Admin: I'm not using VB .NET Because.....

[brad jones]

I'm curious, so I thought I'd pose this question.

For those of you still using VB 6 and not .NET, I'd like to know why. What are the reasons you are sticking with version 6 now that two versions of VB .NET have been released as well as a beta of the third. What is keeping you away from .NET? Also, what would it take to get you to switch to .NET?

I'm asking this seriously, so I'd prefer serious answers.

Thanks!

Brad!

[ice_531]

Different syntax means more time to learn it. Sure some things are still the same or similiar but really .NET is a completely different language and vb .NET is closer to c# .NET then anything.

I'd probably switch if i was programming for a living...just to keep up with the "technology" and demand of the industry. Im not though...so i think for anyone doing programming in their spare time for fun or maybe a little money would just stick with what they know well.

[StevenHickerson]

Well why I dont want to switch to vb.net for one as the above poster stated its like an entire new langauge meaning would have to learn the syntax all over again.

Two there seems to be a lot more overhead when I toyed around with it on a friends computer and just created a simple hello world app the dern thing was like 300 KBs!!!

Three the cost to obtain the software, I'm not a programmer by profession so dont have a bunch of money to spend on new languages and VB.Net Professional is just way to much for me to spend right now. Standard I might could do but I never really liked Standard software, to many limitations.

This also applies to why I'm sticking with VB6, I already know it and have gotten pretty good at it, and I have a copy of VB 6.0 Pro and MSDN Library on hand.

What would it take to get me to move over to .Net? Well besides a cheap or free copy of vb .net pro edition, just some extra time and a good book on the new syntax to sit down and learn it

[vbgamer45]

Different Syntax, tons of functions are changed.
Going to have to hunt to find where everything is.
Feels more like Java.
I think the VB6 form editor is better.
Still waiting for a better VB6 project convertor since the current one sucks.
The .net framework is a big download for people who don't have it.
Seems like there are many versions of it. 1.1 2.1 beta etc.
Things seem harder to do.
Easly decompiled.
It seems slower.

You can't just hit run anymore. You now have to build the application in order to test it out.

I have had .Net on my computer for about a year and a half now, maybe used it a couple times.

Don't see a real good reason to switch to .Net other than vb6 will be phased out.

It seems like they are trying to kill VB off...A lot of people won't switch or if they do switch they might as well just pick up C#.

I can really care less about all the OOP crap .Net has it just made it one step harder for other people.

[Dave Sell]

I agree with most of the above posts. I think it boils down to a comfort level. VB6 can be seen as solid as a rock. Why?

Not because it is crash-proof (it's not),
not because it will always be around (it won't)
not because it runs screaming fast (it doesn't)
not because it is fully OO (it never will be)

but mainly because it has such a consistent interface. And by interface, I mean the boundary between the human programmer and the computer. Everything works the same, and that covers alot of territory.

MS took a great idea, namely OOP, and derived a programming interface that just plain makes sense to use.

It's like falling into a giant cravass. Sure, I could climb out of it and learn a new platform, but that would take extra work. I don't have time for that. I wish I did. I really do want to move on to VB.NET, but they just made VB6 (and don't forget the MSDN docs) too well.

[dglienna]

Strictly because of the cost. A client gave me VB, and I am just adapting to it now. If M$ had come out with an upgrade price (for a hundred or two) I may have jumped on the bandwagon.
In the past, I wasn't sure that it would take off, but apparently I was wrong.
I'm sticking with VB to finish writing a commercial app, when it is done, I may upgrade and start again. I'm used to it, coming from QB and now using VB. There is also a lot of help available for VB, so I am confident that its use won't die off anytime soon.
Wouldn't want to sell a client a new proggy every year!
(wish I had the MSDN collection)

[RobDog888]

I am making the transition, but its a very slow one. The time it
is going to take to be as fluent as I am in vb6 is tremendous.
Since I program for a living I need to be fluent in .net before I can
completely change otherwise I will miss all my deadlines and blow
the project budgets. So it seems that vb6 is faster for me to
develop in. I am forced to keep vb6 as my primary
development studio for now.

[szlamany]

We had the very unfortunate experience of leaving the DEC/VAX mainframe world fours years ago.

