VB6 vs .Net......Ending the debate once and for all.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I think that chips taste nicer than fries.

Shaggy, this IS actually the same thread and the same people reading it.

In that case, I was referring to your lengthy defense of British cuisine in the other thread. I STILL haven't read your defense of British cuisine in THIS thread.

[Shaggy Hiker]

This is a very good point but in this particular case it doesn't apply for one very simple reason, VB.Net and entire .Net ecosystem covers everything VB6 can. However, when you bring C into it, productivity would not matter if you were covering something that only C can cover. C shows up in places .Net wouldn't dare to manifest. For example, you'd never write an operating system in .Net.

Fair enough, but my point was: If you are told to write it using X and you write it using Y, productivity doesn't matter. Having said that, it IS a bit of a stretch to imagine that there are more than a few small niche companies where you would be required to write in VB6, though I can think of one from this very site....assuming axisdj is still writing in VB6, which is not certain, as he's been trying to go elsewhere.

You also DO gain something from sticking with something you know. Every single person resists change in at least some parts of their lives. It doesn't really matter whether the change is ultimately better, if the change is in an area they find distasteful, then it will be distasteful.

I didn't move to .NET until 2003, because I didn't want to take the time to learn something new when I was being productive in VB6. Once I did try it out, though, I realized that the way .NET was structured was much more to my liking, so I moved over and left VB6 behind entirely. However, there are plenty of people who would not like that structure as much as I did. I was aware of how I thought, when it came to programming, and I'm aware that others have different mental models. I realized that .NET was for me, but I also realized that .NET was for everybody.

The sole point is that productivity isn't the only objective...or else a whole bunch of languages wouldn't even exist.

[Niya]

You also DO gain something from sticking with something you know. Every single person resists change in at least some parts of their lives. It doesn't really matter whether the change is ultimately better, if the change is in an area they find distasteful, then it will be distasteful.

I didn't move to .NET until 2003, because I didn't want to take the time to learn something new when I was being productive in VB6......

However, there are plenty of people who would not like that structure as much as I did. I was aware of how I thought, when it came to programming, and I'm aware that others have different mental models. I realized that .NET was for me, but I also realized that .NET was for everybody.

Ah, see? This right here makes sense. I wouldn't even think about debating this. However when you ask VB6 developers why they like VB6 over VB.Net, you don't get sensible reasons like this. Instead you get rubbish arguments like the Framework being too large or VB6 being closer to the metal or any number of nonsensical reasons that cannot hold up to deeper scrutiny. This is where I tend to get involved. None of these reasons are good reasons to choose VB6 over VB.Net. It sounds absolutely insane to me which is why I tend to have a lot to say about it.

[ChrisE]

This is a very good point but in this particular case it doesn't apply for one very simple reason, VB.Net and entire .Net ecosystem covers everything VB6 can. However, when you bring C into it, productivity would not matter if you were covering something that only C can cover. C shows up in places .Net wouldn't dare to manifest. For example, you'd never write an operating system in .Net.



Even so you gain nothing meaningful by using VB6 over VB.Net. It just gives you more work to do the same exact things.

I guess you would have a point if you value the satisfaction you get out of doing it the hard way. Maybe that means more to some people so you might have a point there.

just think of all the time you have spent with this debate, where is the productivity in that?

so whenever you or any other DEv. will start a Thread VB6 vs. .NET then........pancake,waffles and other Foods will be your destiny.....
If I think about it I got more "productivity" about the diffrent Food's than I expected.

[Niya]

just think of all the time you have spent with this debate, where is the productivity in that?

I'll be the judge of how of I should spend my time on the boards.

so whenever you or any other DEv. will start a Thread VB6 vs. .NET then........pancake,waffles and other Foods will be your destiny.....

lmao....hold up a second here. Are you implying all that pancake stuff was some kind of attempt to vex me? That never even occur to me as it's normal for a chit-chat thread to meander all over the place. It didn't bother me one bit. You guys wasted your time if that was your sole purpose. It is funny imagining that you guys thought I'd get mad or something lol. Come on man. I love this stuff. You guys are just adorable lmao.

