VB versus VB.NET

[Phill64]

I'd say any programmer person comming into vb if they looked at 6 and looked at .Net, .Net is the one they would choose

I'd wonder why they would look at vb6 at all, it would be logical to go straight to the latest version of any language. You wouldnt choose to use linux because Windows 3.1 cant do as much as it! you'd be comparing XP. If someone was to move to VB, theyd be comparing their current language with VB.NET, vb6 doesnt even come into the equation.

The only problem is when someone has used vb6 to begin with and finding the new concept difficult. But if you have to ask the question, the answer is .net

[indydavid32]

I have not read all the posts in this thread so I don't know if this has been mentioned or not. I think VB .Net is actually a lot easier to program with then VB 6. Also, programming to an ASP web page is substantially easier then before .Net came about. .Net takes some getting used too, but once you dive in and start using it there are far more pros then cons in my opinion.

Besides, it is the wave of the future and many jobs will require the user to be able to learn this new programming environment. If you look in Monster.Com there are for more .Net listings then just Visual Basic listings now. My current company has many programmers and we all know and use .Net.

[kleinma]

I had to open up VB6 to work on an older project last week and it was painful to work in the VB6 IDE writing VB6 code...

I agree with Pino that the people who are clinging to VB6 just don't want to have to deal with the change of .NET, but once you actually get into it, and see all the powerful new features you can use, you will never want to use VB6 again.

[Pino]

I was like that I refused to move, and about 4 months ago I did, best decision ever. Its so much better!

[RhinoBull]

...Vb6, is OLD technology, no getting away from that...

So is C, Assemly, C++ but can you build OS without any of it? I doubt it.

... If anyone who isnt a hobbyest or in a current Vb6 job wants to succed .Net is the future...

Pure speculations based on literally nothing.

...I loved Vb6, but .Net is so much better...

In terms of ???

[RhinoBull]

I had to open up VB6 to work on an older project last week and it was painful to work in the VB6 IDE writing VB6 code....

If you suggesting that VB.Net IDE is better nthat VB6 then I think it's amusing - many (even those at MS) believe that as of v2003 IDE was very cumbersome and inconvenient so they had to redesign it.

...I agree with Pino that the people who are clinging to VB6 just don't want to have to deal with the change of .NET, ...

Nonsense - I know both products quite well so I can compare and as of v2003 VB.Net is not the product that would cheer me up. It's very bulky, redundant and cumbersome (if you will) language. I use it only if I have to.

... and see all the powerful new features you can use, you will never want to use VB6 again.

Not entirely true - many serious pros are "switching" back to VB6 after awhile and VB6 now has more demand than say 5 years ago.

Personally, I could care less for new GDI and stuff - that's fior kids. VB6 forces you to find some elegant solution and that daily routine is what makes you a programmer. On the other hand VB.Net has "many cool features" available through framework so you can simply set Opacity or something... Does that make you a better programmer? I don't think so. VB.Net is a disaster of the future - that's how I see it.

[vbdotnetboy]

ok i'm going to finally through my 2 cents in and i realize that there are some people that will agree and a few that will not and that's fine. i'd like to also say that i'm coming from a vb6 background switching to vb.net.

first...

So is C, Assemly, C++ but can you build OS without any of

i'm sorry but to try and make this an agurment because of what Pino said abotu VB6 being old technology isn't a good one at all... because in terms of designing an OS Assemly and C/C++ aren't dead, however you don't see assemly being used to create business and/or database applications. at the same time how often is vb used to create an OS it???

