.NET Stand-alone exe's and deployment

dani2, take my advice: switch to Delphi and don't waste your time with VB.NET. Microsoft issues a new version of the Framework every three years and does not care about backward compatibility. The following are two excerpts from a couple of articles which may give you two good reasons to abandon .NET:

Quote:

---

Windows Vista will not support older versions of Visual Studio, a move that will require many developers writing applications for the forthcoming operating system to upgrade to Visual Studio 2005, a Microsoft executive said Tuesday.

Developers writing Vista-compatible applications will be unable to use Visual Studio 2002 or Visual Studio 2003 if those are running on top of the new operating system, wrote S. Somasegar, vice president of Microsoft's developer division, in a blog entry.

---

You can read the entire article on:
http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/...oupdate_1.html

Quote:

---

A recent Evans Data survey shows that the use of Microsoft's Visual Basic among developers is down significantly, but Microsoft says otherwise.

Evans Data, in Santa Cruz, Calif., conducted a study of more than 430 developers in North America and determined that the use of Visual Basic, "one of the most popular computer languages throughout the last 15 years, is eroding dramatically," Evans said in a news release on the issue.
ADVERTISEMENT

According to Evans Data's Fall 2006 North American Development Survey, overall, developer use of the Visual Basic family has dropped off by 35 percent since last spring.

Moreover, Evans said, "As expected, developers are finally leaving VB6 and earlier versions; they're also leaving VB.NET; which is down by 26 percent. This means Java now holds the market penetration lead at 45 percent, followed by C/C++ at 40 percent, and C# at 32 percent."

---

You can read the entire article on:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2065392,00.asp

Delphi will allow you to develop standalone applications and will also enable you to write .NET programs using exactly the same code.

I think this thread is going to end up going in an entirely different direction instead of general help...

Quote:

---

Delphi will allow you to develop standalone applications and will also enable you to write .NET programs using exactly the same code.

---

thus.. requiring the delphi people to have the .net framework...

Esposito,
That is just a matter of personal preference. In my opinion, it is best to stay up to date with new releases so that you have all the new bells and whistles to work with. So I believe that it is a good thing that Microsoft does not make it backwards compatible. You shouldn't be stuck in a previous versions when new ones with new features are available. That only makes you less competative than other developers. Also, if a company can't afford 500-700 dollars to upgrade every couple of years, they should stop developing.

What are you talking about! :eek:

VB 6 is supported on Vista. I even have it installed on my final release RTM version with SP6 all running fine. They werent going to support it in the beginning but later opted to include support for VB 6.Perhaps reading my thread on installing VB 6 on Vista will help - http://vbforums.com/showthread.php?t=440812

Also, for .NET, 2002 and 2003 do run but have some minor issues and MS is not wanting to fix these minor issues as they are fixing the ones on 2005. Its just a technicality that MS states they are not supported. The do install and do run.

Not to mention that on Vista, all 4 framework versions are installed by default so a stand alone exe is absolutely possible.

not like its anything new.. lets see.. there was a vb runtime for each of the old VB languages, different ones for version 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Other programming languages have different versions as well. Lets see.. Delphi 4.. 5.. 6.. 7... 8.. you need the newer libraries to do the newer stuff..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobDog888

VB 6 is supported on Vista. I even have it installed on my final release RTM version with SP6 all running fine. They werent going to support it in the beginning but later opted to include support for VB 6.

---

Yes, thank God, it is supported on Vista. And, believe it or not, I made my contribution by inciting MS to sort out backwards compatibility issues, as you can read on
http://blogs.msdn.com/davbosch/archi...26/539470.aspx

Quote:

---

not like its anything new.. lets see.. there was a vb runtime for each of the old VB language, different ones for version 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Other programming languages have different versions as well. Lets see.. Delphi 4.. 5.. 6.. 7... 8.. sounds the same to me...

---

Applications developed in Delphi 4, 5, 6, 7 etc. do not require any runtime files to run. You can't put VB and Delphi on the same level.

Quote:

---

You shouldn't be stuck in a previous versions when new ones with new features are available. That only makes you less competative than other developers.

