Moving to VB.NET from VB6

[penagate]

The following article, that I consider extremely accurate, made me understand .NET may represent MS's grave.

Please find the entire article on

http://www.bitwisemag.com/copy/byteg...ytegeist7.html

I skimmed over that article and to be honest it reads like a biased rant.

Technically speaking, seven years after VB6 was released in October 1998, VB8 is now – at last - just equivalent to the old VB6 with the inclusion of the edit-and-continue feature.

Someone please explain to me what edit-and-continue has to do with the power of a language.

But I agree with sevenhalo, it does sound as though you've made up your mind. I'm just pointing out that the articles you are citing are rather inaccurate.

Since the the Fx came out

Fx = Firefox

[conipto]

Why do companies, and programmers in general, feel this need to do a massive conversion to .NET? Why can't you just start NEW developments in .NET, and continue to support the legacy product line in VB6? It's not like you'd need two programmers to do that. Whatever program you're working on, you're working on. It's not like using VB6 disables you from using .NET or vice versa.

Bill

[esposito]

I skimmed over that article and to be honest it reads like a biased rant.

If you don't say why, yours becomes only an offensive statement.

But I agree with sevenhalo, it does sound as though you've made up your mind. I'm just pointing out that the articles you are citing are rather inaccurate.


Fx = Firefox

Yes, I have already made up my mind to go on using VB6 but I need to convince my boss that it's the best thing to do for the moment.

Why are the articles inaccurate?

[penagate]

If you don't say why, yours becomes only an offensive statement.

I did explain, it was in the part of my quote that you conveniently chopped off

[conipto]

That article you last quote seems to say "While we know it sorta sucks, you will have to do it anyways because M$ hath decreed it so." Isn't it better to convert things now when you have the time than later when you don't?

Bill

[esposito]

That article you last quote seems to say "While we know it sorta sucks, you will have to do it anyways because M$ hath decreed it so." Isn't it better to convert things now when you have the time than later when you don't?

Bill

The truth is, I am not convinced that .NET is the future. If billions of former VB6 developers decided not to upgrade, it means there are serious reasons for it and I think I have already pointed out some of them.

If you develop software for the general public, you can't take for granted that everybody has the framework installed on their machines. Now, distributing a 23MB runtime file is not easy at all. A customer who does not have an ADSL connection will never download it from the Web just to make your .NET app work. Very likely, he will switch to less problematic software.

The framework is the most important reason why I don't want to move to .NET. The second reason (vulnerability of byte-code) is less serious simply because you can resort to some good tools to obfuscate your code, but even so it is still a problem.

The last bad news I heard about is the fact that .NET Framework 2.0 is not backward compatible. So, if you have distributed some applications developed with VS 2003 now you have to provide your customers with another 23MB runtime file to allow them to use your new software developed with VB 2005. I'm sorry, it's more than I can bear.

[capsulecorpjx]

I agree. Besides, if it isn't broke (VB6) don't fix it.

The truth is, I am not convinced that .NET is the future. If billions of former VB6 developers decided not to upgrade, it means there are serious reasons for it and I think I have already pointed out some of them.

If you develop software for the general public, you can't take for granted that everybody has the framework installed on their machines. Now, distributing a 23MB runtime file is not easy at all. A customer who does not have an ADSL connection will never download it from the Web just to make your .NET app work. Very likely, he will switch to less problematic software.

The framework is the most important reason why I don't want to move to .NET. The second reason (vulnerability of byte-code) is less serious simply because you can resort to some good tools to obfuscate your code, but even so it is still a problem.

The last bad news I heard about is the fact that .NET Framework 2.0 is not backward compatible. So, if you have distributed some applications developed with VS 2003 now you have to provide your customers with another 23MB runtime file to allow them to use your new software developed with VB 2005. I'm sorry, it's more than I can bear.

[sevenhalo]

If you develop software for the general public, you can't take for granted that everybody has the framework installed on their machines. Now, distributing a 23MB runtime file is not easy at all. A customer who does not have an ADSL connection will never download it from the Web just to make your .NET app work. Very likely, he will switch to less problematic software.

You conveniently left out that Vista is being distributed with the 2.0 Fx.

The last bad news I heard about is the fact that .NET Framework 2.0 is not backward compatible. So, if you have distributed some applications developed with VS 2003 now you have to provide your customers with another 23MB runtime file to allow them to use your new software developed with VB 2005.

Just for clarity, they're a side-by-side Fx. Because of MS's new versioning system,, both can co exists and not interfere with one another.

23MB isn't that big of a deal when you think about it. Norton Antivirus' definitions files are around half the size and a new one is distributed about 4x a week. Plus, consider the alternatives. These "horrible 23MB files that are absolultely unbearable" is not a new $130 OS like it would be in the Mac camp. I bet they would kill to be able to download a file and ensure compatibility with Mac's future software.

[esposito]

You conveniently left out that Vista is being distributed with the 2.0 Fx.

The 2.0 Fx won't let my apps written in VS.NET 2003 work. I love standalone executables so much that I avoid using OCX's in my VB6 apps. The idea of having to distribute a 23MB virtual machine (which becomes much huger after its installation) is something I can't accept.

Just for clarity, they're a side-by-side Fx. Because of MS's new versioning system,, both can co exists and not interfere with one another.

23MB isn't that big of a deal when you think about it. Norton Antivirus' definitions files are around half the size and a new one is distributed about 4x a week. Plus, consider the alternatives. These "horrible 23MB files that are absolultely unbearable" is not a new $130 OS like it would be in the Mac camp. I bet they would kill to be able to download a file and ensure compatibility with Mac's future software.

23MB is big if you consider that it's only the size of the setup file. Again, after the installation, the hard disk is deprived of hundreds of MBs.

[sevenhalo]

Fx = Firefox

It's also an abbreviation for Framework.