At that time MS was pulling copies of VB6 off the shelf and only selling .NET (at CompUSA stores, etc).

Our clients would not have allowed us to choose .NET at that time - too early, too untested, ADO .NET was foolishly disregarding anything but a disconnected - prefer it to be XML - recordset.

So we choose VB6 with MS SQL backend to replace 25 years of mainframe software.

Now we are finally arriving at finishing the development cycle on some of the applications.

We specifically choose to develop a very lightweight VB front-end - no business logic at all. We are going to replace the front-end with VB.Net or even a web tool next...

Lots of dollars to develop - lots of time - switching to something new costs R&D dollars that no one wants to give us...

Cost of MS product has nothing to do with it - we have MSDN licence to just about everything - bought action-pack two years ago. MS send me CD's every month - we don't even have time to catalog them...

It's all about internal cost to make the transistion. And getting customers to want to do it as well (school districts with 1000+ PC installled like to be stable - not cutting edge).

[Merri]

I've been saying this before a few times, but one more doesn't hurt too much

I'm a hobbyist programmer, doing programming on my spare time only because I like to do it. Thus, whenever I manage to make up something I want to share, size does matter a lot. .NET works fine, but it is ok only for companies, as they can install the humongo mainframe in a centralized manner, while normal home users are bothered to install a huge one of a file they don't really need. VB6 runtimes come natively with 2k and XP, and they're not too big to have in a setup.

Also, VB6 provides me all I need:
- Making out an idea to final program? The fastest you can get.
- Speed? Can do stuff fast when needed.
- XP style? Don't like it. Don't use it.
- IDE design? Easy, fast and smooth.

I've known it long and it still serves its purpose. A worthy and a flexible tool. Also, in my opinion VB.NET isn't a sequel to Visual Basic series: the syntax is different, it isn't of the same version line. It isn't an improved version of VB, it is a completely new language. Microsoft probably just wants to make more people use their C#

I don't need to learn a new language!

As long as I don't need to code superhighcomplexmathcalculation or 3D games (and I'm not planning to), VB6 as it is, is ok. I'm also planning to save atleast one of my current computers to the far future so I can die with it when the time comes


I don't like Microsoft's new style of pushing out new stuff and ignoring the past. The old style, backwards compatibility at all costs, was a lot more nice. They're trying to force people to use new systems, while a truth is that people use anything that works for them. Many companies are still using Windows 98 for example, because it is good enough for their needs. But I'll quit on this one before there is a huge amount of posts about Longhorn while the topic should be on .NET


.NET just isn't good for a hobbyist programmer. And I feel like if I'm one of the last ones (who are in working age).

[BruceG]

Brad, the question you have posed now throws me into a stream of consciousness. Here are my random thoughts on this:

Up until .NET, VB has to some degree retained the flavor of its great-grandfather, BASIC. I would say the "flavor" of BASIC is that it is a very high-level language with simplified syntax - you could concentrate on the problem at hand and let the computer do the work. Although early versions of BASIC were limited, the enhancements made with VB over the years have enabled us to develop highly functional, great-looking applications in much less time than it would take with other development systems. And the syntax is so familiar. If I have to process a text file, it's just so easy to use the old Open/Input #/Close statements (what's so wrong with that?). Sure, I've used the FSO at times, but why have the extra object overhead when it's not needed?

I feel that MS has truly abandoned the VB programmer. For years, MS promoted VB as the language of choice for RAD and VBA is in all the Office apps. .NET does not build on the previous versions of VB. A friend of mine took me kicking and screaming to an MS-sponsored .NET seminar/demo one afternoon back in November of last year. As the lecturer started to go through some simple examples, my reaction was "You've got to be f***ing kidding me." This same friend is not solely a hard-core programmer like I am, but rather a jack-of-all-trades computer guy (network admin/programmer/ web guy, etc.). At times he will call me from work about how to go out a development task or algorithm - while I could help him out so easily in VB6, I have to fire up .NET and figure out what objects and libraries to use just to come up with some code for him (like a simple date routine - this-dot-that-dot-the other thing, blah blah blah).

I have spent a great deal of time and effort learning the language and honing my development skills with it. I am not ready to kick it to the curb just yet.

