Extending VB6

[Episcopal]

As everyone should know, Microsoft extended the life of VB6 in win10 and win2019. By the way, we also know that Microsoft tried to forward VB6ers to VB.Net. Niya too LOL

According to some people who have used win11, both from this forum and others, they have reported that VB6 is still working.

After all why is Microsoft on this path, extending VB6? For what reason? What's the big move? What's behind the curtains, behind the scenes. Why?

If Microsoft were to clarify the matter I would simply not believe it, because Microsoft is Microsoft.

What is your opinion?????????????

[dilettante]

The cost is probably fairly small in the grand scheme of things. Support is limited to "just works," and many of the underpinnings of VB6 are also vital to much of the rest of Windows and to MS Office.

[Niya]

After all why is Microsoft on this path, extending VB6? For what reason? What's the big move? What's behind the curtains, behind the scenes. Why?

The answer to that is simple. They have to. There are probably still many VB6 programs out there in the wild. I don't know the numbers but if the number of VB6 application deployments is in the thousands or hundreds of thousands, it would simply be bad business for Microsoft to break them for no reason. They want to keep people on Windows so there is just no reason to give their users one extra thing to complain about.

That being said, the end of VB6 support is inevitable. If you want to know when that is coming then turn to history for the answer. How did DOS die? How did QuickBasic die? How did Stacker and SmartDrive die? How did Lotus123, dBase and WordPerfect die? What killed them off? These were very prominent pieces of technologies in the 90s yet no one even remembers them today. What changes had to occur for this to happen? Whatever common pattern there is preceding the deaths of those technologies, you will probably find the same patterns killing off old technology today.

A modern example is Adobe Flash. HTML5 and Apple killed that off. HTML5 slowly got better and better over the years until it reached a point where it was good enough to draw the attention of a giant like Apple. Flash was as good as dead by that point.

[Niya]

My personal prediction is that VB6 will die Windows goes through a major paradigm shift. I don't know what that would look like but it has happened before, when Microsoft finally decided to take Windows off the DOS kernel and use the Windows NT kernel with Windows XP. This effectively killed DOS completely and by extension, everything DOS related was gone, including DOS applications written in things like Borland Turbo C and QuickBasic.

This wouldn't be an immediate change, it would be incremental and when it's finally here what you may find is that VB6 applications simply cannot function correctly in this new environment, just like DOS applications were unable to function correctly in the Windows NT era. The differences between Windows and DOS were far too great for DOS applications to survive and VB6 applications will eventually endure a similar fate.

I don't think that will happen within at least the next 5 years though but we are already seeing the signs. The introduction of things like the UAC has already caused to usability of some VB6 applications to take a hit. The erosion has already begun. Talented people like Olaf and Krool have been able to slow the erosion of VB6 applications and their development by the every increasing changes to Windows but that won't be able to go on indefinitely. Sooner or later, it would be far too troublesome to be worth it. But like I said, I don't think we have reached that critical point yet.

[Episcopal]

It will be that as long as you have 32bit systems, the VB6 will breathe?

[Niya]

Errrr.....Maybe. But Windows could still change drastically in other ways while still supporting WoW64. 32 bit support may not necessarily be the thing that kills VB6 for good. And it's not going to happen suddenly either.

[dilettante]

UAC was only an issue for poorly written applications and shabby installation techniques. Least User Access was already a thing long before UAC enforced it, going back at least as far as NT 3.51 days.

You can still run 16-bit "DOS" programs on Windows 10 as long as you don't drink the 64-bit Kool-Aid. QuickBasic, PDS 7.x, and VB-DOS can all be used today though I'm not sure why you'd want to.

[Elroy]

It will be that as long as you have 32bit systems, the VB6 will breathe?

That's the answer, or better said ... as long as Microsoft continues to support WoW64. It's the same reason that 16-bit applications eventually bit the dust. For many of those, it wasn't the lack of a GUI, or even the fact that they were 16-bit. It was that they were just too much trouble to get running on contemporary (then) operating systems. Microsoft is already making WoW64 optional (not pre-installed) on some of its server versions.