[dee-u]

I am productive with my time... I've already got 5 kids at age 35.

[Schmidt]

To test the productivity of both environments I devised a simple spec for a very simple application.
I then implemented the application in both VB6 and VB.Net while recording the entire thing.

VB.Net


As you can clearly see it took twice as long to write the VB6 version...

As was explained to you several times already - your "non-productivity" when inside the VB6-IDE,
comes from the simple fact, that you're not using it anymore (you're stumbling around like a rookie there).

To give you an example, what it looks like when someone who knows the VB6-IDE in and out goes to work -
here is a video which fully covers your tasklist, using the same CSV-Data-File:



I've decided to use a ComboBox to hold the task-list (a much better UI-choice in my opinion) -
but otherwise it produces the same results as the .NET-Versions (after only 09:47 minutes).

So no, in VB6 one apparently does not need "twice as long" to accomplish this specific task -
the opposite seems to be the case... and that's BTW fully in line with "all the coding-comparisons" which came before...

Well, here's hope, that it finally sinks in - and that this indeed "ends the debate once and for all"...

Olaf

[Niya]

Well I am truly impressed. I didn't expect anyone to actually take it this far with me much less beat my time. I respect this and like I said, you can't beat video evidence. Well done.

A couple of things though, I couldn't help but notice that all of the productivity came from the power of RC6 more so than just plain vanilla VB6. What you've just proven is that your library in combination with VB6 can match .Net's productivity, something you've been saying for years. You'll get no argument from me on this anymore.

Also, there are a few things I won't budge on. The main one is your lack of documentation for RC6. I haven't mentioned this but if you look at the two original videos I posted you will notice that they are 10 days apart. I recorded the .Net one first. The days before I recorded the VB6 one I was actually spending my free time looking into RC6 to see how I could have achieved the same thing. The lack of documentation and having to experiment and dig around the forums to crumbs of information frustrated me and I eventually gave up because it was taking too much time. I settled on just using basic coding and a sort routine. I also looked into using ADO but I had already spent the little free time I had on exploring RC6 so I didn't bother to pursue that avenue and I also wasn't convinced ADO would have saved that much time anyway. Point is you really need to document your library. I strongly suggest that you do. You have no idea how frustrating it is to try and figure out whether RC5/6 could do something and how to do it. Not everyone has time or wants to spend the time to experiment with it. Some people just want to get it done as quickly as possible.

I will also never budge on the point of the size of the Framework being a major sore point. That argument has never made sense and it still doesn't. We live in a world where it's not uncommon to have 8 GB of RAM on the low end and we have multi-gigabyte Hard drives now. 500 MB is nothing. Also, all these arguments about being "closer to the metal", I still thing this is also meaningless. And of course and mentioned before, documentation is another point where RC is lacking in comparison to .Net. I'll still challenge these things when I see them.

Overall though, I respect the fact that you were willing to prove me wrong on the argument on productivity. You've proven RC6 can be at least equal to .Net in productivity for common tasks and while I can go down different paths like multi-threading or writing Windows Services, it wouldn't serve any purpose since these are outliers. The majority of people aren't writing Windows Services and while multi-threading is very common, it is not a necessity for most applications and any other advantages that .Net has are too obvious to waste time debating. Eg. 64 bit compilation and multi-platform support. The only thing truly holding back RC6 is it's lack of documentation.

One final thing before anyone points that I said equal in productivity. I do have an unreleased video where I reduced the time it took from 18 minutes to 10 minutes by cutting some of the fat.

Anyways, respect to you for this. Despite what anyone thinks, I don't like to argue for arguing sake. I can admit when I'm wrong. Later on I'll update the OP with this new information and I think we can put this to bed for the most part. It's been very interesting but I'm exhausted on this topic. I can't promise we won't butt heads in the future on this because like I said, there is still a lot I don't agree with but I don't think we need to revisit most of this anymore.

[Niya]

Here is the previously unrelease 10 minute version:-



I was planning to do another VB6 version using ADO to see how it stacked up but since you already did an impressive VB6 run, I'll just post that one.