I am not a dinosaur - I know that one has to keep current in this field - believe me, at 40+ I cut my teeth on COBOL, and have moved from green-screen mainframe to MS-DOS to all versions of Windows. I know that I will have to bite the bullet and become "conversant" in .NET and/or Java. At work, we are still using VB6 primarily, but there is some .NET and Java development going on, and I will be diving in sooner or later. But I have just not seen a compelling enough reason to jump on the .NET bandwagon.

From the late 90's up until fairly recently, I was pretty much pro-MS and used their products exclusively. In my current position, there is a great mix of tools including VB6, Oracle, UNIX, Java, .NET, etc. There will always be a special place in my heart for VB6, but when the time comes to learn and go "whole hog" with another development tool, I will not be leading the charge for .NET - I'll use it if I have to, but I will be open to Java and/or whatever other choices are out there.

Whew- that was cathartic.

[MartinLiss]

• Cost
• Old Dog
• Not enough time to learn
• No incentive to learn since any programs I write are for my own benefit and VB6 is just fine for me

[vbgamer45]

Well I just ran .Net again and it made me think...
They are leaveing C++ alone and they have a spinoff called C#
Why can't they also keep the old VB6 and have a .net spinoff VB#
Why are VB programmers forced to change and adapt.
Just continue to include vb6 with visual studio.net some minor updates here and there...

I know they are big into getting everyone to switch to .net which allows them to have greater control of security and other things.


I can dream can't I? I wonder how many of orginal VB6 programmers continued to work on VB.net.


Now to get me to switch to .Net I would need a way better Project convertor. I have so many years and thousands of lines worth of code. That I would need to update. Right now I don't like the convertor where you have to copy and paste your code to convert it. They should make a Form's convertor as well.
Other things, I don't like dealing with objects...I miss doing stuff like Form1.caption="something" instead of declaring a new form1 object...

[Bruce Fox]

G'Day Brad,

As a hobby programmer that has been around since the TI Extended 'BASIC' days I found that VBx was inline with BASIC and evolved up to VB6 maintaining the BASIC framework. Where as .Net isn't a progressive step ahead, more so a side step (a large one at that) into a new programming lanuage.

They (VB/.Net) arn't even that same animal!

Anyway, back to your question - "why not change", my response would be - Why?
VB6 does everything I need.

My feeling is that .Net should have come out along side VB (eVb, VB6, VC++) with VB development/support continuing.

I know that .Net may be required due to developments in technology etc, however as mentioned, done in parrallel.




Bruce.

[VBGuy]

I used to say VB6 did everything I needed it to do. It’s RAD to the max and more powerful than many give it credit for. Unfortunately it is beginning to fail in one big area, my career. I can no longer remain competitive without using .NET. I am currently looking to change positions and I’ve found that in our already slow market that if you’re an MS programmer and you don’t have .NET experience you are going to be hindered in your ongoing career growth.

As a senior developer that has a proven track record of on-time delivery and an impressive ROI for my work, I am getting doors closed because I do not have 1+ years of solid .NET experience. Doesn’t seem to make the most business sense to me but the rules are changing therefore I must change. To address this concern, not only for myself but for the 3 guys I have working with me; I instituted a policy about 6 months ago that all of our non-mainline production projects and utility code must be in VB.NET or C#.

We are slowly becoming more proficient and are to the point where we might be able to start shifting over to a real .NET project but the cost has been enormous to each of us personally.

[Pasvorto]

I haven't switched to .NET because I haven't seen a need to.

I am a one man shop here. I can keep up with my users (125+) demands by using VB6. I don't think I would be nearly as responsive on .NET.

I have some major systems written in VB6 (300,000+ lines of code) and SQL Server. I don't want to try a major conversion.

I have gotten most of the bugs out of my existing systems (I know there are always more bugs to find). If I switch to a new language, I introduce a whole new swarm.

If I want to switch to a new language I will go to C++ or one of the internet languages (ASP, etc).

I don't see where I could provide any more functionality to my company. So, if there is no return, why pay the price to change?

I don't plan to enter the job market anytime soon, so I am not particularly concerned about what is on my resume. I have been in the computer industry since 1978, so I have experience in a multitude of areas. Age is the big employment hurdle that I face.