[dilettante]

Microsoft is already making WoW64 optional (not pre-installed) on some of its server versions.

They stopped doing that a long time ago. It is only optional in Server Core now.

[dz32]

the day MS breaks VB6 is the same day i switch to linux and run WIN7 in a VM as my main desktop.
Im not sure why I bother with win 10 right now anyway.

it was endless security bugs and apples refusal to allow it to run which killed flash

[Niya]

You can still run 16-bit "DOS" programs on Windows 10 as long as you don't drink the 64-bit Kool-Aid. QuickBasic, PDS 7.x, and VB-DOS can all be used today though I'm not sure why you'd want to.

Oh it's about so much more than whether you can run them or not. Lets look at some old tech and why they actually died. I'll be talking about those I've experienced personally.

Stacker

What was it?

It was a driver that essentially doubled your hard drive's capacity by transparently compressing files when they were written to disk. It would also transparently decompress when you read files.

Why did it die?

Hard drive capacities starting started outpacing our ability to exhaust it. Also, Windows has the option built in to transparently compress files on the hard disk. There is no need for 3rd party software to do this anymore.

EMM386

What was it?

It was to memory what Stacker was to hard drives. It was used to try and squeeze every ounce of extra memory you can out of a DOS system.

Why did it die?

Same reason as Stacker. We no longer have a 640 KB limit with which to execute applications like we did with DOS. We have gigabytes of memory to play with today. EMM386 is completely unneeded today.

PC Tools

What was it?

It was a one of the best diagnostic programs I've ever seen in the 90s. It has the ability to diagnose DOS computers for all kinds of problems but it was specifically excellent at dealing with data corruption on hard disks and floppy disks. It was what I would consider a must have in the 90s.

Why did it die?

Windows came with all of it's abilities built in and hardware today, especially storage tech, is so much more reliable. When was the last time you heard anyone talk about bad sectors?

Lantastic

What was it?

It was networking software. You used it to create LANs in the 90s.

Why did it die?

Windows came with multiple network stacks built in. Eventually network stacks became standard is all operating systems. There is no need for 3rd party software to provide this service anymore.

Smart Drive

What was it?

One of my personal favorites. It was an excellent piece of software that provided cached reads and writes to and from your hard disk. It was excellent at improving DOS applications that performed a lot of reading and writing to your hard disk. I very clearly remember being unable to play Mortal Kombat 2 without Smart Drive loaded because the game would constantly stutter as it was always reading from the hard disk. As soon as I loaded Smart Drive, it never stuttered at all. It was a very good piece of software.

Why did it die?

Windows now does this automatically for one thing. Secondly, we have massive amounts of memory today so even without cached reads, applications can still minimize the need to read from disk by keeping a large chunk of their data in memory. Remember in DOS, you only had around 640 KB to play with. Then of course we have flash memory now in SSD drives which are extremely fast.

Conclusion

The point I'm making here is that many times it takes the advancement of several key pieces of technologies to cause the obsolescence of other pieces of technology. This goes way beyond whether the software can be executed still. For VB6 and applications written in them to disappear, several factors have to conspire to render them obsolete. It's impossible to predict what those factors would be. Do you think in the 90s we could ever imagine having terabyte hard disks? Not needing something like Stacker was not something I could have ever imagined in the 90s.

[2kaud]

How did DOS die? How did QuickBasic die? How did Stacker and SmartDrive die? How did Lotus123, dBase and WordPerfect die? What killed them off? These were very prominent pieces of technologies in the 90s yet no one even remembers them today.

Of course we old-timers remember these fondly! Some went as they were redundant (see Niya's post above). Some died because better versions came along. Some because they didn't transition to new os's quickly enough. Wordstar was a giant in MS-DOS word processing. When Windows came out it took them just too long to develop a reasonable Windows version and Microsoft's Word got the business - and it was much better! At one point there was even an offer of a substantial reduction on the price of Word if you upgraded from Wordstar etc with proof of purchase. It was cheaper to buy Wordstar and then upgrade to Word then to buy Word! Exit Wordstar.

