Microsoft Visual Basic .NET Standard 2003?

[Ryan]

Is that all I know to create vb windows applications and asp.net sites?

I have the full .NET visual studio at work but don't really need all that for home.

How can it only be 100 dollars? When I bought VB 6 it was like 400ish dollars (roughly)

[BukHix]

Ryan the Standard Version lacks many features that the Full version has. Among them the ability to connect (with wizards) to the full version of SQL Server and it lacks built in reporting. You can overcome the SQL problem by hand coding your connections and reporting can be done with a 3rd party add-on.

Otherwise you should be able to create most VB based windows and web apps that you can in the Pro version. It is just not as easy or intuitive. As for the cost, the $109 price is inline with the cost of many MS Office applications, which makes me wonder if VBA developers was the audience they were targeting. If so, in my case, it worked because that is what I was before I purchased VB Standard. I love it and will never go back to VBA.

You may want to check this site for more info on the differences between the Pro and Standard version:

Choose Your Edition

Oh yea one more thing. You do have to do your own compiling with the command prompt in the "out of the box" Standard version. However, I think there is an add-on available to do that for you so that may not be a big deal to you either.

If you have any specific questions about the standard version just post them here and I will try and answer them for you.

[pax]

Oh yea one more thing. You do have to do your own compiling with the command prompt in the "out of the box" Standard version. However, I think there is an add-on available to do that for you so that may not be a big deal to you either.

Are you sure about that? I used to have VB Net 2002 standard at work, and I have always been able to compile from the IDE

I have never used any command prompt tools for anything...

[BukHix]

Oops I should have said compiling classes. Have I missed this feature? Compile class without VS Studio .Net

[Ryan]

Although I'm abit new with .NET, doesn't a DLL get created with my ASP.NET project? Does that mean I can't compile an ASP.NET project?

I use classes inside my ASP.NET project, does that mean it won't work with standard edition?

[pax]

Originally posted by Ryan
Although I'm abit new with .NET, doesn't a DLL get created with my ASP.NET project? Does that mean I can't compile an ASP.NET project?

I use classes inside my ASP.NET project, does that mean it won't work with standard edition?

No, that won't be a problem.

Actually, there is no problem in making usercontrols and other dll's in the standard edition, and there's no problem in compiling into dll's either.

There's just no wizard for a ControlLibrary project. But if you create a standard WindowsApplication and edit the vbproj-file with notepad, you can change the outputtype from WinExe to Library, set the startobject to nothing, save the file and re-open it in VB, and Violá, it compiles into a DLL.

This is because the compiler and the IDE is the same in Standard and Pro. MS has just removed some of the wizards.

This info is actually from MS themselves (somewhere on MSDN).

And I know it works, cause I have done it a few times myself.

[wossname]

Originally posted by BukHix
Oh yea one more thing. You do have to do your own compiling with the command prompt in the "out of the box" Standard version. However, I think there is an add-on available to do that for you so that may not be a big deal to you either.

If you have any specific questions about the standard version just post them here and I will try and answer them for you.

Not true at all. I've got VB standard "out of the box" at home and the compiler is pretty much identical to the VS.netpro version.

You are thinking of the .net Framework on its own where you must compile from the command line.

Why would they bother to sell Visual Basic if there was no IDE / compiler?

[wossname]

Is it possible/legal to copy the wizards for class libraries from a PC running VS pro to a PC running VB standard? Would that have the same effect as pax's notepad trick?

Don't do it if its not legal, obviously.

[pax]

Hi.

I don't know if it's legal to copy an existing wizard, but if it isn't, you could just make your own wizards. There are examples on MSDN on how to do that. The wizards are all in all just text-documents telling the VS how to setup the project, so if you did make your own, it would most likely be almost identical to the one MS made.

So, if it's illegal to copy, you could just make changes to the existing WindowsApplication wizard, and save that under a new name, and I guess you could call it your own.

But I would like to emphazise the fact, that I have no legal insight about this whatsoever, so the above statement is NOT fact, but merely my POV.