---

The price you have to pay (the Framework) to take advantage of the new features is too high. People don't change just for the sake of changing. That's why VB is so down among developers. I honestly believe that .NET is Microsoft's grave. Today people depend on gigabytes of COM-based software. When they are forced to throw away all the applications they have, they will surely take a look at alternative operating systems. And they may just kiss MS goodbye.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by esposito

Today people depend on gigabytes of COM-based software.

---

Because old VB has been around for ages... give .NET 10 years and then lets see if people still have tons of that com-based stuff anymore or if they realized it was time to switch over by then (or just get stubborn about change)...

.NET is still a baby...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gigemboy

Because old VB has been around for ages... give .NET 10 years and then lets see if people still have tons of that com-based stuff anymore or if they realized it was time to switch over by then...

.NET is still a baby...

---

.NET is a baby that was born under an unlucky star. MS is doing its best to make developers hate it. Just think of how easy it is to reverse-engineer a .NET executable if you don't take your precautions resorting to COM-based software.

Today people use Windows because their software runs on Windows. When their software stops running, they will investigate what the market can offer in terms of operating systems. .NET has been losing ground over the last few years, so I have my doubts it is going to replace the COM technology in the foreseable future. If MS decides to break compatibility with COM, it would just shoot itself in the foot. Linux can't wait for MS to make such a mistake.

For a reference... take a look at DirectX 10 vs any previous DirectX stuff. DirectX 10 was built from the ground up throwing out all of the old legacy backwards compatibility crap that was holding it down...

http://www.winmatrix.com/forums/inde...showtopic=9550

Gamers everywhere are salivating over what they are seeing because of it...

The moral... I dunno.. does it fit in with the topic? Sorta.. but not specifically.. is this my last post on this thread? Maybe...

To each his own. Program what you like to program in, or what you are paid to program in.

I go back to punch cards my friends. Few languages I haven't programmed professionally in over the years. Here are my thoughts:

While I resent having a decade of training, knowledge, and comfort yanked out from underneath me with MS decision to go .NET with VB (making it virtually a different language), I would be a fool not to realize that .NET is the direction forward, and VB6 backward (or at least stagnant).

I remember the days when Borland tried going head-to-head with MS on center stage. Borland consistantly had the better product, MS the better marketing. Those who opted to stick with "TurboPascal" got left behind, as did die-hard fanatics of PowerSoft's PowerBuilder. Hell, even productivity apps like Enable, VisiCalc, WordPerfect, or OS like GEOS, OS2, etc all went by the wayside and people got left behind.

Is Microsoft evil? Maybe, but they run the roost for now... Is .NET bloated crap? Can't say for sure, but it likely doesn't matter, if it's the future. I'll change programming platforms when 80% of computer users are running LiNUx boxes with Solaris and OpenOffice. Till that time, it's the MS path for me (I like being able to buy groceries and watch my cable TV)

For what it's worth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser Sousse

While I resent having a decade of training, knowledge, and comfort yanked out from underneath me with MS decision to go .NET with VB (making it virtually a different language), I would be a fool not to realize that .NET is the direction forward, and VB6 backward (or at least stagnant).

---

VB6 is getting stagnant just because MS wants it to become so for purely commercial reasons. I'm not sure .NET is the direction forward. The most important innovation .NET can offer is the use of byte code instead of (COM) native code. Nevertheless, byte code has its pros and cons. One of the advantages is that it allows you to develop desktop and Web-based software. One of the disadvantages is that byte code is tremendously easy to crack or even reverse-engineer. Consequently, if you develop desktop programs for the general public, .NET may not be the ideal tool to use. Most VB6 developers couldn't care less about byte code, otherwise they would have switched to Java a long time ago. The second important issue is the Framework hell that makes application deployment an enormous headache.

Quote:

---

I remember the days when Borland tried going head-to-head with MS on center stage. Borland consistantly had the better product, MS the better marketing. Those who opted to stick with "TurboPascal" got left behind, as did die-hard fanatics of PowerSoft's PowerBuilder. Hell, even productivity apps like Enable, VisiCalc, WordPerfect, or OS like GEOS, OS2, etc all went by the wayside and people got left behind.

---

These days more and more people are abandoning Visual Basic to switch to alternative programming platforms, such as Delphi. If "developer use of Visual Basic plummets" there must be a reason for it. So, don't take for granted that the situation today is the same as some years ago. Switching to something new must be advantageous, otherwise you just don't switch. .NET has uprecedented compatibility issues (the passage from a version of VB to a new one had never been so problematic) and many people like me are now looking for alternative tools. And with good reasons.

Quote:

---

Is Microsoft evil? Maybe, but they run the roost for now... Is .NET bloated crap? Can't say for sure, but it likely doesn't matter, if it's the future. I'll change programming platforms when 80% of computer users are running LiNUx boxes with Solaris and OpenOffice. Till that time, it's the MS path for me (I like being able to buy groceries and watch my cable TV)

For what it's worth.

---

MS is not evil. MS has just made a haphazard commercial move which could endanger its monopoly of developing tools and operating systems. Forcing millions of developers to switch to .NET can backfire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by esposito

One of the disadvantages is that byte code is tremendously easy to crack or even reverse-engineer. Consequently, if you develop desktop programs for the general public, .NET may not be the ideal tool to use.

---

Yes, I am somewhat dismayed from what I am coming to understand about the security/crackability of .NET. However, this has been the case for years with Java, and VB prior to v.6 (arguably v.5). In any event, if these crackers can decompile projects actually written by security firms, governmental agencies, or the military (happens every day) and write viruses or malware that infect or compromise Norton and the like, I am sure they will be able to hack their way through my code no matter what language it's written in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by esposito

Framework hell makes application deployment an enormous headache.

---

I wont disagree, however, I was never a huge fan of [COM/DCOM] DLL hell either. Not sure which is the better of two evils, but I am betting it's probably .NET (it's always possible to program a better installation scheme for the framework - or wait till someone else does it, but impossible to do likewise with DLL conflicts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by esposito

So, don't take for granted that the situation today is the same as some years ago. Switching to something new must be advantageous

---

I agree... wholeheartedly - exactly why I utilize and promote PHP/MySQL over ASP/SQL-Server... more easily supported, maintained, resourced, and ported. When Microsoft figures out a way to buy the internet and they hold an 80%+ share of that pie, I will go ASP .NET. But for local and distributed apps, I am finding myself biting down and swallowing the inevitable - .NET is it for now

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser Sousse

Yes, I am somewhat dismayed from what I am coming to understand about the security/crackability of .NET. However, this has been the case for years with Java, and VB prior to v.6 (arguably v.5). In any event, if these crackers can decompile projects actually written by security firms, governmental agencies, or the military (happens every day) and write viruses or malware that infect or compromise Norton and the like, I am sure they will be able to hack their way through my code no matter what language it's written in.

---

The problem with .NET executables is that they can be disassembled even by inexperienced programmers, who represent the real danger. VS.NET itself provides users with a decompiling tool, incredible as this may seem. Cracking a VB6 executable is much harder and this is certainly a sefeguard against the average hacker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser Sousse

I wont disagree, however, I was never a huge fan of [COM/DCOM] DLL hell either. Not sure which is the better of two evils, but I am betting it's probably .NET (it's always possible to program a better installation scheme for the framework - or wait till someone else does it, but impossible to do likewise with DLL conflicts.

---

With VB6 and/or Delphi you can develop standalone executables if you avoid referencing external DLLs. As you know, the basic VB6 runtime files are provided by the OS, so you don't need to distribute them. VB.NET does not allow you to do so, instead. Even the smallest application obliges the final user to install an enormous virtual machine that may not be worth the effort, if you can develop the same software using VB6.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser Sousse

I agree... wholeheartedly - exactly why I utilize and promote PHP/MySQL over ASP/SQL-Server... more easily supported, maintained, resourced, and ported. When Microsoft figures out a way to buy the internet and they hold an 80%+ share of that pie, I will go ASP .NET. But for local and distributed apps, I am finding myself biting down and swallowing the inevitable - .NET is it for now