Although not a VB6/vb.net developer, I'm keenly watching the market re twinBasic. Will this actually be the product that finally kills off VB6? If the conversion can be smooth, why would people want the hassle of staying with VB6 on new OS's ?

[Argus19]

Microsoft has ended support for VB. Stopped developing VB.Net. I still couldn't figure out what development environment they offer in return?

[dilettante]

The closest thing to a VB6 experience that isn't "dead" or in maintenance mode seems to be C# though VB.Net is still an option. There is always C++ of course but that's even less like developing VB programs.

You can also find other recent lists, like: These are the programming languages Microsoft uses. That doesn't answer the same question and it's somebody's opinions, but I'm not sure what else can be said.

For a 3rd party alternative with a language closer to VB6 there is always B4J and its siblings that target IoT and phone-OS devices. Stable products with a track record and an active community.

I wouldn't give that "twin basic" thing much credence. Outside its hard-shelled echo chamber it doesn't exist. Sounds more like another QuickBasic cloning attempt to me. We already have Horse Basic, er, FreeBASIC if we wanted that.

[VB6 Programming]

For a 3rd party alternative with a language closer to VB6 there is always B4J and its siblings that target IoT and phone-OS devices. Stable products with a track record and an active community.

Yes the B4X products are worth looking at http://www.b4x.com

B4J for desktop, servers and raspberry Pi
B4A for Android
B4i for iOS
(B4J and B4A are free).



Also NSBasic which is a VB-like language which transpiles to JavaScript for Android, Desktop and iOS apps.
https://www.nsbasic.com/

I wouldn't give that "twin basic" thing much credence. Outside its hard-shelled echo chamber it doesn't exist. Sounds more like another QuickBasic cloning attempt to me. We already have Horse Basic, er, FreeBASIC if we wanted that.

Then I recommend you take another look.
twinBASIC is "cloning" VB6/VBA (with extensions).
You can already copy and paste VB6 code into twinBASIC and have it run.
The first version of the forms designer is in beta (for cross platform including Windows but not VB6 compatible). The VB6 compatible version is due early next year (and will allow the use of VB6 forms).
And 64bit support too.
https://www.twinbasic.com/

[Episcopal]

Oh it's about so much more than whether you can run them or not. Lets look at some old tech and why they actually died. I'll be talking about those I've experienced personally.

Stacker

What was it?

It was a driver that essentially doubled your hard drive's capacity by transparently compressing files when they were written to disk. It would also transparently decompress when you read files.

Why did it die?

Hard drive capacities starting started outpacing our ability to exhaust it. Also, Windows has the option built in to transparently compress files on the hard disk. There is no need for 3rd party software to do this anymore.

EMM386

What was it?

It was to memory what Stacker was to hard drives. It was used to try and squeeze every ounce of extra memory you can out of a DOS system.

Why did it die?

Same reason as Stacker. We no longer have a 640 KB limit with which to execute applications like we did with DOS. We have gigabytes of memory to play with today. EMM386 is completely unneeded today.

PC Tools

What was it?

It was a one of the best diagnostic programs I've ever seen in the 90s. It has the ability to diagnose DOS computers for all kinds of problems but it was specifically excellent at dealing with data corruption on hard disks and floppy disks. It was what I would consider a must have in the 90s.

Why did it die?

Windows came with all of it's abilities built in and hardware today, especially storage tech, is so much more reliable. When was the last time you heard anyone talk about bad sectors?

Lantastic

What was it?

It was networking software. You used it to create LANs in the 90s.

Why did it die?

Windows came with multiple network stacks built in. Eventually network stacks became standard is all operating systems. There is no need for 3rd party software to provide this service anymore.

Smart Drive

What was it?

One of my personal favorites. It was an excellent piece of software that provided cached reads and writes to and from your hard disk. It was excellent at improving DOS applications that performed a lot of reading and writing to your hard disk. I very clearly remember being unable to play Mortal Kombat 2 without Smart Drive loaded because the game would constantly stutter as it was always reading from the hard disk. As soon as I loaded Smart Drive, it never stuttered at all. It was a very good piece of software.

Why did it die?

Windows now does this automatically for one thing. Secondly, we have massive amounts of memory today so even without cached reads, applications can still minimize the need to read from disk by keeping a large chunk of their data in memory. Remember in DOS, you only had around 640 KB to play with. Then of course we have flash memory now in SSD drives which are extremely fast.

Conclusion

The point I'm making here is that many times it takes the advancement of several key pieces of technologies to cause the obsolescence of other pieces of technology. This goes way beyond whether the software can be executed still. For VB6 and applications written in them to disappear, several factors have to conspire to render them obsolete. It's impossible to predict what those factors would be. Do you think in the 90s we could ever imagine having terabyte hard disks? Not needing something like Stacker was not something I could have ever imagined in the 90s.

Completion of completion of your pointed items. Microsoft killed them all.

[Episcopal]

microsoft has ended support for vb. Stopped developing vb.net. I still couldn't figure out what development environment they offer in return?

c# ???

[Niya]

Although not a VB6/vb.net developer, I'm keenly watching the market re twinBasic. Will this actually be the product that finally kills off VB6? If the conversion can be smooth, why would people want the hassle of staying with VB6 on new OS's ?

Very good point! This is quite possible. If TwinBASIC delivers perfectly on compatibility with the VB6's GUI model and project format, VB6 would be finished. There would literally be no reason to use VB6.

I wouldn't give that "twin basic" thing much credence. Outside its hard-shelled echo chamber it doesn't exist. Sounds more like another QuickBasic cloning attempt to me. We already have Horse Basic, er, FreeBASIC if we wanted that.

TwinBASIC is the real deal. It could already compile and run any non-GUI VB6 application. I strongly recommend any VB6 lover support the effort. I don't care that much about VB6 since I have long moved to .Net and even I am rooting for them.

[Niya]

Microsoft has ended support for VB. Stopped developing VB.Net. I still couldn't figure out what development environment they offer in return?

Unlike VB6, VB.Net's is not married to it's runtime. Microsoft stopped developing VB.Net but not .Net itself. You could use any .Net language to write the exact same code. The language preferred by the masses is C#.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Ultimately, the masses are a self-reinforcing loop. If more people use it, it gets more users. C# is an unfortunate example of that. So long as everybody in .NET believes that MS has abandoned VB.NET (they haven't), then it will become true.

[TTn]

VB.NET is now complete. Hopefully, it will be a stable interchangeable standard.

[Niya]

Don't be so quick to dismiss this. There are real consequences to Microsoft "abandoning" VB.Net. If things continue to trend in this direction, we may wake up one morning to find that we can't use half the framework because it is incompatible. Put this code in a .Net 5 application:-

    <Obsolete("Allow ref structs", False)>
    Private Sub Form1_Load(sender As Object, e As EventArgs) Handles MyBase.Load

        Dim d As New Span(Of Integer)({78, 89, 0})

        'Crashes the runtime because the VB.Net compiler
        'doesn't know anything about ref structs which cannot
        'be placed on the heap
        Dim b As Object = d

    End Sub

[Argus19]

VB.NET is now complete. Hopefully, it will be a stable interchangeable standard.

VB.NET is an object oriented language. For many purposes, linear programming is sufficient, which is simpler and does not require Net.Framework.
As already mentioned, TwinBASIC can be an excellent replacement for VB 6.0.

[Niya]

VB6, TwinBASIC and VB.Net are all object oriented versions of BASIC.

Linear programming is a math thing and has nothing to do with Visual Basic as far as I can tell.

[TTn]

VB.NET is an object oriented language.

Oh really? I had no idea, thanks.

For many purposes, linear programming is sufficient, which is simpler and does not require Net.Framework.
As already mentioned, TwinBASIC can be an excellent replacement for VB 6.0.

Fascinating...

Of course. I am saying that VB.NET can now hopefully stay stable as legacy version for interop with VB6. Making it extensible when you need the extra power of NET components and namespaces.

[TTn]

BTW, "Long Live the Cucumber"!

That's a VB6 Easter egg, very similar to the "Show VB Credits" Easter egg. Has anyone seen that yet?
Hint it grows.

[dz32]

BTW, "Long Live the Cucumber"!

That's a VB6 Easter egg, very similar to the "Show VB Credits" Easter egg. Has anyone seen that yet?
Hint it grows.

Was that the one created by Maxamili?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfKSOrofg8U

[TTn]

Was that the one created by Maxamili?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfKSOrofg8U

lol, yeah something like that, a reproductive organ...

[yereverluvinuncleber]

Very good point! This is quite possible. If TwinBASIC delivers perfectly on compatibility with the VB6's GUI model and project format, VB6 would be finished. There would literally be no reason to use VB6.

Well, there is a good reason, possibly two or three. I would treat VB6 as I do now as my preferred IDE, regardless of the language, the IDE is a place I am creative in due to knowing many (if not all) of its idiosyncrasies. It is quick and I know it well, it is my preferred work area. I know TwinBasic will have a new updated IDE but for me, the old VB6 IDE is a good place to work.

If I know that everything I build will eventually successfully convert and compile to TwinBasic then there is no need for me to migrate to TB when I am working well on the VB6 IDE and language. I can continue to use VB6 as a sort of VB6'Express' knowing it WILL work on the new funky kit when it comes. For all brand new development it might make sense to use TB but VB6 will continue to work as always and might prove to be the better bet.

Secondly, the VB6 IDE approach will always be a lot cheaper than licensing TB for years and years. We have all purchased VB6 outright already and as I have a legal copy I now install it at will on any machine I am currently developing on (I upgrade my machine from time to time). I have the CD, I have an ISO and I know how to install.

For me it will be the cheaper option as I cannot afford to spend hard won cash on the professional version of TB - and even if there will be a hobbyist licence then it will be monthly/yearly licence rather than a one-off purchase and that is a cumulative cost that will eventually exceed what I spent on VB6.

For many, VB6 is abandonware and if they can obtain a copy of VB6 for free then they just might... I don't condone this but a free version is always a distinct draw. The fact that MS won't take your money even if you send it to them implies that many think it is abandonware. The result is they can, with some work, get VB6 for free.

Also, if TB is fully compatible, I will not be punishing myself for continuing to use the VB6 IDE. All my code WILL migrate when I choose to do so. What it gives me is the capability to upgrade, it tells me that VB is no longer dead... I now have the capability to upgrade but it is up to me when I do so.

Thirdly, I also develop and test for Windows XP as an equal and good test for ReactOS. TwinBasic is never likely to run on older operating systems nor those derived from them, the binary possibly might - but the IDE will not.

A lot of VB6's commercial applications are specific to XP on older hardware and it is uncertain in my mind that TB is even a solution for this market. It does give some organisations a route for migration if they still have the code but it does not dig anyone out of the XP hole that is solidly stuck there for some reason - such as no code...

[Shaggy Hiker]

MS will take your money, if you send them enough. VB6 is still available via a developer subscription, but that's a pretty high price to pay.

I was going to ask about the VB6 IDE, since you seem to be one who likes it. I've felt that was the worst part about VB6 for almost two decades now. One code file at a time? No collapsing of methods? It's straight up awkward navigating that. Sure, you might be familiar with it, but you're still spending more time because of the IDE.

However, the point I'd rather make is this: If you know people who are staying with Windows XP, you should be strongly encouraging them to move on. That OS has some serious security vulnerabilities. Anybody who is using that, still, should be keeping it away from the internet at all times, or they are creating a wide open door into any network they have, or at least onto their own computer.

I realize that some people don't have the money to upgrade, but XP is something of an existential risk to a business.

[yereverluvinuncleber]

I was going to ask about the VB6 IDE, since you seem to be one who likes it. I've felt that was the worst part about VB6 for almost two decades now.

I have little to compare it to. It is certainly good enough for me and the best I've used so far. I have also used VS 2005 and 2008 and I am progressing to 2010. Not enough usage yet to comment, however, I still fly in the VB6 IDE.