Another way, could be to create an add-in to do the job. It could just close the solution, change the vbproj-file, and reopen the solution.

[BukHix]

Not true at all. I've got VB standard "out of the box" at home and the compiler is pretty much identical to the VS.netpro version.

Maybe compile is the wrong word or I could just be confused. If I have a class like this:

Public Class Class1
    Function about() As String
        Dim str1 As String = "About ClassLibrary1" & _
            StrDup(2, vbCr) & _
            "This is my story" & vbCr & _
            "This is my song."
        Return str1
    End Function
End Class

How can I "compile" that into a dll using VB.Net Standard Version without using a command line, 3rd party add-on or the trick mentioned above?

If this feature is not built in to the standard "out of the box" version I think it is worth noting to people who may be considering buying it. Sure it can still be done just as hooking to the full version of SQL server can. It is just not auto-magicaly done for you as it is in the Pro version. Right?

[wossname]

You are describing making a class library project. Compiling is the right term. We thought you meant compiling a standalone program, which is certainly possible without the command line interface.

You can do DLL's too but it (as described above) you have to either open an existing DLL project or tamper around with the wizards. Its not an add-in or anything like that its more like revealing a feature that was undocumented

Assuming that its legal to do the wizard thing, then you only have to copy them once and then run the wizards as and when needed. Assuming its legal of course.

And since MSDN tells you how to create wizards yourself, then just make one identical to the packaged one et voila.

[BukHix]

You are describing making a class library project. Compiling is the right term. We thought you meant compiling a standalone program, which is certainly possible without the command line interface.

OK I gotcha now. I should have been clearer in my original post. Anyway when I corrected my statement no one acknowledged it so I began to wonder if I just missed something in the GUI.

You can do DLL's too but it (as described above) you have to either open an existing DLL project or tamper around with the wizards. Its not an add-in or anything like that its more like revealing a feature that was undocumented

That is a pretty cool trick. However I think it is just as easy to have a batch file to run the VBC utility, which compiles classes into DLL's. Now creating a wizard to do it would be an awesome addition so I am going to do some more digging on that one.

Thanks again and I will try and be clearer in my future posts

[Andy]

I use the Enterprise Architect version and there are SO many features! I don't think I've even seen them all. I hope though, that the bugs will be worked out in the new version.

[aming]

Ryan the Standard Version lacks many features that the Full version has. Among them the ability to connect (with wizards) to the full version of SQL Server and it lacks built in reporting. You can overcome the SQL problem by hand coding your connections and reporting can be done with a 3rd party add-on.

Otherwise you should be able to create most VB based windows and web apps that you can in the Pro version. It is just not as easy or intuitive. As for the cost, the $109 price is inline with the cost of many MS Office applications, which makes me wonder if VBA developers was the audience they were targeting. If so, in my case, it worked because that is what I was before I purchased VB Standard. I love it and will never go back to VBA.

You may want to check this site for more info on the differences between the Pro and Standard version:

Choose Your Edition

Oh yea one more thing. You do have to do your own compiling with the command prompt in the "out of the box" Standard version. However, I think there is an add-on available to do that for you so that may not be a big deal to you either.

If you have any specific questions about the standard version just post them here and I will try and answer them for you.

On the Standard VB.NET 2003 has no Windows Control Library On the Template. How to add those Control Library On the template, is it possible ?

Thanks

[tonyrueb]

I got the stander version for $59 + s/h at http://www.academicsuperstore.com the thing is you need to be a collage student or high school teacher (or know one) and it is the same one as the $109. also check out the other software

[wossname]

On my work PC there is a folder called: C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio .NET 2003\Vb7\VBWizards

Theoretically, copying this to the same location on a VB.net starndard PC will enable you to create most of the same project types as Pro can. It doesn't provide any extra functionality though like SQL or reporting naturally.

I am told by a reliable source that this does work allegedly aparently. Neither I nor VBF necessarily condone this kind of behaviour. It may possibly invalidate your EULA. Allegedly apparently, so I've heard, nudge nudge, ow's yer father.

:wink: