PS: Like many others you keep saying that .NET is a language, but it isn't. It's a bloated "framework", just like women bags.

Quote:

---

what I was hoping is that they could develop it to the next level, not with an "interpreted" VB like in the old days

---

They're not going to. They've told you they're not going to. That was option 5 on my list and clearly marked as not an option. You have 4 options. Pick one.

Here is an article written back in 2006 about MS's decision to stop development of VB6 and focus on .Net. I think all the VB6 cry babies should read it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dday9

Did you run out of arguments so you had to resort to the old "The framework is big" statement? From what I understand with .NET Native(discussed on Page 1 of this thread!) will be getting rid of that argument too.

---

The VB6 runtime was no bed of roses either. I got complaints from people in the past about having to install the runtime to use VB6 apps. These were people who were used to using tools written in C++, most of which didn't require runtime installation. Also, QuickBasic didn't even need a runtime. It was statically linked into the EXE. Talking about the "big framework" is really a stupid argument against .Net because you're not really building a case for VB6 but rather a case for C++, BASICA, QuickBasic.

Point I'm making is that "big" is relative. The VB6 runtime might be small or an insignificant hassle to a VB6 developer but there are people who would consider it just as annoying as the hassle that comes with the .Net Framework. I've experienced this as I've said.

@Niya,
I had to use .NET myself to wrap something only available in the dark side. It works, but it takes forever the first time I call the library.
You are right about C++, but there was a reason for VB6 success: simplicity.

I think c++ is better for console app.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carlos Rocha

...You are right about C++, but there was a reason for VB6 success: simplicity.

---

This is the reason why people dont want to get off of it. They are too lazy to challenge themselves just a little bit and learn something new.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carlos Rocha

So relevant and right to the point. You even know what matters and how MS thinks internally. I'm impressed :rolleyes:

---

Oddly enough, that may not be far off. I happen to be related to the guy who called the meeting that ended VB6. He told me about it a few years ago. It really is just internal politics, just like every other issue: Lots of people tugging in various directions and the end result is the sum of all those vectors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carlos Rocha

PS: Like many others you keep saying that .NET is a language, but it isn't. It's a bloated "framework", just like women bags.

---

Oh...THAT explains why .NET is so popular.

Let me get my hands on a bit more .NET. Yo, Niya, show us a bit more .NET!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Oddly enough, that may not be far off. I happen to be related to the guy who called the meeting that ended VB6. He told me about it a few years ago. It really is just internal politics, just like every other issue: Lots of people tugging in various directions and the end result is the sum of all those vectors.

---

Oh so its YOUR fault! :lol:

Let me just go off and modify this old VB6 app....seriously, I now have to change a VB6 app, and it's this threads fault!

This is really an argument for VB6 never changing. This app hasn't really been changed much, but I can use an unchanged version of the VB6 IDE and know full well that there's no patches, or anything to update. It just runs.

That's the way I like it. VB6 is locked in and NOT GOING TO CHANGE. No updates and no surprises.

(Actually, I think I'm going to back-heel that little VB6 project to a minion...if I can find one that can do the job. It's all .NET this and .NET that...)

The level of commenting on the VB6 polls has dropped away to nothing. It's hard to get any new vitriol out of those threads anymore. I'm feeling listless (my list has been disposed). Carlos had a good post in the new poll thread, but he's the only one to post recently. Everybody still wants something different out of VB6, but that's nothing new. There was one new suggestion in the old petition, which was to use Access and VBA in place of VB6. The only cons they noted were....pretty much everything Carlos wants out of VB6. Not a show stopper to the person who suggested that approach, but a total non-starter for others.

Who thought the .net framework was a good idea?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witis

Who thought the .net framework was a good idea?

---

Jesus. Otherwise he wouldn't have written about it in the bible...