[yereverluvinuncleber]

Sounds as if we have arrived at a relaxed place of mutual admiration and respect so the arguing can abate.

I have to agree with Niya on that essential point though. The lack of documentation for RC5/6 is the reason why I have never yet picked it up. I work using a combination of documentation, examples of previous work and only when I am stymied do I raise a post on the forum. For me, the documentation is an essential component in itself. The teaching world knows this, in fact it is unarguable truth that a product of any sort, especially one as complex and with as much potential as RC5/6, requires decent documentation. It is almost strange that we should be restating such an obvious fact as if we are arguing the point. The requirement should simply be self-evident.

I would state that VB6's longevity is down to the enormous amount of pre-existing code, thorough documentation from MS but mainly through third party sources, videos &c as well as BASIC's intrinsic accessibility and ease of use. It is that combination that provided the success.

RC5 has a few examples, some forum posts and that's it. It needs the whole kit and kaboodle.

It is the only manner in which RC5/6 falls short of expectations.

With regard to three of the above videos:

When I watched Niya's VB6 video, my brain understood it and said to itself, "yes, this is the way I would do it, that is BASIC, that all makes sense, good to see that Niya hasn't forgotten his VB6 roots altogether. That's the way I would do it. Anyone would understand it"

When I watched Niya's VB.NET video my brain uttered this, "That's not BASIC. That is a little BASIC syntax but with alien use of constructs and methodology that are foreign to BASIC. That is 100% .NET with a sprinkling of BASIC syntax thrown in". For me, the two methods don't compare. You might as well have clicked a button marked "DO IT" and watched it just being done. I could have been watching an advanced javascript video. I understand why Niya does what he does and I am sure it is elegant but it just isn't BASIC and as a result there is no comparison. It almost makes the whole argument moot.

When I watched Olaf's video my brain (Brian) said "That is BASIC, there is some SQL, that's nice, some use of the file system object, but none of that has left the VB6 room altogether, just doing what VB6 has done all the years, acting as the glue. Overall that looks like good BASIC programming and isn't that solution all rather elegant".

That was my gut feel watching each video and I think it demonstrates why this thread cannot be won and that the comparison has always been rather irrelevant. VB.NET should never really have existed, the syntax should have been made deliberately more different and the name VisualBasic should never have been re-used. VB.NET is not VB, it should be FRED.FRED.

[techgnome]

Well, now that that's settled... can we get on to more important things.... like how jam is better than jelly?

-tg

[yereverluvinuncleber]

Well, now that that's settled... can we get on to more important things.... like how jam is better than jelly?

-tg

Jam is not better than jelly. We eat jelly with cream and custard. sometimes we might even mix jam and jelly, a good sherry trifle benefits from both (as well as the cream and custard). So, in the UK we have both jelly and jam whereas in the US you only have jelly. We win that one, the Jam wars.

[Delaney]

Well, now that that's settled... can we get on to more important things.... like how jam is better than jelly?

-tg

In France it really depends on the fruits. With some fruit you can have either one. for example you will have jelly of apples but not jams and for strawberry you can have both. After it is a question of personal taste. I prefer jams because you have small pieces of fruit in it but for strawberries, I will eat both because I love strawberry. for Raspberry, jelly is preferable as there is no seed/pip in it but the jams will have some

[ChrisE]

Well, now that that's settled... can we get on to more important things.... like how jam is better than jelly?

-tg

jelly is a American description of Jam, or did I get that wrong? Got my hands on some rasberry Jam like yerverluvinuncleber (puh! what a name) said, and they were great.
what is the best "Jelly" to go with pancakes.

[FunkyDexter]

jam is better than jelly

That's just crazy talk! Jam doesn't even support web development.

[yereverluvinuncleber]

Jelly is an American word for Jam. You are correct but they are not.

In the UK we have Jam, fruit preserve in pots, sweet and spreadable upon toasts and breads or all sort. Jelly we would eat cold as a dessert, as the name describes it is more gelatinous and is not really suitable for spreading. The French know how to make a lovely fruit preserve. We also have marmalade which is excellent surprisingly on toast with cheese...