[jdc2000]

I haven't changed to .Net and don't plan to for the forseeable future. Reasons include:

A lot more coding overhead. Program size increased significantly.

Some functions that I currently use in VB6 are not available in .Net

Bottom line is that .Net doesn't do anything I need that VB6 doesn't.

[Cander]

They are leaveing C++ alone and they have a spinoff called C#
Why can't they also keep the old VB6 and have a .net spinoff VB#
Why are VB programmers forced to change and adapt.
Just continue to include vb6 with visual studio.net some minor updates here and there...

C# is not anymore a spin off of C++ than VB is.
Keep old VB6? Last I checked they are still supporting VB6
Forced to change? Whos forcing you? Did your visual Studio 6 just suddenly stop working?
Continue VB6 with VS.NET? What would be the point?

[szlamany]

Originally posted by Cander
C# is not anymore a spin off of C++ than VB is.
Keep old VB6? Last I checked they are still supporting VB6
Forced to change? Whos forcing you? Did your visual Studio 6 just suddenly stop working?
Continue VB6 with VS.NET? What would be the point?

So, I guess you are using .NET - right?

So your answer to the question of the post - "I'm not using VB .Net because?" is ?

I think the posts made here make tons of sense in the business world - where I've been programming on my own since 1986 - enjoying a fantastic career and many, many happy paying customers...

[Dave Sell]

After reading all these posts something else has come to mind:

I will be using .NET soon, but not to replace what VB6 does well. What VB6 does well is allow RAD of rich clients.

I see a great value using .NET for thin client apps (ie.. web front ends to bus. logic and data tiers).

So I will continue to use VB6 to create rich clients. However I am learning ASP.NET for the purpose of creating all my internet apps. I think many here will agree they are planning the same.

[packman]

I still program in VB6 because my employer does not want to switch to VB.NET just yet. I have been using VB.Net since the first version and I feel confident that I can do everything that I am able to do in VB6. Therefore, In order to stay current in my field, I usually write a VB6 version and a VB.Net version.

[Pino]

'Vb 6 is still recognised by employers and provides a good base for any young programmer'

thats a quote from a computing teacher at school, i feel my knowledge at the moment of VB is intermediate so why should i start learning vb.net and become average at the two languages when i can learn vb inside out and move onto a language which is faster and more complex (c#)

also the major factor for most people is cost prices over here in the uk

VB.net - £99-99
for a decent book (internet guides arnt allways what you need) - £40.00 (average)

another factor is that VB used to be microsofts 'toy' and main language they focused on but now they are switching to c# where a good amount of poeple are moving sure it will cost the same, but maybe the money will be better spent?

[mudfish]

I do not think the people I work for want the expense of the training to shift us to .Net now! The longer they wait the more it will cost in man hours!

[kleinma]

I am currently using both.
For most apps going out to customers, VB6 is still being used, as I am more proficient in it at the moment, and not all end users have PCs that will support the .net framework just yet. For internal apps, and soon, for web apps, I will be using .NET

The whole "learning a new syntax" crap is just sad. You guys picked the wrong profession then. Things are always going to change, and you need to change with it or be left behind. If you don't like the way MS is doing things, you need to go develop for linux. Otherwise, you suck it up and get on with learning it.

For those that said it is a cost factor: That is understandable, without a company to buy you software, the costs can add up. MS is however releasing an express version of VB.NET at reduced cost and can at the very least teach you the language, even if some of the super extra features are not there. You wont use any of them in early development with .net anyway.

For anyone else: I wasnt quick to move to .NET, in fact I had 2 books written based on Beta 2 back a few years ago that I never read. Then I got .NET 2003 and picked those books up and read them, and started messing around. It is a little slow and frustrating at first. Certain things you think should work simply won't, and you will be entering into a whole new concept of programming which is that EVERYTHING is an object. Forms don't have default instances, and other fun things to make you pull your hair out. But every single time I came across one of those issues, I simply hit F1, or searched on google, and found an answer instantly. The help in .NET (especially the context sensitive help) is really good, and the documentation on the framework is exceptional as well. Then you start to realize how cool inheritence can be and how it can save you tons of code and tons of hours. Or that you can overload/override functions. All the crap that people used to say "oh you need C++ to do that"

Learn it now, because MS is already releasing a 3rd .NET IDE next year, and a 3rd version of the framework... so the longer you wait, the longer it will take to catch up.

