Everytime I see the title of this thread, I keep hearing it in Morpheus's voice. Now if people would quit taking the red pill and just take the blue one, they'd see that VB6 still works just like it did some 20 years ago.
-tg
Printable View
Everytime I see the title of this thread, I keep hearing it in Morpheus's voice. Now if people would quit taking the red pill and just take the blue one, they'd see that VB6 still works just like it did some 20 years ago.
-tg
Now that you've said that I've got a mental picture of Niya adopting the attack pose and saying "I know Lambda Functions".
Ooh, ooh, and the chief bad guys is..... Mr Schmidt.
Why not try an automatic migration approach?
<link removed by mod>
I've moved through 4 hardware platforms in my life - better to re-write and exploit all features of new realm.
Migration is for the birds ;)
Wasn't that post just advertising?
Sure looked like it to me - still just snake oil, imo.
I pondered that and I couldn't decide. It is directly relevant to the discussion but none the less it's a link to a commercial site so I'll remove it.
From my reading of the product that was linked to it does do some sutomated migration but it looked to me like there was an awful lot of manual intervention, project planning etc. I imagine it would be pretty expensive and probably isn't the answer that the likes of AxisDJ is looking for.
Someone has suggested a great idea recently - to include new Classic VB into future Windows versions (just like VBA is built into Office)! Support it by voting & commenting here. Thanks!
It's already too late for Windows 10, that's almost certainly too far along to add something as significant as that, since Windows 10 is already out in the community (though not released for sales). The poll should be for Windows 11, which is at a state where such a thing could be considered.
EDIT: I didn't realize that it wasn't a new poll when I wrote that. It's just a rehash of the earlier vote for VB6 that was closed to voting once it was formally declined. The question in that poll is one that is certain to be declined. A different submission on that site should be made with this idea, but not for Windows 10, as that's too late. I'd say it's DOA, but it will get a fair number of votes, especially since it is so easy to add votes on that site (you can add three votes at a time and repeat vote without difficulty, so padding is almost encouraged).
This flamebait thread is still alive ?
The discussion over in the User Voice, as was linked to, is still alive. I go read it every now and then when I'm feeling a need for some vitriol. It's tamed a bit, though, and is mostly a discussion on using VB6. This thread had faded away until that post revived it. If the post was advertising, it should be all over the place.
Some people really have nothing better to do.
I think it is funny that the link mentions that the silent majority did not ask for the features placed in .Net.
Obviously they did not ask for anything, nor did they express an opinion one way or the other else they would not be referred to as silent ;)
I'm not sure they can quantify as a majority either. But as we all know 62% of all statistics are made up on the spot, so who really knows.
-tg
And exaggerations are up a million percent this year!
http://visualstudio.uservoice.com/fo...-the-windows-o - Please vote for this great idea!
Unlikely to happen, When VB6 was current it cost more than Office or Windows. It would be very likely that they would revamp it and sell it at $500 a copy, much more unlikely that they would give it to you for free with Windows or Office.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikiSoft
Face it, The last version of VB6 that will be made was made in 1998
I'm not so sure about that. I don't think it will happen either, but there is some precedent within MS. DOS had MS-BASIC bundled with the OS, and they are giving away VS Professional now, so I don't think revenue is the deal breaker for them. I just don't think they want to do it. They certainly would have to revive a whole different division within MS, and that would cost a bundle. Who would they be doing that for? VB6 doesn't appear to conform to their strategy all that well, and the number of supporters, while highly vocal, is also very fractious and not all that large as far as I can tell.
If Microsoft can give Visual Studio away for free, they can afford to add the VB6 programming language and IDE to Windows (or Office). Cost shouldn't be an issue, Microsoft aren't making anything out of VB6 now.
It wouldn't need much to do this, some tidying up of the installer would allow the IDE to install on Windows 10 (you can do this now with a few 'tricks' such as creating a dummy MSJava.dll).
That alone would be worth doing, but it would be better to upgrade VB6 to have the same (handful of) modifications already added to VBA. Again not a huge cost, much of the code of VBA and VB6 is identical.
Certainly what isn't required is to upgrade VB6 to compete with VB.Net or C#. There is no intention to try and replace .Net. The overriding aim must be to retain backwards compatibility.
There is still a lot of legacy VB6 code that needs supporting, and that support sometimes requires some modification or updating of existing VB6 apps. Microsoft recommend upgrading to VB.Net but surely now, 13 years after .Net was launched, even Microsoft realize this isn't going to happen.
Microsoft have already committed to supporting VB6 until 'at least' 2024. But they only support the VB6 runtime, they do test the IDE to make sure it runs but don't officially support the IDE.
It is a simple, low cost, proposal that will help users and developers who have legacy VB6 applications - please support this request...
http://visualstudio.uservoice.com/fo...-the-windows-o
We still support some legacy VB6 apps at my work, and we have no problem supporting them at all so i am unsure what the problem is. As you can with a bit of jigging around still install Visual Studio 6.Quote:
they can afford to add the VB6 programming language and IDE to Windows
If all your asking for is for the Visual Studio 6 IDE to be verified and tested so it just installs on Windows 8 / 10 then i can see an argument for this for as long as they support the runtime.
If you want VB6 to be included in the latest version of Visual Studio then its never gonna happen as it would take a ton of work.
If you want any changes to the VB6 language itself then that's not gonna happen, MS have moved on even if all the VB6 developers haven't.
VBA is still an active part of Office and there fore is still seeing some changes, they will never put these changes into VB6.Quote:
upgrade VB6 to have the same (handful of) modifications already added to VBA
No they don't realise that, many many people have moved on from VB6 it depends on your circumstance.Quote:
Microsoft recommend upgrading to VB.Net but surely now, 13 years after .Net was launched, even Microsoft realize this isn't going to happen.
If .Net is not suitable for your needs then move to a language that is. There are plenty out there that are still supported and work better on newer OS's and on Web and Mobile.
Whether you like it or not MS is moving ever more towards a Web \ Tablet \ Mobile world, VB6 is really not suitable for this and so is not part of there thinking.
Exactly that. We do just the same and 'with a bit of jigging around' can install VB6, including on Windows 10.Quote:
We still support some legacy VB6 apps at my work, and we have no problem supporting them at all so i am unsure what the problem is. As you can with a bit of jigging around still install Visual Studio 6.
If all your asking for is for the Visual Studio 6 IDE to be verified and tested so it just installs on Windows 8 / 10 then i can see an argument for this for as long as they support the runtime.
Microsoft do test the IDE to ensure it runs correctly but it isn't 'officially' verified and tested (the runtime is though). Since Microsoft are doing the testing anyway they should take the extra step of making this 'official', so you know it will install and run even following a Windows 'patch'. And preferably without needing any jigging around of the installer.
Also, if you need an extra copy of VB6 it is difficult to get one nowadays. You can still get it as part of a MSDN subscription, otherwise you have to buy on Ebay.
So adding VB6 to Windows or Office, or making a download available (like Visual Studio Community Edition) would be welcome.
No, not that. Don't include it in Visual Studio. Unless that is the only way Microsoft would make it available.Quote:
If you want VB6 to be included in the latest version of Visual Studio then its never gonna happen as it would take a ton of work.
It is and until recently VBA and VB6 kept in step. I don't think it would be a major issue to add the extra 6 or 7 instructions to VB6, but if they refuse it wouldn't be a problem. It isn't critical.Quote:
VBA is still an active part of Office and there fore is still seeing some changes, they will never put these changes into VB6.
Many people have moved to .Net in the past (Microsoft suggest about 1 in 3 VB6 developers). Others have moved to non-Microsoft products. My point is that now, after 13 years, not many more are likely to move to .Net. Some will move to other products, most are more likely to stay with VB6 as long as it runs, and then move elsewhere (to whatever is available at the time).Quote:
No they don't realise that, many many people have moved on from VB6 it depends on your circumstance.
