Why Visual Basic?

[manny18]

in my project, i have to explain why i should use VB instead of other langauge, aside from it is easy to use, what other reasons i might include in my project? ill be using a server based project.

[dglienna]

Despite it's ease of use, VB6 is known for being a RAD language.
It's easy to use for Rapid Application Development.
It can interact with all popular databases, and can easily be deployed either by CD or over the Internet.

Because it is being phased out, though, you might be better off talking about VB Net, which is it's successor. It shares few qualities of VB6, and requires the use of the Net Framework on all machines that run it. It can do more then VB6, though, and is more powerful.

[sanjaylimbikai]

Hi DG,

I have my projects currently in VB6, if I think to upgrade my projects to VB.net,
could you please tell me how much I have to make changes to my vb6 projects?

Sanjay

[RobDog888]

VB6 projects are not compatible at all with VB.NET. VB.NET is not considered an upgrade from VB6, its a complete re-write of VB making it completely OOp. There is a VB6 to .NET converting wizard but it was never designed to be a 100% conversion tool. At best even MS states only a max of 95% for conversions.

Your best bet is to do a complete re-write of your VB6 projects for several reasons. You get to learn the actual code needed, you get a chance to improve your code and logic, etc.

[sanjaylimbikai]

hmm.. you mean to say I must spend several months on my existing projects if I plan to switch to vb.net, and I still to start learn vb.net.

[RobDog888]

The switch to .NET is steep but its well worth it. If your an experienced vb6 programmer and have a good grasp of OOP then it wont be that har at all.

[esposito]

I have been using REALBasic by REALSoftware (www.realsoftware.com) for a month and I am impressed by how similar to VB6 it is in its syntax.

I think REALBasic could be the real successor to VB6 in that the VB user won't have to make any effort to learn a new syntax. VB.NET, on the contrary, is a completely new language which has very little to do with its "pseudo-predecessor".

The advantages a VB6 user may get by switching to REALBasic are enormous: he will be able to create stand-alone executables for Windows, Macintosh and Linux using the same code. So, your applications will require no runtime libraries and they will really be cross-platform.

VB.NET is undoubtedly an enormous step forward, but I don't like the penetrability of managed byte-code (it's too easy to crack) and the need of a Framework that is too cumbersome. You can't ask your users to download a 20-MB "runtime" from the Internet to make your applications run. They would very likely switch to less problematic software.

REALBaic is equipped with an external tool that facilitates the migration of VB6 forms to RB. Most of the code could even be cut and pasted since it is identical but there are, of course, minor differences.

VB.NET looks much more complicated than VB6 and this prevents the majority of VB6 users from upgrading to it. The other serious reason that makes VB6 programmers stick to their old tool is what I call the "Framework hell". Presumably, the Framework will be upgraded every three years and, everytime a new version is released, you must check that there are no compatibility problems with your "old" managed code.

Please explain to me why on earth I should use VB.NET to develop an application that I could also develop in VB 6.0/RB. In other words, why should I risk that some users may not be able to run it because they don't have the .NET Framework installed or some inexperienced hackers may reverse-engineer it in a couple of minutes?

It seems to me more logical to say that .NET should only be used when the application you want to develop cannot be created with VB6 or REALBasic, simply because the latter tools are less problematic that the former one. So VB6/REALBasic should be preferred to VB.NET whenever your app does not need to rely on the Framework.

Does anybody know any reasons why one should prefer VB.NET to REALBasic?

[Hack]

Moved.

[sanjaylimbikai]

What is more advanced in RealBasic than Visual Basic?

[esposito]

As I said: (1) creation of standalone executables, (2) real cross-platform compatibility (Windows, Macintosh, Linux) using the same code, (3) regular upgrades from RealSoftware (VB6 is a dead language instead).

What is more advanced in RealBasic than Visual Basic?

[manny18]

are there anymore advantage does Visual basic have over other programming languages?

[Shaggy Hiker]

You might stress the user base, since it sounds like you are writing a justification. Maintenance of a program written in a well-established language is easier than maintenance in a peripheral language because it is easier to hire the skills you need.

[esposito]

I agree with you, so much so that I normally use VB6 for my applications. I only resort to REALbasic when I need to program for Linux and/or Macintosh.

What I will never do is produce a shareware program with VB.NET: as I said, cracking it would be a piece of cake and I would lose all the potential customers who don't have the framework installed on their machines.

You might stress the user base, since it sounds like you are writing a justification. Maintenance of a program written in a well-established language is easier than maintenance in a peripheral language because it is easier to hire the skills you need.

[Shaggy Hiker]

The framework issue will go away....the cracking probably won't.

VB6 requires a substantial runtime, as well, though not as big as .NET.

[esposito]

Backward compatibility of the .NET framework is not something you can take for granted. So, even though it is included in the next release of Windows, the problem will not be solved at all. You must always make sure that your customers are provided with the correct version.

You are right about the VB6 runtime files. It is not by chance that many programmers prefer VB5 to VB6: MSVBVM50.DLL is present in the OS (from Win 98 on).

The framework issue will go away....the cracking probably won't.

VB6 requires a substantial runtime, as well, though not as big as .NET.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I'll buy that, but the promise was to get away from DLL Hell through this route. May not happen, though.

[esposito]

You can get rid of the DLL hell in VB.NET in that you don't have to register third-party components written in managed code. You have to cope with the .NET framework hell, though.

I'll buy that, but the promise was to get away from DLL Hell through this route. May not happen, though.