In any case that's not the point, I was simply answering the statement that Niya raised about why would anyone use VB6 once TB is extant, giving reasons in return why you might still use VB6 even if TB/RB existed. Those are valid reasons for some, even if they would not sway you. They are just - reasons.

XP is something of an existential risk to a business.

It isn't a matter of choice for many, we know the scenarios. No need to repeat them. Don't need to teach me to suck eggs, I do have an XP system, I know why I have it and how to use it. I am sure the rest of the world's XP users know why they have it too.

[Niya]

One code file at a time? No collapsing of methods? It's straight up awkward navigating that.

Yea this is quite annoying not having these features after years of growing accustomed to them.

Well, there is a good reason, possibly two or three. I would treat VB6 as I do now as my preferred IDE, regardless of the language, the IDE is a place I am creative in due to knowing many (if not all) of its idiosyncrasies. It is quick and I know it well, it is my preferred work area. I know TwinBasic will have a new updated IDE but for me, the old VB6 IDE is a good place to work.

If I know that everything I build will eventually successfully convert and compile to TwinBasic then there is no need for me to migrate to TB when I am working well on the VB6 IDE and language. I can continue to use VB6 as a sort of VB6'Express' knowing it WILL work on the new funky kit when it comes. For all brand new development it might make sense to use TB but VB6 will continue to work as always and might prove to be the better bet.

Secondly, the VB6 IDE approach will always be a lot cheaper than licensing TB for years and years. We have all purchased VB6 outright already and as I have a legal copy I now install it at will on any machine I am currently developing on (I upgrade my machine from time to time). I have the CD, I have an ISO and I know how to install.

For me it will be the cheaper option as I cannot afford to spend hard won cash on the professional version of TB - and even if there will be a hobbyist licence then it will be monthly/yearly licence rather than a one-off purchase and that is a cumulative cost that will eventually exceed what I spent on VB6.

For many, VB6 is abandonware and if they can obtain a copy of VB6 for free then they just might... I don't condone this but a free version is always a distinct draw. The fact that MS won't take your money even if you send it to them implies that many think it is abandonware. The result is they can, with some work, get VB6 for free.

Also, if TB is fully compatible, I will not be punishing myself for continuing to use the VB6 IDE. All my code WILL migrate when I choose to do so. What it gives me is the capability to upgrade, it tells me that VB is no longer dead... I now have the capability to upgrade but it is up to me when I do so.

Thirdly, I also develop and test for Windows XP as an equal and good test for ReactOS. TwinBasic is never likely to run on older operating systems nor those derived from them, the binary possibly might - but the IDE will not.

A lot of VB6's commercial applications are specific to XP on older hardware and it is uncertain in my mind that TB is even a solution for this market. It does give some organisations a route for migration if they still have the code but it does not dig anyone out of the XP hole that is solidly stuck there for some reason - such as no code...

There will be a few of you that think like this, but I believe you guys will be a rapidly decreasing minority. Do not underestimate the attractiveness of having a "VB6" that could be updated and patched. There are many quirks in VB6 that I'm sure a lot of the people in the VB6 community would rather live without.

[yereverluvinuncleber]

There will be a few of you that think like this, but I believe you guys will be a rapidly decreasing minority. Do not underestimate the attractiveness of having a "VB6" that could be updated and patched. There are many quirks in VB6 that I'm sure a lot of the people in the VB6 community would rather live without.

No no no. I will upgrade to TB or RB, whichever suits my direction in the time of my choosing. I'm enjoying the mere idea of choice when it comes to VB6.

However, the point is, those are still reasons and so those being obvious to me, I just provided a few. There may be more.

[Shaggy Hiker]

It isn't a matter of choice for many, we know the scenarios. No need to repeat them. Don't need to teach me to suck eggs, I do have an XP system, I know why I have it and how to use it. I am sure the rest of the world's XP users know why they have it too.

I may have three working systems that have XP on them, but none connect to the internet. However, I don't quite agree with your last statement. I know there are XP systems out there, but I'd also be willing to bet that a large number of the users don't really know why.