[ChrisE]

Well I am truly impressed. I didn't expect anyone to actually take it this far with me much less beat my time. I respect this and like I said, you can't beat video evidence. Well done.

A couple of things though, I couldn't help but notice that all of the productivity came from the power of RC6 more so than just plain vanilla VB6. What you've just proven is that your library in combination with VB6 can match .Net's productivity, something you've been saying for years. You'll get no argument from me on this anymore.

here with plain vanilla VB6

Option Explicit

Dim cn As ADODB.Connection
Dim rs As ADODB.Recordset


Private Sub Command1_Click()
Dim strSql As String
Set cn = New ADODB.Connection

  With cn
    .Open "Provider=Microsoft.Jet" _
            & ".OLEDB.4.0;Data Source= D:\TestFolder" _
            & ";Extended Properties=""text;HDR=NO;FMT=Delimited"""
     End With
    Set rs = New Recordset
    rs.CursorLocation = adUseClient

'txt or CSV File
'you have no Headers so the Fields will be named F1, F2 etc...
strSql = "Select F1,F2,F3,F4 from [NiyaCSV#txt]"
strSql = strSql & " GROUP BY F1,F2,F3,F4 "
strSql = strSql & " Having (((F3) = 'M'))"
strSql = strSql & " ORDER BY F2 DESC;"

    
    rs.Open strSql, cn, adOpenStatic, adLockOptimistic
      
'Create new CSV for the results of the query
    
  Dim FNr As Integer
  Dim strPath As String
  strPath = "D:\TestFolder\NiyaQuery1.csv"
  FNr = FreeFile
  Open strPath For Output As FNr
  Me.MousePointer = vbHourglass
  Do While rs.EOF = False
  'write to new CSV-File
    If Not IsNull(rs!F1) Then Print #FNr, rs!F2; ";" & rs!F1 & ";" & rs!F3 & ";" & rs!F4
    rs.MoveNext
    DoEvents
  Loop
  Close #FNr
   Me.MousePointer = vbDefault
  rs.Close
  Set rs = Nothing
End Sub

[Delaney]

In France, jelly and jams are not the same preparation of the fruits : differences

[yereverluvinuncleber]

here with plain vanilla

I am very fond of vanilla too.

[yereverluvinuncleber]

In France, jelly and jams are not the same preparation of the fruits : differences

ooohhh, yum yum.

[wes4dbt]

In the US

Jelly: Jelly is made with strained fruit juice. There are no pieces of fruit in jelly.

Jam: Jam is made with mashed fruit.

I definitely prefer Jam.

[sapator]

I don't know why no one mentioned marmalade.
Is it to low for your delicate taste? , Or you just merge it with jam?
I think marmalade tops everything and as I've said in a another thread Greeks make their own marmalade occasionally (made one from grapes this summer).
From what I can think of, jelly is used in own croissants as a filling. If it's bakery made it tastes super, if it's from a factory, meh, it's OK I guess but not the superb bakery ones.
People mostly use chocolate as a filling but we the delicate ones know how to appreciate a fruit based one.

I think you better take the advice of Delaney and me in this kind of things, in our countries we know our fruit preparations.
Some examples are fruits of the spoon or however they are called or tarts with marmalade or cream tarts.
https://akispetretzikis.com/el/categ...tarta-lemonioy
https://akispetretzikis.com/el/categ...ma-kai-myrtila
https://www.argiro.gr/recipe-category/glika-koutaliou/

Andddd. Now I have the sweets for a sweet....

[yereverluvinuncleber]

We also have marmalade which is excellent surprisingly on toast with cheese...

There you go.

[yereverluvinuncleber]

Jam doesn't even support web development.

Spiders don't like jam, it is too sticky.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Sounds as if we have arrived at a relaxed place of mutual admiration and respect so the arguing can abate.

Not a chance, we STILL haven't resolved the issue of British cuisine, or fishing rights with France.