I wouldn't say VB6 is dead... at least not yet because if you know that there is still tons of applications that are still in VB6 code and will take forever for companies to convert it... remember COBOL, legacy code, RPG... still around the college i attend at first for 2 years taught cobol and rpg, why because there are still places that use this old technology.

the other thing is sorry but VB6 just isn't OOP.

in terms of how the two compare in ease one thing that comes to my mind that makes vb.net easier is graphic programming with GDI. in vb6 it would have been such a pain in vb.net pretty easy now, this is coming form someone that doesn't do hardly any if any GDI programming, but i can better understand it now then i could when i would do in in vb6. here's another thing multithreading, how easy was that before vb.net. keep in mind i'm not saying that any of this was impossible but thing of how much easier vb.net makes things.

the last point that i'm going to make is, if you go to college now even then if some of you are older then me but the focus was OOP style programming for a computer science degree and what language(s) would be used C, C++ or Java. now yea those 3 languages are still the dominate, but C# and vb.net are also being used now.


the plain and simple fact is that vb6 is going to be in the long run phased out and vb6 programmers are going to just have to deal with it. either you can hold on to the past not wanting to face change or accept it that this is going to be the future until something else bigger and better comes along, face it you know it will.

in the end for now it's CHOICE if you want to programming in VB6 go ahead or if you want to in VB.NET again go ahead. it all comes down to what you want to do, but keep in mind if the company does decide to make the switch, wouldn't it be better to have a good handle on it now then later.

ALL MY OPINION just like everyone else, but let the criticism begin...

[szlamany]

We just started a major development in VB.Net - our first - and I must say that I love it and do not want to ever produce another program in VB6.

The VS2005 IDE is great - add a parameter to a function and the "error" window shows every place that needs to be corrected. Remembering bookmarks... Ability to turn off DEBUG BREAKPOINTS without clearing them...

The intellisense and help tool tips on functions...

GDI - we happen to be using this extensively in this new app - and it's great.

Code regions.

My first real experience with OO - it's been great.

The new controls - great stuff.

Granted the VS2005 IDE is bulky and slow - but I can handle the 20 second startup moment.

[zeek840]

Maybe i'm wrong here, but won't vb6 become redundant with the introduction of future versions of windows i.e 64 bit.

[kleinma]

64 bit is not future versions... 64 bit windows XP is already out there...

but I am not sure what you mean by 'redundant'???

[rplcmint]

VB.Net is new to me..only a few months here. Especially the ASP.net portion since I never dove into ASP at all in my life.

I think VB.net is awesome....But so is VB6. Many people are still supporting it at their jobs. Just as they are supporting mainframe and cobol apps.....(banks, insurance companies, etc.)

I'd like to consider myself as a nerd and all, who can learn and master a new language and stay ahead of the curve, and be a whiz and use all the buzz words, etc. But many people don't push the new technology or language to the extreme at their jobs anyways! They just use the language to create the apps they need to build for the business needs...whether it's VB, C#, cobol.

Business drives technology. Not the other way around. Your employer may require you to know and use VB6 since that's the apps they use and will continue to use in their business.

[esposito]

I had to open up VB6 to work on an older project last week and it was painful to work in the VB6 IDE writing VB6 code...

I agree with Pino that the people who are clinging to VB6 just don't want to have to deal with the change of .NET, but once you actually get into it, and see all the powerful new features you can use, you will never want to use VB6 again.

How can you be enthused about a tool that makes you produce applications which are so easy to crack and even reverse-engineer? You have to make use of some very good obfuscator to prevent hackers from (1) decompiling your software, (2) modifying it and (3) compiling it again, so that your property becomes their property. This, on the contrary, is simply impossible if your executable was compiled in VB6: you can crack it but not reverse-engineer it.

It's not a question of not wanting to deal with the change of .NET. The real reason for such reluctance is only one: byte-code sucks. It doesn't matter whether it is Java byte-code or .NET byte-code: it sucks because it gives your software about the same protection as plain HTML code and it obliges you to rely on a framework that, presumably, is going to be updated every two or three years creating compatibility problems with your old apps.

You can't tell your customers, "Please download a 23MB virtual machine to make my app run." Very likely, they will answer you, "A couple of years ago you asked me to do the same with Framework version 1.1. Sorry, it's too much. I'll look elsewhere. Thank you anyway."

[RhinoBull]

...the other thing is sorry but VB6 just isn't OOP.

... but let the criticism begin...

I don't mind criticism but you sound like you know very little about the subject (VB6) so what's the point of arguing...