Yeah, there may be inertia, or a lack of cash, but there's also a lack of understanding of the dangers inherent in the OS. I would guess that lots are using that because they aren't aware, rather than that they are well aware. Just depends on what it is we are talking about them being aware of.

[xiaoyao]

Like XP, VB6 was once Microsoft's most brilliant software product. Microsoft, which made its fortune in basic, would ban the use of VB6 and VB.NET, it would have admitted that it had failed.
ie failed, EDGE failed (using Google kernel instead), Microsoft js failed, windows phone, win10 mobile phone version, etc. all failed.

[yereverluvinuncleber]

Like XP, VB6 was once Microsoft's most brilliant software product. Microsoft, which made its fortune in basic, would ban the use of VB6 and VB.NET, it would have admitted that it had failed.
ie failed, EDGE failed (using Google kernel instead), Microsoft js failed, windows phone, win10 mobile phone version, etc. all failed.

I hate to admit it but xiaoyiao is quite correct.

Shaggy, what are your XP systems used for?

[-Corso->]

My 2 cents. A lot of government facilities and organisations are recruiting VB6 programmers, they are still developing and maintaining in house software and tools. It fulfills a neat, clean and quick purpose. So if Microsoft stopped VB support, it would mean Microsoft is unstable, at a government planning level at least. Frankly, after installing PC vs Apple at a bunch of sites, Apple is superior (for the generic staff member), but VB is crucial for in house jobs, (still usable via Parallels software). If Apple made a home for VB6 in it's software (unlikely), they could devastate Microsoft. VB6 is still a lynch pin for several key industries, for whom I assume Microsoft still regard as important. Honestly if VB7 came out, I'd be freaking out, I expect a number of high level programmers would too. It was a cold day in hell when they try to sell scrap versions like .net.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Shaggy, what are your XP systems used for?

One holds up a fan, to be honest. I've also used it as a stool...man that case is strong!

The others are really not used for much of anything, except that one still has a 3.5" floppy drive, and they contain some ancient source code, along with VB6. I don't really maintain those programs anymore, but they are still in use. If somebody asks me a question that I can't answer about them, I sometimes have to go back to that computer to have a look at them.

At one point, I was using one of them as a DB server, but I've long since moved on from that. Using a Surface Pro with an SSD as a DB server is easier, uses less power, and is more responsive.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Like XP, VB6 was once Microsoft's most brilliant software product. Microsoft, which made its fortune in basic, would ban the use of VB6 and VB.NET, it would have admitted that it had failed.
ie failed, EDGE failed (using Google kernel instead), Microsoft js failed, windows phone, win10 mobile phone version, etc. all failed.

Microsoft made its fortune by putting DOS on IBM PC computers, which then became clones tied to DOS and then to Windows. Everything else was window dressing (or Windows dressing, I suppose), including BASIC.

As for all those other things, MS has had some failures. That's the nature of this game: You try a whole bunch of things, because you can't predict which will take off and which will not. Those that take hold can generate so much revenue that they will pay for numerous speculations and numerous failures of speculations. The result is that MS is one of the largest and most profitable tech companies in the world, because the successes they had paid for a whole lot of failures, and will pay for a whole lot more speculative endeavors, the majority of which will fail.

The demise of VB6, and the lingering bitterness that created, didn't exactly cripple Microsoft.

[dilettante]

My suspicion is that Microsoft didn't want the support cost associated with high level languages compiling to native code. This was probably doubly true for Basic in particular, since it tends to attract a lot of untrained coders.

Instead they chose to divert them into their .Net sandbox after VJ++ ran afoul of litigation. By then both memory and CPU cycles had become dirt cheap, making any overhead nearly moot. That might be why Win9x support was dropped very early, which got them away from older hardware too.

Embracing scripting languages as they have in recent years probably has similar benefits.

Today Windows programmers must use C or C++ or else crawl into one sandbox or another. After all, even if they "hate Basic" Microsoft could easily have produced native code compilers and tools for other languages. But at this late date there just isn't much demand for them.


So if you don't want to write in C or C++ and you reject VB6 as too flawed you still have plenty of options. Today the most significant one is probably C#. Don't let the door hit you on your way out.