---

On the contrary, I believe that it makes a lot of sense to use ASP.NET for the development of Web based programs, since you can have full control of your server and the final user does not need to have anything installed on his or her machine to take advantage of your software. The real problem regards local software, which does not run at all if the user does not have the Framework.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by esposito

inexperienced programmers represent the real danger

---

True, as I mentioned with Java etal... but with a modicum of care, this needs not be the issue it appears to be. For example: If you have some experience with VB6, C++, or the like (which I realize not everyone has), you can create non-NET dlls which the components of your .NET app must reference to work properly. Add the soft layer of obfuscation that is incorporated in VB2005 (assuming non-commercial) or some other obfuscation, and you have something that is very likely to beat the casual cracker. Further this premise by a dolup of encrypted references acting as control-keys and you have a fairly tight assembly of code. Hell, the mere fact that one would have to go back and forth between the three would disuade all but the most dedicated of sorts.

Doing this (again, assuming some background experience) allows you to leverage the incredible benefits to VB2005 (if only the interface and new controls... not to mention OO, the "My" object, and others) while being somewhat safe from crackers - making the trouble worth it in my opinion.

Bottom line I guess is that for .NET to offer what it does, the framework and lack of security may be a necessary evil. Sure, I bet there would be a way to design .NET with out such troubles, but it would likely be less flexible and present its own forms of headaches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by esposito

On the contrary, I believe that it makes a lot of sense to use ASP.NET for the development of Web based programs, since you can have full control of your server and the final user does not need to have anything installed on his or her machine to take advantage of your software.

---

As a web developer, I often have little to no choice as to the server that is used. well over 80% of servers are either Unix or LINUX based, and almost 100% of those use MySQL or PostGre (ya can't beat free :D )

Add to this the occasional need to redeploy a web app, or create generic websites (aka templates) that will eventually reside on "whoknowswhere" servers and there is a complelling reason to go PHP/MySQL.

Occasionally I do have to write ASP apps (either internet or intranet) and it is a rare joy, but hey PHP is pretty cool too, and from a client's point of view, if I get hit by a bus or have a siezure from pure agata trying to collect my money from them, they have a viable alternative with a wealth of programmers proficient in PHP (typically much cheaper than ASP programmers)

Every programmer represents a world of its own. There's no such thing as good programming languages or bad programming languages. VB.NET surely has pros and cons, as I said. So does VB6.

All I mean is, if the software you want to create can be developed in VB6 or Delphi, it does not make any sense to use VB.NET. And the reasons for it are exactly the ones we have mentioned: the Framework hell and lack of security. What's the point in developing software for the general public if the final user may not be able to run it? And what's the point in developing commercial software if it can be reverse-engineered in a couple of minutes, cracked and recompiled?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by esposito

With VB6 and/or Delphi you can develop standalone executables if you avoid referencing external DLLs. As you know, the basic VB6 runtime files are provided by the OS, so you don't need to distribute them. VB.NET does not allow you to do so, instead. Even the smallest application obliges the final user to install an enormous virtual machine that may not be worth the effort, if you can develop the same software using VB6.

---

I am tired of this argument that always seems to come up, on "VB6 runtime is included in the O/S". Umm.. of course it was, because it has been out for so darn long, since the 80's. .NET came out AFTER XP, so what the heck do you expect. Have them magically make it appear on everyones system through an intricate network of cute software fairies? Its been available as a download on Windows Updates for the longest, its up to the user to click the button to install it. The first new desktop windows O/S finally came out that was built AFTER .NET, Vista, and hmmm lets see. Every Framework version is included with it. Amazing? No. It was expected and should be common sense...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gigemboy

I am tired of this argument that always seems to come up, on "VB6 runtime is included in the O/S". Umm.. of course it was, because it has been out for so darn long, since the 80's. .NET came out AFTER XP, so what the heck do you expect. Have them magically make it appear on everyones system through an intricate network of cute software fairies? Its been available as a download on Windows Updates for the longest, its up to the user to click the button to install it. The first new desktop windows O/S finally came out that was built AFTER .NET, Vista, and hmmm lets see. Every Framework version is included with it. Amazing? No. It was expected and should be common sense...