Not just MS but everyone. Indeed MS is a latecomer to the move to Tablet & Mobile (and even Web in the sense that JavaScript is the industry standard, not ASP.Net). Many of us are ahead of Microsoft, and have been developing for iOS and Android for some time (with non-MS tools).Quote:
Whether you like it or not MS is moving ever more towards a Web \ Tablet \ Mobile world, VB6 is really not suitable for this and so is not part of there thinking.
But the VB6 request to Microsoft is nothing to do with these - though Microsoft's latest announcements about Surface (Intel cpu, non Pro) tablets extends VB6 to tablets very nicely - it is about Windows Desktop (mainly legacy) apps.
Well yes i agree as long as they are supporting the runtime then they should verify the IDE.Quote:
Microsoft do test the IDE to ensure it runs correctly but it isn't 'officially' verified and tested (the runtime is though). Since Microsoft are doing the testing anyway they should take the extra step of making this 'official', so you know it will install and run even following a Windows 'patch'. And preferably without needing any jigging around of the installer.
I do understand why you want this, but i think it is hugely unlikely. They have made the conscious step to make the Visual Studio 6 hard to get, probably to stop new developers taking it up.Quote:
Also, if you need an extra copy of VB6 it is difficult to get one nowadays. You can still get it as part of a MSDN subscription, otherwise you have to buy on Ebay.
So adding VB6 to Windows or Office, or making a download available (like Visual Studio Community Edition) would be welcome.
Fair pointQuote:
Many people have moved to .Net in the past (Microsoft suggest about 1 in 3 VB6 developers). Others have moved to non-Microsoft products. My point is that now, after 13 years, not many more are likely to move to .Net. Some will move to other products, most are more likely to stay with VB6 as long as it runs, and then move elsewhere (to whatever is available at the time).
I would agree that MS definitely came late to web and mobile development, they are playing catch up. Whats encouraging is they finally look to be doing many of the right thing. Time will tell if they following through and deliver.Quote:
Not just MS but everyone. Indeed MS is a latecomer to the move to Tablet & Mobile (and even Web in the sense that JavaScript is the industry standard, not ASP.Net). Many of us are ahead of Microsoft, and have been developing for iOS and Android for some time (with non-MS tools).
Saying that ASP.Net today is a far better framework now than it ever was. I actually quite enjoy developing in ASP.Net with C# / HTML5 / JavaScript / JSON / REST mix.
ASP.NET is not a competitor to JS. VBScript may have been seen as a competitor to JS (though a woefully inadequate one), but not ASP.NET. The two are complimentary technologies. JS for the front end, ASP.NET for the backend makes for a pretty decent combination.
I've forgotten now, but I seem to remember that VB6 was kind of a part of VS6, but not to the same level of integration that the various .NET pieces are part of VS these days. I remember that VB6 could be obtained as an entirely stand-alone package...sort of. I thought the IDE was pretty much the same between the pieces of VS6, and VB6 was one of the languages that could be hung off that IDE. If that's correct, then I'd say that resurecting VB6 as a part of the OS might not be nearly as simple or cheap as might be hoped. If VB6 had it's own IDE, then that would be relatively easy, since it was a self contained unit. If this means resurecting VS6 to accomodate VB6...that could be a different matter.
.....Quote:
I've forgotten now, but I seem to remember that VB6 was kind of a part of VS6
What VB6 Programming was saying Shaggy was that MS already do some verification for the old Visual Studio 6, ... and i know for a fact you can install it on Win7 & 8.Quote:
If VB6 had it's own IDE, then that would be relatively easy, since it was a self contained unit. If this means resurecting VS6 to accomodate VB6...that could be a different matter.