[vbdotnetboy]

... You can't tell your customers, "Please download a 23MB virtual machine to make my app run." Very likely, they will answer you, "A couple of years ago you asked me to do the same with Framework version 1.1. Sorry, it's too much. I'll look elsewhere. Thank you anyway."

this may be somewhat true, but people do it anyway... it may not be the exact comparison but it's close enough, because do you keep windows up to date or anti-virus software or anything that requires a patch. another is if you are giving them a new piece of software that's what you're going to get... requirements

[RhinoBull]

... it may not be the exact comparison but it's close enough, ...

"Close enough..." to what exactly? What are you talking about?

[vbdotnetboy]

I don't mind criticism but you sound like you know very little about the subject (VB6) so what's the point of arguing...

ok sorry i shouldn't have worded it quit that way. it's just not as OOP as other languages. i think Francesco Balena puts it the best

The following is from a book.

Microsoft Visual Basic has always been the Cinderella of object-oriented programming languages (OOPLs), to the point that some purists of object-orented programming didn't even consider Visual Basic an OOPL at all. And to tell the truth, they were at least partly right because too many features were missing--most notably, constructors and inheritance. Creating truly object-oriented application with Visual Basic 6 was so difficult that many developers thought it wasn't worth the effort.

Well, those issues are going to vanish. All .NET languages are born equal, and Visual Basic finally offers all the features that you look for in a mature object-oriented language. (Well, you might argue that inheritance from multiple classes isn't supported, but this limitation is common to all other .NET languages because it's imposed by the .NET runtime itself).

Because of the many new object-oriented features, getting familiar with classes and interfaces under Visual Basic .NET might take longer than with changes in other areas. At any rate, the new syntax is far more rational than under Visual Basic 6, and there are fewer restrictions and exceptions to account for.

[vbdotnetboy]

"Close enough..." to what exactly? What are you talking about?

did you read the post before? that customers aren't going to want to download 23 megs to allow the app to run. what i'm saying is people customers download updates all the time in order to work correctly... the other thing is if you give them a piece of software that runs on the 1.1 framework there is no reason to have to download 2.0 unless you create a new version and that's where requirements come in.

also let me put things in the light... i'm not putting down vb6... i started with it and loved it... it just didn't offer all the things that i would have liked in a programming language. i hated programming in C/C++... personal preference... vb6 i loved because of how easy it was to look at, but it just was missing elements that i liked in c/c++ or java. i mean if i had my pick here were i work i would much rather use C# again person preference. like i said i'm not saying that vb6 is crap because it's not, i just see it as slowly being phased out, and there is no sense learning vb6 unless you absolutely have to... i mean if you go for either a MCAD or MCSD what's it in .NET. just stating what looks like the obvious.

[esposito]

ok sorry i shouldn't have worded it quit that way. it's just not as OOP as other languages. i think Francesco Balena puts it the best

The following is from a book.

I used to read Francesco Balena a lot when his publications dealt with classic VB. (Moreover, Balena and I are originally from the same Italian region: Puglia)

The fact is that Balena writes for Microsoft and, consequently, he embraces and espouses any innovation introduced by them. For example, his Web site is entirely dedicated to VB.NET now. A few years ago, it was one of the best VB6 code/tips repositories I knew. No wonder he now highlights the pros of VB.NET neglecting the cons.

[vbdotnetboy]

ok i'm going to end with this and then i'm done with this thread zach007 learn all you can with as many languages as you can because in the end reguardless of what we all say and what our opinions are you can't go wrong knowing as much as you can when it comes to programming. learn vb6, c, c++, java, php, perl, the .net languages, heck learn pascal, the more you know in more languages the better off you will be.

[kleinma]

ok i'm going to end with this and then i'm done with this thread zach007 learn all you can with as many languages as you can because in the end reguardless of what we all say and what our opinions are you can't go wrong knowing as much as you can when it comes to programming. learn vb6, c, c++, java, php, perl, the .net languages, heck learn pascal, the more you know in more languages the better off you will be.

