VB.NET run faster than Vb 6

[ychhuong]

When i read a VB.NET book, it is said that VB.NET run faster than VB 6. Can one explain about this clearly? Why it run faster?

[dee-u]

What version of VB.Net are we talking about here?

[ychhuong]

I refer to VB.NET 2003.

[wossname]

.NET runs faster than VB6 (when VB6 is compiling to PCode). If vb6 is compiled to native then the margin is narrowed somewhat. But there is still an advantage to .net most of the time.

[dee-u]

.NET runs faster than VB6 (when VB6 is compiling to PCode). If vb6 is compiled to native then the margin is narrowed somewhat. But there is still an advantage to .net most of the time.

I thought Vb6.0 is faster than VB.net 2003?

[Pino]

I think it varies on so many thigns its hard to judge, I'd expect 2003 to be faster than 6 and 2005 to be more of an improvment

Pino

[dee-u]

I think it varies on so many thigns its hard to judge, I'd expect 2003 to be faster than 6 and 2005 to be more of an improvment

Pino

Seems weird, you mean 2003 is faster than 2005?

[Pino]

no let me re-phrase

I think it varies on so many thigns its hard to judge, I'd expect 2003 to be faster than 6 and 2005 to be more of an improvment on 2003

Pino

[shunt]

I still dont understand what the fuss is about the speed difference.... it is going to be irrelevant once Vista is in place.... Move to .NET or become extinct!

[Raedwulf]

Untrue - native code will still run on Vista - so why move?
.NET has a lot of features:
portability (Mono is kinda incompatible still though) - as yet this has not been realised because ms is trying to dominate the OS market - so why would you need portability to other PCs unless you are targetting Mac....which occupy probably less market than Linux.

security - i.e. the programmer has less control :P

speed - its faster than Java sometimes(depending on the VM you use) but slower than native compiled languages - (as this is about VB6 - it depends on what you are doing - some of vb's in built functions are slow because the vb team programming the msvbvm60.dll were pretty incompetent so some the maths functions are slow - but if you replace them with your own written in another language it should be fine.) In general, they are kinda even with .NET edging it in the more important areas(otherwise how else could ms persuade use to move?) but as I know how to program in asm and have the thundervb addin -i happily use assembly for bits of the program which are slow.

memory - it uses less memory than Java maybe 40-50% less (but compare it with native c it uses about 20x more). An empty application (i.e. you open new project in VB 2005 Express and press compile) takes 5mb of memory when run.

open source- decompile it any day with Lutz Roeder .Net Reflector

MS - it'll live as long MS breathes or until MS gets bored of its toy like COM - but even still COM has its uses because its native.

Future - Yeah MS spent a lot of money on it

Native features:
Fast-very fast - What virtual machine crap - the program speaks fluent 0s and 1s
Memory - low memory consumption - you can get programs that use less than 1kb memory
Control - free control little security against programmers
More secure program from crackers - well kinda - at least its harder than reading highlevel decompilation of .NET
Always be there - MS just can't get rid of native language - i.e. drivers cannot be programmed completely in .NET and come on - the OS kernel must be Native. Besides - what would Intel say if their renowned C++ compiler doesn't work on Vista - or future OSes anymore lol.
Even if MS doesn't export special .NET API for C++ - it easy enough to wrap the .NET api and export it through a layer for your C++ program - or worst comes to worst someone is bound to rewrite it with the equal functionality.

I will stick with native - unless you are targetting a market of ppl with really really fast pcs with lots of memory I for one don't fit in this category.
The loading time of .NET apps is horrible like Java because it must be JITed into native - which isn't fast adn then it also has to allocate memory for this that and the other. I always feel this 'ickyness' about .NET apps - something sluggish. while for c/asm apps - its quite instant - every movement .

But then thats just me.

Cheers,
Ralph

[Raedwulf]

Btw, vb6 is gonna become a little extinct because its a 32bit compiler and not a 64-bit compiler. There's no other reason than that.

[Jacob Roman]

I thought Vb6.0 is faster than VB.net 2003?

It is. VB6 is about 3% faster than VB.NET. I'd expect .NET to be somewhat of an improvement with all the new features and all, but what I hate about it is...

1) The fact that it's 100% object oriented, forcing me to dig through all sorts of classes to find the functions I need, rather than calling the subs/functions on demand.

2) The exe's are too large. Compare a "Hello World" app in VB6 (7k) to VB.NET (500k).

3) The apps require the framework to be installed and usually updated.

4) It executes slower than VB6. It could have been as fast as C++, but MS focused on more of their so-called "ease of use" over speed.

5) The classic BASIC syntax that's been around for almost 40 years has been annihilated, and now it is pretty much its own language. Mostly looking like C++ though. The syntax looks hardly like VB6 now, and you are forced to relearn VB.

[shunt]

Ahhhhh! I actually have to learn to program now.....? Ahhhh! My world is coming to an end!

[Raedwulf]

VB6 is about 3% faster than VB.NET

There isn't a fixed value because some of VB.NET functions are sometimes faster than vb6 - this im referring to is what functions you call in msvbvm60.dll e.g. Chr$, Str$, Left$ etc. etc. (some may runn gfaster/or slower I do not know for sure)
I'm quite confident vb.net 2002 is slower than vb6 most of the time and these benchmarks will show a vague idea on various maths functions.
http://directx4vb.vbgamer.com/Direct...M_NETvsVB6.asp

But there is always 1 guarantee - .net apps are memory hogs like java (though not as bad)
A Hello World app in VB.NET is 5 mb in memory while a vb6 equiv ....is surprisingly quite big too - 2mb (my explanation for this must be the fact that the vb runtime library must be loaded.

but still thats half the vb.net app.

5) The classic BASIC syntax that's been around for almost 40 years has been annihilated, and now it is pretty much its own language. Mostly looking like C++ though. The syntax looks hardly like VB6 now, and you are forced to relearn VB.

Hmmm I thought vb looked like c++ crossed with the classic BASIC - well I can feel the c++ underlying its roots - in the object oriented side.
i think vb.net looks more like c#.
But I guess ppl have different opinions.

Actually, unlike c, BASIC seems to have more of an ASM look than c lol
But aye, just my opinion.

Btw, the BASIC language is not annihilated just nearly annihilated

1) The fact that it's 100% object oriented, forcing me to dig through all sorts of classes to find the functions I need, rather than calling the subs/functions on demand.

Yeah, sometimes the best solutions are function and subroutines. Classes are good but there are times when they are completely unnecessary and just add extra overhead which absolutely pointless.

Why .NET?
Why...why....why....why....why....why ?

Vista is based on .NET
Microsoft is creating Windows Vista - it creates new upgrades required by all users.
It slugs down ogl and prevents ogl extensions(unless you disable the Aero desktop)
- which indirectly attacks Macs and Linux machines which use OGL. - ie developers will aim for the bigger ms market.
This is the most worrying - i found references that winapi is gonna remain but new .NET API only available for .NET applications will be used in Win Vista. Does this mean that new windows features aren't available with non-.NET?
I've thought this over and I think if they are any - a simple wrapper can be written in order to export these extra .NET crap for non .NET programmers.
Businesses? - they will certainly be a great number of .NET programmers in the coming years - but Linux is prevalent in business markets - meaning no .NET and .NET programs have a habit of being less efficient than other native languages. Therefore I feel native language programmers will still be alive - as long as you are competent at programming and not produce code as bad as .NET .
As .NET is slower than c++ , it implies that ASM programmers can make progs that run at least 2x as fast as .NET .