Oh and the people who say "MS is just killing off VB, use C# or use C++" that is just stupid. STUPID STUPID STUPID

MS created the framework. C# or VB is just the interface you use to run code on it. They do the same thing, there is no difference other than syntax, which then still isn't all that complicated. VB is not going anywhere, it is now the strongest that it has EVER BEEN. MS rewrote VB from scratch in .NET to allow it to encompass all the features of being fully OO. Why would MS spend all that time and effort if they already had C#? Because they know the amount of VB programmers out there, and they know they are loyal to MS, and they know they can't take it away.

[Merri]

kleinma, your answer doesn't answer why you're still using VB6. Well, it does it lightly at the beginning, but you're more telling people to switch to .NET - why? This isn't a thread for that. Stay on topic, pretty please

[kleinma]

he didn't ask just why are people still using VB6, he also asked what is keeping them away from .NET

I think everything I wrote has to do with what is keeping people from using .NET, even if I did supply counter reasons to them.

[Memnoch1207]

I've been programming in .NET for just over 2 years now and I honestly don't see why anyone would stay with VB6.

1) The syntax is the same (it's Visual Basic after all). You just have to get familiar with the framework.

2) The cost for the IDE is expensive, but you can develop without the IDE, which you can't do in VB6. Plus they just released free 2005 versions, so just to learn doesn't cost anything.

3) The learning curve isn't as bad as many may think. If you have a good understanding of OOP, then it's a breeze.

From an individual stand point, I don't see why anyone wouldn't use .NET over VB6.

Now, from an industry standpoint, when you look at all of the companies that developed in VB6. The cost of training their staff in .NET, rewriting existing apps in .NET, etc.. would be expensive.

[Shaggy Hiker]

.NET is the only way to go for PDA programming, especially with SQL Server CE.

Writing for a PDA has gotten me more familiar with .NET, but I have no new projects in VB these days, and don't have the time to migrate existing projects.

.NET syntax is not all that much different, and I don't mind most of the changes. The one thing that really alters my existing programs is the switch to real OO design. Many of the programs could be better written with OO, but that means I have to re-think the design, rather than simply migrate them. That's fun, but time consuming.

I do expect to move entirely to .NET in the next year....after spending a month or so on a walkabout.

[Merri]

I really think this is getting off-topic, thus lets have this first post copied here. Please, people, there already are a lot of threads on "why to move from VB6 to .NET", don't make this just one more of them! I myself want to see the reasons other people still use VB6 rather than .NET

Originally posted by brad jones
For those of you still using VB 6 and not .NET, I'd like to know why. What are the reasons you are sticking with version 6 now that two versions of VB .NET have been released as well as a beta of the third. What is keeping you away from .NET? Also, what would it take to get you to switch to .NET?

I'm asking this seriously, so I'd prefer serious answers.

I haven't answered the last question yet. The only way to make me learn .NET is that I'd get a job as a programmer and they wanted me to do .NET. I don't do programming as my job, I don't get .NET - VB6 suits me best atm because of the reasons mentioned in my first post in this thread.

[szlamany]

I'm going to clarify some of the points/issues I made.

ADO .NET three years ago was brand new - and all about disconnected WEB access. In creating a large WAN enterprise-wide system for 1000+ PC's connected to MS SQL SERVER 2000, ADO 2.x was the only choice that could be wisely taken.

With ADO 2.x, it made sense to stay with VB6.

That was three years ago - we are approaching completion of the application. It's a lightweight VB6 client program - absolutely no business logic at all - only DATA ENTRY/REPORT OUTPUT. VB6 served that requirement well - no COM required in this - no INHERITANCE.

With all the business logic in STORED PROCEDURES in MS SQL 2000 and a well proven ADO 2.x communication experience - how can I tell the customers that it's time to re-do the front end in VB .NET and switch to ADO .NET?

Just getting MDAC installed on 1000+ PC's was a monumental task for their IT department.