I learned pascal so that I could write custom code in INNO installer... worked out great and I picked it up quickly because logic is logic, and syntax is easy to learn...

so i agree with you. I also have to say that the bottom line is preference. I bet there are people out there would will argue why cobol is better than VB6 OR VB.NET, and hell they might even have a few valid points... but it doesn't make it true in all cases

you don't use a hammer if you need to screw something in, and you don't use a screwdriver to iron your shirt...

You use the tools that are needed to get the task at hand done.

but VB6 is now considered for all intensive purposes, a legacy language... so unless its needed for the job at hand, starting out with VB6 will be starting learning on a legacy programming platform...

[jmcilhinney]

Visual Basic is a proprietary language. Microsoft own it and they can do what they like with it. They have chosen to discontinue support for VB6, thus VB6 is an old technology. There are certainly still plenty of companies and developers using VB6, but that number is bound to dwindle over time. If you started a business now and needed software development, would you choose an unsupported technology? That would be a very unsound business decision and thus learning VB6 is an unsound long-term professional decision for any new developers. Learn VB6 if you want to or have a specific reason to, like you need to for a specific job or project, but VB.NET IS the future of VB purely and simply because Microsoft have decided that it is. Personally, I like VB.NET and I didn't like VB6 when I played with it for a brief period. Your preference for one over the other is almost immaterial though. You may have a love of steam trains, but would you become a steam train repair man if you were looking for a job? I'm guessing probably not, although there are steam trains out there that would need repairing. There are still COBOL programs and programmers out there but I wouldn't recommend it as a career path for any new developer. The simple fact is that it doesn't matter how good or bad anything is, there will always be people who will love it and those who hate it. Look at Britney Spears for goodness sake! Suffice it to say that VB6 and VB.NET have similarites and differences and each has its pros and cons, but if you're a new developer starting out and you want to get into a career in VB, the sound decision in the long term would be to choose VB.NET. Again, I'm sure that there are those whose opinions would differ, but logic would dictate that the supported technology will win out over the unsupported one.

[szlamany]

Now why did you have to bring Britney into this

[Phill64]

What's this garbage about decompiling code.. have you ever heard of a court case?

[jmcilhinney]

I have to admit that I don't know all the ins and outs of decompilation and disassembly, but Microsoft themselves are intending to port their apps and OS either wholly or partly to .NET, so I'm guessing that it's quite possible to secure your code. It may be that you have to be Microsoft to afford the tech to do it, but that's another story.

[jkmcgrath]

I know this is an old thread but I am the opposite of what is being discussed here. I am actually someone that started on VB.NET and moved to VB6.

The reason I moved from VB.NET to VB6 as a beginner was VB.NET was one royal pain in the butt to me. Seems I needed 20 lines of code to do the same thing in VB6 with 5. Also, everything I developed for my friends, they had to download the .net framework and then find it still needed an update.

When I tried VB6 it was like a match made in heaven! No I am not a programming god or a very experienced programmer, self taught and help from good people like what is on this board. BUT my choice is VB6. I just wish MS or some other company could continue the evolution of it instead of killing it.

A 06 Corvette is not a 53 Corvette but I can still drive them both, I want to do the same with VB

Now I am not saying which one is best which one is OOP none of that, I will leave that to the more experienced in this community.

But, I think there is more out there like me, that finds/found VB6 to be a better fit for them then .NET is.

Please dont KILL VB6.

[kleinma]

I would really like to see the 20 lines of code in .NET that converted into 5 lines of code in VB6...

chances are the code in .NET is not optimized....

so you like not having to download the framework? Yeah I have to admit, it is a bigger runtime that you have to make sure your users have versus VB6.. but VB6 runtimes are NOT installed on everysystem either... MS started including runtimes in windows 2000 and up for VB6, but only new versions are coming with the most up to date set of the runtimes service pack.

Also, lets say you want to add some common dialog controls, maybe a listview, or maybe an open file dialog.. these are now all files you need to add to your setup project and distribute with your app, or else it wont run.. TONS of the controls that are commonly used in almost ALL application are included right in the runtime.. nothing to worry about...