What MS don't do is say VS6 is Verified and also you normally have to mess around a bit to get it installed, and they were wanting a nice smooth installation.
p.s. (in my mind i always say Shaggy as if i am scooby do :D)
To some extent yes. But an 'industry standard' (as far as there is such a thing) JavaScript implementation would typically be JS/HTML5 for the frontend and node.js for the backend. But you can use php or Asp.net or whatever.Quote:
ASP.NET is not a competitor to JS. VBScript may have been seen as a competitor to JS (though a woefully inadequate one), but not ASP.NET. The two are complimentary technologies. JS for the front end, ASP.NET for the backend makes for a pretty decent combination.
Yes it was part of VS6, but you could also buy VB6 without VS6. The IDE is VB6 only (similar to the VBA ide in Office).Quote:
I've forgotten now, but I seem to remember that VB6 was kind of a part of VS6, but not to the same level of integration that the various .NET pieces are part of VS these days. I remember that VB6 could be obtained as an entirely stand-alone package...sort of.
It should be easy to add to the OS or Office. VB6 does run on Windows 7,8 and 10 (Microsoft do check that the IDE runs, but only support the VB6 runtime, not the IDE).
That's because everybody can do that voice, but Shaggy is much harder to mimic because it wasn't so distinctive.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers
I don't agree with using node.js for the backend. That always seemed like the route for web developers that don't want to learn a different language. Haven't looked at it much, though, except that if it is just JS, then you are shooting yourself in the foot. It's probably better than that, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by VB6 Programming
I've been staying out of this since I too don't believe we'll ever see a native-code successor to VB6 from Microsoft. There are hundreds of reasons for them not to do it and none that they care about to do it.
But I wouldn't count node.js out just out of hand. ASP.Net brings very little to the table that can't be done better in node.js anyway. Benchmarks often don't mean much, but several have been done to compare raw server performance, e.g.:
Node.js vs. ASP.NET Web API
Even setting that aside it becomes clear that node.js doesn't mean poor performance. Indeed, scalability is the major reason it exists.Quote:
Conclusion
The out-of-the-box performance of the Node.js seems to be better than the performance of the ASP.NET Web Api + IIS7. Tweaking the IIS7’s settings could make the ASP.NET Web Api perform better but for this test the default settings of IIS7 were used.
Moving from Microsoft .NET to node.js reflects the state of things... several years ago!
Face it, for the most part .Net is as dead or alive as VB6 today. The world has moved on.
The last statement is a hoot. There are new versions of .NET coming out steadily, and there's plenty of new work being done on it. Meanwhile, VB6 has no new versions coming out.
The world hasn't moved on. People have been arguing for ABM since the early 90s. You're just one of them.
EDIT: And then I read the article including the comments. They can be summed up with: Node.JS is fast, and the other pros either are repeats of this (three of them say the same thing), or are trivial (you can use a text editor to write .NET, too, but nobody in their right mind would see that as a positive). The comments, including one by the blog author, roll back the part about Node.JS being so fast relative to ASP.NET. His final conclusion, written a few years after the blog was:
Hardly a condemnation of any technology.Quote:
Choosing the right stack is not easy, so make sure you choose the right tools for each particular project that your team feels comfortable with, whatever they are Go, nodejs, ASP.NET, Java, Ruby, Python, etc..
It isn't a question of VB vs. VFred at all.
.Net has been a slow strangulation and Microsoft is now desperately treading water to remain relevant.
The most popular US end-user operating systems, according to the federal government
Windows is down to under 59% today in the U.S. and perhaps even worse off globally.
That's remarkable erosion from its place just a few years back. Jump into a lifeboat before they're gone! ;)Quote:
By the US government's count, Windows, followed by iOS and Android, are the most popular end-user operating systems.
That OS % is a bit misleading. The percentage in use on actual computers is much higher than that, the iOS and Android come more into play in the phone market where Windows is not doing much anymore, Android is also very popular for tablets.
I wonder if they counted the Xbox in there? My guess is that they did not but did count phones which make the numbers look more favorable for other companies.
Wow this thread.....
Speaking about the language, the VS magazine said indirectly that real VB was killed, here:I think that their logical next step will be to merge VB.NET with C#, i.e. to make them to look more like each other, and eventually in the near future all will be completely replaced by C#.Quote:
The last true version of Visual Basic was 6.0, released in 1998, with support for that version lasting until 2005.