---

So, when Vista becomes the most widespread OS in the world, it may make sense to switch to .NET. For the time being, VB6 can assure you a larger share of customers and, at the same time, it will prevent your software from being reverse-engineered without having to resort to expensive third-party obfuscators.

Nevertheless, if MS comes up with a new version of the Framework in a couple of years, the problem will present itself again, and we'll have to wait for the next release of Windows. Shortly speaking, distributing a 20MB virtual machine is not as easy as distributing a 2MB runtime file. Deploying a .NET application will always be a headache.

When I read statements like the following:

Quote:

---

Developers writing Vista-compatible applications will be unable to use Visual Studio 2002 or Visual Studio 2003 if those are running on top of the new operating system, wrote S. Somasegar, vice president of Microsoft's developer division, in a blog entry.

---

I can't help coming to the conclusion that .NET is the best tool a developer can choose to commit suicide.

At least 2 of the better obfuscators provide a way to run .NET apps on computers without the framework. In turns of customers that is 2-3 sold copies of basic software (23 lines of code, custom clipboard contents retrieval, 3x workspeed increase, used on 5 workstations, each bringing me ~$150).

So, find 4 customers, invest the profit and start targetting ALL users with or without the framework. If you think some $ hundreds is too much, you are off target right now anywayz :)

When I was wondering an year ago with what language to start, I found many suggestions about .NET, vb 6, c++ and they all seemed legitimate. I am glad I managed to choose the easiest and still the most useful one but surely others continue to be negatively influenced by some hypothetical cash advantages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by esposito

For the time being, VB6 can assure you a larger share of customers

---

I would have to agree that developing in VB6 would arguably provide you a larger base of programmers and support staff (for now) for the end result, but if you're the developer (and supporting your own product) I can't see how it would matter what you wrote the app in; VB6, Delphi, PowerBuilder, Java, .NET, whatever... as long as it was Windows based and shipped with the necessary dlls, etc. Hell, I imagine there are probably still people programming in "Toolbook" - as long as it gets the job done (though I don't suggest investing any time learning nor monies buying outdated languages).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by esposito

Nevertheless, if MS comes up with a new version of the Framework in a couple of years, the problem will present itself again, and we'll have to wait for the next release of Windows.

---

I can think of well over 8 versions of the VBRun dll since version 4 alone not to mention the myriad patches upgrades and bug fixes... isn't that sort of the same thing? The only reason you aren't likely to see many new upgrade needs for VBRun is that it is no longer supported (which sort of reinforces the point about going .NET). I'm personally still on the fence as to whether I like VB.NET, but I have to say, since v.2005 came out (with NET2.0), I am leaning toward it (be very interested in seeing what 3.0 offers).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by esposito

Developers writing Vista-compatible applications will be unable to use Visual Studio 2002 or Visual Studio 2003 if those are running on top of the new operating system

---

Not positive, but I thought I read something from the Microsoft site saying that the particular statement you reference was either taken out of context or was simply wrong. Again, I don't know for sure, but I am almost positive some mention of Vista working with not only Office, but also VB6 apps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half

At least 2 of the better obfuscators provide a way to run .NET apps on computers without the framework.

---

So, you are talking about obfuscators which help you not only obfuscate the byte code but also compile your .NET app in such a way as to make it independent of the Framework. And how large is the standalone executable you get? Does it contain pieces of the Framework inside? Does it rest on Win32?

Thread split as it went off topic. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser Sousse

I can think of well over 8 versions of the VBRun dll since version 4 alone not to mention the myriad patches upgrades and bug fixes... isn't that sort of the same thing? The only reason you aren't likely to see many new upgrade needs for VBRun is that it is no longer supported (which sort of reinforces the point about going .NET). I'm personally still on the fence as to whether I like VB.NET, but I have to say, since v.2005 came out (with NET2.0), I am leaning toward it (be very interested in seeing what 3.0 offers).

---

I thought I had already explained that the difference between VBRUN and .NET is the size. You can't deal with the .NET virtual machine as if you were dealing with VBRUN. There's just no comparison in terms of size.

Quote:

---

Not positive, but I thought I read something from the Microsoft site saying that the particular statement you reference was either taken out of context or was simply wrong. Again, I don't know for sure, but I am almost positive some mention of Vista working with not only Office, but also VB6 apps.