They keep the executable on "servers" at each of 20+ buildings - users click on a shortcut and load the exe from the "local" servers.

It's small - it's tight - it's clean.

Plus, I've been using high school students to help with coding - they all know VB6 - none of them know VB.Net.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Originally posted by szlamany
I'm going to clarify some of the points/issues I made.

It's small - it's tight - it's clean.

Plus, I've been using high school students to help with coding - they all know VB6 - none of them know VB.Net.

Oh, slave labor doesn't know .NET yet?

[Muddy]

I have some large applications written in VB6. I cant justify converting to dot net even if I am considering adding new major functionality.

For a brand new app I would likely use dot net ..

[brad jones]

Thanks everyone. I want to hear from others as well, so I'm going to stick this thread in the forum.

Please -

My focus in this thread is to understand why people have not moved to -- or are not going to move to -- .NET.

I don't want to delute this thread (any more) with "why" people should move to .NET. That is a different conversation for a different thread. I'm interested in what is is preventing people from making the move, or what the reasons are for not making the move. And, I'm interested in knowing what would need to change for you to make the move.

If you want to post anonymously to this thread, send me an email with your post and I'll place it for you. If you haven't made the move but don't want your information shared publicly, send me a PM or email (and state that I can't post it publicly). (Again serious comments only please )

There are lots of people that haven't moved from VB 6 to .NET, so this is really an interesting topic for me to understand in all seriousness.

I'd like to thank those that have already answered. This is an interesting thread so far!

Brad!
VBForums Site Manager
(aka site grunt)

[alacritous]

My post doesn't mean anything, because I havn't made anything special, and I'm young, but I'm going to C/C++.

I don't want to get too off subject, but what language will/would a computer engineer use?

Alacritous

[NoteMe]

Was finaly getting the hang of VB, then VB.NET came out and I felt I had to start over. And we had both Java, and C++ classes at school, so I became an Java teacher, and like C++ even more. So they can fill the need for me. Not doing any VB, at the moment, and I will never touch VB.NET if I don't have to at work. I bet I will try to write classic VB in it all the time, and it is going to drive me nuts, and I don't want that.

And C++ is better for games anyway, so why stick to slow VB. It's only good for RAD applications anyway. And I am not doing much of that these days anyway.


ØØ

[brucevde]

As a contractor the only thing stopping me from completely switching is my clients. They all say the same thing - Money, Effort and Time. They will not invest any money to convert existing apps from VB6 to .NET. They all have the "It ain't broke so don't fix it" attitude. Its just not worth it for them.

Some clients are starting to use .NET for new development but if the application requires ADO it will be written using VB6.0. Most clients already have their "data access" code written, tested, bug fixed and running smoothly.

I do find that, the more an application is web based, a client will accept .Net quicker.

[JPnyc]

For what it's worth, and with all it's faults, I think VB is the most logical computer programming language ever devised. There is no fat (or precious little) in the syntax. Unfortunately that usually means excess fat at the other end (the bit code), but I admire its simplicity, it's purity, it's directness.

You don't have to instantiate a whole class to make a freakin' DB connection. Just declare the conn object, and pass the connection string. Just as it SHOULD be.

I do prefer the {} method of delineating blocks of code to the if End if method, but hey, nothing's perfect.

On Error Resume Next. Simple, and it works.
Again, in other langs this is another whole damn class. The throwable class, Exception class extends throwable (in java)

Way too much fat in those syntaxes for me. Call me nuts or lazy, but I hate fuss just for the sake of itself.

[squakMix]

I'm taking a class that uses vb 6.0 and I dont have time to learn how to use .net. I am also more comforatble with vb 6 overall.

[Mosabama]

Actally I think that any one knows how to use VB6 .. Can learn .NET in 2 days ....

its all about finding out what are the new functions and the new classes .. thats all ???

I mean the syntax is allmost the same ?? So I dont think it will take much time to learn for those who say that they have no time to learn ..!!!

[CORONA BEER]

What is .net for? i have used VB6 and i thought that sucked so i switched to Delphi.

[TheBionicOrange]

I'd like to use it, but the company I work for has only had VB6 for less than 3 years, and I can't see them spending out for .NET in the next year or so ... unfortunately !