This is already happening with Mono I think. Last I read about Mono, VB.Net hadn't been updated in quite a while and C# still receives frequent updates. I think that's due to the fact that its open source though. The Mono team simply don't have the resources that a big company like MS has.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikiSoft
I think it's possible (though unlikely) that MS will drop either VB.Net or C# to be left with a single syntax and if they do it's probable that it will be VB that goes. You definitely won't see a gradual convergence of the syntaxes though, it would present too many insoluble backward compatibility issues. Personally I think you'll see both continue hand in hand for the foreseeable future. The costs to Microsoft of maintaining dual syntaxes is trivial alongside the cost of maintain and developing the underlying functionality.
It is interesting that Kevin Turner, Microsoft's chief operating officer, says Microsoft now has just a 14% share. He says "We now measure ourselves in the total device space. And in the total device space we have a 14% share."Quote:
That OS % is a bit misleading. The percentage in use on actual computers is much higher than that, the iOS and Android come more into play in the phone market where Windows is not doing much anymore, Android is also very popular for tablets.
The figure is bases on a Gartner report which says that Android will dominate with a 48% share this year, while Apple's iOS and OS X will account for 11.1% of all devices.
"When you're in a 90-plus-percent share world, you have a protected, preserved mindset," said Turner. "But when you have a 14% share you have to have a challenger mindset."
I think that they won't care for that, because VB.NET existed long enough to be abandoned. At some point in the future, they will drop it and present some migration tool, repeating the scenario of VB6 and .NET. The only difference will be that migration approach will really work because both languages rely on the same architecture i.e. only differ in the syntax, and therefore it will be easy to do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Quote:
Face it, for the most part .Net is as dead or alive as VB6 today. The world has moved on.
Doom i tell thee, Doom and Destruction for all ye Netters!Quote:
.Net has been a slow strangulation and Microsoft is now desperately treading water to remain relevant.
I think it highly unlikely they will drop either, there is just no need at least on the desktop. As FD stated the cost of maintaining both syntax's is nothing major, and there is a mature market of both C# and VB.Net developers out there using the languages. Also VB.Net is a pathway language still for users who start out using VBA in Access and Excel.Quote:
I think that their logical next step will be to merge VB.NET with C#, i.e. to make them to look more like each other, and eventually in the near future all will be completely replaced by C#.
I think it is possible that ASP.Net sometime in the future may just go C#, but then again it might not, its just most ASP.net users seem to use C# and as a language it seems to fit in the web space a bit more than VB imho.
Said with the certainty of a jilted loverQuote:
I think that they won't care for that, because VB.NET existed long enough to be abandoned. At some point in the future, they will drop it
I will now repeat some .Netters saying exactly this for VB6: There's also no need for further maintenance. Why to waste time and resources? VB.NET has evolved enough, as dilettante said it's time to move on. You know what happened to VB6 - no one believed that it will be replaced by .NET, because in that time it was the most popular language. But it happened, quite shockingly though...Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers
Market is constantly changing and every perspective company tries to adapt with that. That's why they're doing such things, which are sometimes not reasonable for us.
You completely missed what i was saying, i was responding to the idea the MS would drop one of the languages in favour of the other while .Net is still active (actively developed).Quote:
I will now repeat some .Netters saying exactly this for VB6: There's also no need for further maintenance. Why to waste time and resources? VB.NET has evolved enough, as dilettante said it's time to move on. You know what happened to VB6 - no one believed that it will be replaced by .NET, because in that time it was the most popular language. But it happened, quite shockingly though...
Market is constantly changing and every perspective company tries to adapt with that. That's why they're doing such things, which are sometimes not reasonable for us.
I unlike you have no fear of .Net being replaced with something else, as firstly it not the only language i develop in, and secondly i am not afraid of new languages, i am happy to learn and embrace them.
A Career in development is one of constant change and learning, both of which you should be prepared to do to be successful.