---

VB6 will work on Vista. The statement by S. Somasegar I quoted referred to Visual Studio 2002 and Visual Studio 2003.

Right, but I have also read on the ms site where they officially state that 2003 will install and run but with minor "issues". I'll look for it again if you want. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobDog888

Right, but I have also read on the ms site where they officially state that 2003 will install and run but with minor "issues". I'll look for it again if you want. :)

---

Yes, but even those "minor issues" should be unacceptable. We are talking about an expensive programming platform released very few years ago which already has compatibility problems. How can I trust .NET in the future? Don't you find it depressing that Microsoft is not fully compatible with Microsoft?

The standalone app is always approx 14MB bigger. I didn't know that in order to target more clients, the programs not only have to run without the framework but also to be small. Do they also have to be black & white for those with monochromes or mouseless for the majority with broken mice out there?

But we must make sacrafices in order to move forward with technology that will only help improve our programming and programming speed in the future. So yes/no as I can understand if one pays big $ for an IDE only to have it have "issues" in a few years down the road. But then they could just not upgrade to Vista or such as a way of retaining the "stability" they want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half

The standalone app is always approx 14MB bigger. I didn't know that in order to target more clients, the programs not only have to run without the framework but also to be small. Do they also have to be black & white for those with monochromes or mouseless for the majority with broken mice out there?

---

The point is, why should a programmer buy a third-party tool to make VB.NET do something that VB6 does natively? Unless VB6 does not allow you to do what VB.NET does, there's no point in throwing away the experience you may have accumulated in the last ten years. With .NET you have to start from scratch and 90 percent of your previous knowledge becomes useless.

But with .NET its more of a RAD development studio then VB 6 ever was. One property setting to make a form "always on top" in .NET vs. in VB 6 having to use an API call, define consts and make the call passing the forms handle to it too.

VB 6 knowledge is not useles as the only real difference in .NET is that if you didnt have any OOP knowledge in VB 6 you will need it now in .NET. Logic and being familiar with controls and databases etc is never useless as it can always be applied to any other programming language or IDE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobDog888

But we must make sacrafices in order to move forward with technology that will only help improve our programming and programming speed in the future. So yes/no as I can understand if one pays big $ for an IDE only to have it have "issues" in a few years down the road. But then they could just not upgrade to Vista or such as a way of retaining the "stability" they want.

---

I agree with you: we must make sacrifices to keep updated. The problem is, I'm not sure .NET represents the future. If, after so many years, we still have forums dedicated to VB6, like this one, I think it is legitimate to believe that the final game for the monopoly of programming tools is still being played.

Many former VB6 programmers have already switched to Delphi, others to Java, a few others to REALbasic. There is a lot of disappointment with what .NET can offer and the articles I quoted in my first post in this thread seem to confirm it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobDog888

But with .NET its more of a RAD development studio then VB 6 ever was. One property setting to make a form "always on top" in .NET vs. in VB 6 having to use an API call, define consts and make the call passing the forms handle to it too.

VB 6 knowledge is not useles as the only real difference in .NET is that if you didnt have any OOP knowledge in VB 6 you will need it now in .NET. Logic and being familiar with controls and databases etc is never useless as it can always be applied to any other programming language or IDE.

---

I was referring to the tons of VB6 code that every programmer (I bet) has stored in a personal database to be used with a simple copy-and-paste operation. That code must be re-written from scratch. (The migration tool provided by MS is a joke.)

Yes, but VB 6 has been active for may years since version 1.0 If we give .NET the same opportunity then we still have several years to wait and see how it really does. 2005 was a big change that integrated allot of what programmers liked about VB 6. With "My" and the ability to edit and continue, access a form the same way you do in VB 6 instead of it being truely OOP are big "improvements" and "compromises" in an effort to draw more VB 6 programmers over to the .NET side.

Also, the free versions of Express are Microsofts ploy to make the transition to .NET much more easy for the non-professional programmer as well as the small professional programmer that can not afford to make the large investment in a new IDE.

True, either it is conservatism or moving on. A few can afford to swim against the current and they are the most powerful persons on Earth. The rest effectively have no choice. I am lucky I started with the framework and have nothing to leave behind in this regard. However all my life I've been changing schools, cities and even countries and all for the better. It is possible that your level of experience can be regained very fast should you decide to move on. Many PROs think that the new concept is a lot more user-friendly(the user being the developer here)

All I need to see is a bunch of Len()s in order to know right away how to neatly rewrite a presented code. This often results in rejections of course as I keep forgetting the veto power of chief programmers over managers :)

My point is, holding back to the past not only halts personal evolving but causes businesses to operate with clumsy apps that take 3x longer to be created in the 1st. place.

I won't even comment on developing mobile applications mostly because not many developers care about that (although it is very profitable). Mhm, they actually don't care, because they still think about embedded VB and a lot of hair pulling out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobDog888

Yes, but VB 6 has been active for may years since version 1.0 If we give .NET the same opportunity then we still have several years to wait and see how it really does. 2005 was a big change that integrated allot of what programmers liked about VB 6. With "My" and the ability to edit and continue, access a form the same way you do in VB 6 instead of it being truely OOP are big "improvements" and "compromises" in an effort to draw more VB 6 programmers over to the .NET side.

Also, the free versions of Express are Microsofts ploy to make the transition to .NET much more easy for the non-professional programmer as well as the small professional programmer that can not afford to make the large investment in a new IDE.

---

These are very good points and I do appreciate what MS is doing.

Sooner or later, I will have to switch to .NET, even against my will. The problem with .NET regards the present, not the future.

I really hope that Vista will spread as fast as possible. When it does, I will surely make up my mind to face the transition. I also hope that, by then, MS will have sorted out the security issue with the .NET byte code.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by esposito

I was referring to the tons of VB6 code that every programmer (I bet) has stored in a personal database to be used with a simple copy-and-paste operation. That code must be re-written from scratch. (The migration tool provided by MS is a joke.)

---

I missed this post.

Well some of your code library will be obsolete as the "always on top" scenerio I presented. No longer will you need a library entry for that as a single property will be even faster then looking it up in a code respoitory.

So I really dont see a need for probably 50% of code libraries as a guestimate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by esposito

These are very good points and I do appreciate what MS is doing.

Sooner or later, I will have to switch to .NET, even against my will. The problem with .NET regards the present, not the future.

I really hope that Vista will spread as fast as possible. When it does, I will surely make up my mind to face the transition. I also hope that, by then, MS will have sorted out the security issue with the .NET byte code.

---

Vista is planning to be the fastest acceptance and usage as Microsoft has provided so much more quality testing and bug fixes before releasing it to RTM last month. So it wont be the big story about how many new security holes it will have when it comes out. The security in Vista is hailed as the most secure OS Microsoft has ever put out. http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvist.../security.mspx Plus, when you add in the UAC, all the new GDI+ graphics capabilities, side gadgets, Side-By-Side Assemblies (which are deemed to prevent dll hell), drive encryption of data, and a publically available "Windows Upgrade Advisor" which evaluates your systems hardware for compatibility of runnning Vista I cant wait to see its usage by more and more people so as they see what its all about. Not to mention being able to start developing apps that take advantage of all its features. I am already starting to develop for Vista and that things they give you access to is awesome! :thumb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobDog888

I missed this post.

Well some of your code library will be obsolete as the "always on top" scenerio I presented. No longer will you need a library entry for that as a single property will be even faster then looking it up in a code respoitory.

So I really dont see a need for probably 50% of code libraries as a guestimate.

---

I have installed the Express Edition of VB 2005 on my computer and played around with it. The IDE is just great, the tools you have at your disposal are so many that they make you feel strong. I would love to put VB6 on the shelf and develop my new commercial software in VB.NET. I would even be ready to bury my VB6 code repository. Unfortunately, I did a personal survey among my customers (a few hundred users) and I found that the majority of them did not have the Framework v.1.1 on their machines. So, I decided to put off the idea of embracing the .NET technology to a better future. In the meantime, I looked around and I found a free version of Borland Delphi the potential of which is definitely superior to VB6. Right now, I am developing my new software in Delphi, while keeping an eye on the evolution of .NET.

But the framework is freely downloadable. Once its installed your apps wont have to install it again.

I am glad to hear that you do like the .NET Express edition and just wait to see how much more you get with Pro or Enterprize editions. :D If your clients are running XP then there is a good chance they have the framework or will have it unless they are running 98 or 2000 pro? You could always learn .NET on the side to see what it can really do and when the need comes (which it definately will) you will be ready to hit the ground running instead of just starting to get familiar with .NET :)[/color]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobDog888

But the framework is freely downloadable. Once its installed your apps wont have to install it again.

I am glad to hear that you do like the .NET Express edition and just wait to see how much more you get with Pro or Enterprize editions. :D If your clients are running XP then there is a good chance they have the framework or will have it unless they are running 98 or 2000 pro? You could always learn .NET on the side to see what it can really do and when the need comes (which it definately will) you will be ready to hit the ground running instead of just starting to get familiar with .NET :)[/color]

---

Yes, this is exactly what I am doing. I am just exploring the potential of .NET not to be caught unprepared in the future. In the meantime, I am developing my commercial applications in either VB6 or Delphi.

Believe it or not, many users running XP do not have any version of the .NET Framework installed on their machines. I assume they have deactivated the Windows Update automatic function.

I can't be bothered reading most of this thread, so please accept my apologies if this has been posted before.

Regarding the 'crackability' point - most business applications run on a server-client model. When the client does not have the permissions, or indeed the method, to access the server-side executables, whether those executables can be easily reverse-engineered or not is irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by penagate

I can't be bothered reading most of this thread, so please accept my apologies if this has been posted before.

Regarding the 'crackability' point - most business applications run on a server-client model. When the client does not have the permissions, or indeed the method, to access the server-side executables, whether those executables can be easily reverse-engineered or not is irrelevant.

---

The security issue I was addressing dealt with the "crackability" of commercial software developed for the general public, e.g. shareware applications or any software in trial version. My concern is that, if you develop shareware in .NET byte code and you don't protect it with a good obfuscator, you will possibly find its cracked version on the Web the day after you release it.

I'm still reading the thread but you can find cracked versions of almost all shareware stuff that is written in languages like C++ anyway.

Either way it comes down to the ethics of your customers of whether they are going to pay you for it or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by penagate

I'm still reading the thread but you can find cracked versions of almost all shareware stuff that is written in languages like C++ anyway.

Either way it comes down to the ethics of your customers of whether they are going to pay you for it or not.

---

I have been selling shareware for more than ten years and I can tell you for sure that 50 percent of the customers who bought my software would not have bought it if they could have found a cracked version somewhere. Cracking a VB6 application requires quite an effort. On the contrary, .NET software could even be reverse-engineered (and re-compiled) by amateur hackers.

Yes, that is a problem. One day I hope to have some commercial software so I want to learn more about security.

Hmm, I'm interesting about this :

Quote:

---

reverse-engineered (and re-compiled) by amateur hackers.

---

I know that VS2002 and 2003 have this issues. But how about 2005 ? Can you give a sample tools that can reverse VS 2005 code ? I've read that VS itself provide this tools. Where can I find it ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michaelrawi

Hmm, I'm interesting about this :


I know that VS2002 and 2003 have this issues. But how about 2005 ? Can you give a sample tools that can reverse VS 2005 code ? I've read that VS itself provide this tools. Where can I find it ?

---

Reflector Free. Produced code is not what I would use.
Salamander Costs but from what I hear the produced code is very good.

Probably others.

Don't let anybody fool you, VB6 can also be de-compiled into source. I had to do it back in 1999. The company who made a third party control went out of business. This control was used everywhere and a bug was found that effected financial calculations. Took a whole two days to find a tool, decompile, fix the bug then recompile. The code produced was ugly but it was useable.

The fact is ALL code can be decompiled. It has to be. I have seen tools that decompile c++ to java (as best it could) and vice versa.

[edit. All windows dll's and exe's up to windows xp. Don't know nothing about vista but I suspect it is the same there.]

The only thing VB6 has going for it is obscurity. Obscurity does not equal security.