[Shaggy Hiker]

That was my gut feel watching each video and I think it demonstrates why this thread cannot be won and that the comparison has always been rather irrelevant. VB.NET should never really have existed, the syntax should have been made deliberately more different and the name VisualBasic should never have been re-used. VB.NET is not VB, it should be FRED.FRED.

I don't agree with any of that.

The first program I wrote in .NET was for a PDA using CE (the old definition, which was Compact Edition, whereas now the acronym stands for Community Edition). The second program, though, was a re-write of a VB6 program. I was able to copy functions from the VB6 source to the .NET, and make minor changes. I did re-write big pieces, but roughly half was simply copied across, with the major change being swapping Integer for Long.

Now, it IS possible to write .NET such that it doesn't look at all like VB6. All you have to do is write LINQ and it won't look anything like VB6. There are other things like that in the language, but you don't HAVE to use them.

VB6 also doesn't HAVE to look like BASIC, or at least not the old BASIC I used to write. Nary a GOSUB, and if you use GOTO....that's not good, though still possible, even in .NET.

However, FRED was made up as a purposefully derogatory term. Basically, it was meant as a slur, and is generally understood as such. If you wanted to come up with a different name....well, just look at this thread. I kept writing .NET and VB6. Is that not enough distinction?

[sapator]

There you go.

Well thank God for that. It's like talking about pizza and not mentioning the sauce.
..... This was a VB6 .NET war thread....So if we are done I think I should unsubscribe...

[dilettante]

https://forums.devx.com/showthread.p...09-Visual-Fred

Michael \(michka\) Kaplan
Guest
Re: Visual Fred
This needs to ba part of a .NET FAQ, if you ask me.

Many people were commiserating over the fact that one of the most difficult
things about the VB migration could be summed up in two parts:

1) It is not the same language
2) Its name and many superficial things were very "VB-like" which would trip
the unwary user who has knowledge of the way things are in prior versions.

William Vaughn, formerly an MS employee, stated very succinctly that it
would have been easier and better for everyone if they had just decided to
call it Visual Fred and thus solve both problems.

--
MichKa

Also see: https://classicvb.net/vfred/Trust.asp

Point being, "Fred" was just picked from a hat. It was never an acronym for anything nor was it ever a pejorative. That is just a projection of guilt and insecurity.

[yereverluvinuncleber]

That is just a projection of guilt and insecurity.

Cruel but also funny.

[yereverluvinuncleber]

I don't agree with any of that.

You can't disagree with it, that is simply what I felt, my gut reaction. No, hippocampus involved just the old crocodile bit of my brain forming a reaction. I suppose what you meant is that your gut feel is very different, ie. you don't feel the same when exposed to those three videos, did you actually watch them?.

However, FRED was made up as a purposefully derogatory term.

I don't see how it could be a derogatory term. It is definitely meant to indicate a complete difference. There are no cultural references in English that imply Fred is a negative insult.

[yereverluvinuncleber]

It's like talking about pizza and not mentioning the sauce.

Best pizza I ever had was in Belgium, Brussels to be specific. Cooked in a traditional oven in by Sicilians, spicy, North African style pizzas with anchovies and other seafoods. Ooh! Could do with that now.

[techgnome]

I've had good pizza, I've had bad pizza, I've had meh pizza... I've yet to have any that I'd describe as "the best I've had" there's some that are my favorites, but when it comes to pizza, I'm kinda basic in what I like. Simpler, the better.

-tg

[sapator]

Yeah me too. I really can't distinguish a best pizza. I know what you gonna say but currently I prefer Dominos with BBQ sauce with all the meat stuff in. We had a Pizza hut with over a couple of years ago in Kifisia (a litttle off Athens), I mean Hut is not that great but the oven one that you could only eat over there was really good. Other than that we are not really in the culture of home made pizzas. Some that I had in Italy was not of my taste, they where really basic but I want A LOT of stuff in there.

[jmcilhinney]

VB.NET should never really have existed, the syntax should have been made deliberately more different and the name VisualBasic should never have been re-used. VB.NET is not VB

VB is whatever Microsoft says is VB. Your opinion of what it is and isn't is irrelevant. Using VB6 as the standard is arbitrary. There have been changes in every version of VB. That the changes were bigger from VB6 to VB7 is neither here nor there. You don't like it. That's your prerogative. It Microsoft's prerogative to tell you what VB is. They told you. Get over it. If you want to keep using your favourite version of VB, that's also your prerogative. I've never begrudged anyone that. My issue has always been those who want to use VB6 telling the rest of us that we should have to as well. I started my professional programming career as a C++ developer and, at that time, I decided to give VB6 a go because it was popular and I thought knowing could be useful. I hated it. In 2003 I decided to give VB.NET a go and I immediately felt comfortable and I enjoyed using it. Who are you to tell Microsoft that they were wrong to serve people like me, as well as all those people who used to use VB6 and chose to make the move to VB.NET? Nobody. Your preference for VB6 is your right, but that's where your rights end.

[wes4dbt]

You can't disagree with it

What??? Sure you can. Since when can't someone disagree with an opinion.

[techgnome]

Yeah me too. I really can't distinguish a best pizza. I know what you gonna say but currently I prefer Dominos with BBQ sauce with all the meat stuff in. We had a Pizza hut with over a couple of years ago in Kifisia (a litttle off Athens), I mean Hut is not that great but the oven one that you could only eat over there was really good. Other than that we are not really in the culture of home made pizzas. Some that I had in Italy was not of my taste, they where really basic but I want A LOT of stuff in there.

Eeew.... Among the pizzas that I rank as "bad" pizza are Dominos, Pizza Hut, Little Caesars, and just about every major pizza joint out there... I tollerate them because I have to. Pizza Hut has a special place in hell for me though because their "beef" is actually a "beef product" ... a lot of the time I find it's the sauce that's the problem... too many places use a sauce that's too sweet or uses way too much oregano, or tastes like it came from a can (which it probably the case most often), or in some cases, has no flavor at all and tastes like plain tomato sauce. When I get pizza to order I usually go simple, ham, onion, and ground beef (if I can), or I'll get a margherita pizza. I've had some margherita pizzas with some salami added that was pretty good too. The only major pizza joint that I like is California Pizza Kitchen.... their stuff is pretty good. Their pizza is also the only think crust I can stand. Not sure why.

-tg

[sapator]

Pizza Hut is closed in Greece anyhow. When we got to that joint the over was a wood over and the materials where added at the time you order so the pizza was not pre-prepared.
I'm not sure if every branch has the same material in worldwide locations, I would assume not since the pizzas here have Greek products specified in most of them (Naxos cheese, Paiania meat etc) , again I'm not a pizza expert but from various opinions, Dominos is actually a good one here.

P.S. I detest onions on pizzas, along with peppers of any kind and olives.....Make that, I detest those thing in general, except when used for p.e. fry beef and onions melting on the pan, or as olive oil. Pepper I can only tolerate as Paprika and nothing else .

[yereverluvinuncleber]

What??? Sure you can. Since when can't someone disagree with an opinion.

I wasn't saying it was an opinion. The point is it was a gut feel. That cannot be denied. You can have your own gut feel but I don't think agreement as such comes into it. It is just a response.

[yereverluvinuncleber]

Who are you to tell Microsoft that they were wrong.

One of many of the original 6.9 million who used to program daily in VB6, who then stopped programming altogether when all VB6 users were 'migrated' to .FRED.

[yereverluvinuncleber]

Among the pizzas that I rank as "bad" pizza are Dominos, Pizza Hut, Little Caesars, and just about every major pizza joint out there...

I would agree with that, I'm not fond of pizza either. This pizza place in Brussels - I'd have a hard time finding it again. It was on a back street, it was one of those special places, back streets, a bit of dive, frequented by Taxi cab drivers and an unexpected gem where an extremely good chef was doing everything just perfectly, very thin base, slightly smokey, the right balance of saltiness, the seafood and the sauce perfectly executed in all respects. I don't know how he did it but he elevated a simple dish up a couple of levels.