Then there is DLL hell... so you pack up your program, and give it to your friend cause you tell him its really cool, and it installs, and works fine, and then he goes to run one of his other programs.. but it doesn't run... what happened??? your program installed some OCX or DLL into the system32 directory, overwriting the existing file that was a different version, and broke compatibility with the OTHER programs that used that DLL or OCX... this was always a cause for endless problems and nightmares with distributing software.

.NET uses a GAC (Global Assembly Cache) which can store MULTIPLE versions of the same file, so the program gets what version it was written to run with..

maybe when you are FIRST FIRST starting out.. yes I can see how VB6 can be LESS INTIMIDATING.. but by no means would I call it easier...

anything super basic is just as easy in .NET (if not easier) than it is in VB6

just wait until you have to open text files in VB6 and have to use file handles and use lineinputs and crap that has been around since QBASIC...

its NOT easier... but I agree with jmcilhinney "there will always be people who will love it and those who hate it"...

[Shaggy Hiker]

I had to open up VB6 to work on an older project last week and it was painful to work in the VB6 IDE writing VB6 code...

I agree with Pino that the people who are clinging to VB6 just don't want to have to deal with the change of .NET, but once you actually get into it, and see all the powerful new features you can use, you will never want to use VB6 again.

This was my experience also. I loved VB6, but I hate working in that environment with that language now.

To say that it IS a new language though, implies that it was built as new from the ground up. C# IS a new language that WAS built from the ground up (although I doubt many would say that its syntax is completely different to C/C++) but I don't know whether that is the case with VB.NET or not. Can anyone provide definitive evidence either way? I've looked and I can't find it written anywhere that it was created from scratch, but I've also not seen anything to say definitively that it was a reworking of existing VB.

I can speak to this just a bit, since my brother-in-law was the head of the MS VB7 dev team, and we had a discussion about this topic over Christmas. The intent of VB7 was to be fully backward-coimpatible with VB6, but stay within the whole .NET managed code paradigm. Eventually, they realized that this was not going to be possible, and if they really would have to choose. There was talk of a VB6.5, but marketeering decided that MS should "put all its wood behind one arrow." (which is a totally screwed metaphor, since the wood IS the arrow).

Therefore, VB.Net was not entirely built from the ground up, since backward compatibility was one of the original specs, but the new paradigm overruled the compatibility when the two came into conflict, so .Net ended up 'roughly' built from scratch.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I would really like to see the 20 lines of code in .NET that converted into 5 lines of code in VB6...

chances are the code in .NET is not optimized....

so you like not having to download the framework? Yeah I have to admit, it is a bigger runtime that you have to make sure your users have versus VB6.. but VB6 runtimes are NOT installed on everysystem either... MS started including runtimes in windows 2000 and up for VB6, but only new versions are coming with the most up to date set of the runtimes service pack.

Also, lets say you want to add some common dialog controls, maybe a listview, or maybe an open file dialog.. these are now all files you need to add to your setup project and distribute with your app, or else it wont run.. TONS of the controls that are commonly used in almost ALL application are included right in the runtime.. nothing to worry about...

Then there is DLL hell... so you pack up your program, and give it to your friend cause you tell him its really cool, and it installs, and works fine, and then he goes to run one of his other programs.. but it doesn't run... what happened??? your program installed some OCX or DLL into the system32 directory, overwriting the existing file that was a different version, and broke compatibility with the OTHER programs that used that DLL or OCX... this was always a cause for endless problems and nightmares with distributing software.

.NET uses a GAC (Global Assembly Cache) which can store MULTIPLE versions of the same file, so the program gets what version it was written to run with..

maybe when you are FIRST FIRST starting out.. yes I can see how VB6 can be LESS INTIMIDATING.. but by no means would I call it easier...

anything super basic is just as easy in .NET (if not easier) than it is in VB6

just wait until you have to open text files in VB6 and have to use file handles and use lineinputs and crap that has been around since QBASIC...

its NOT easier... but I agree with jmcilhinney "there will always be people who will love it and those who hate it"...

Yeah, how about ON ERROR, too. Exception handling is totally different, but far more flexible.

[esposito]

to kmcgrath: In spite of what VB.NET lovers may tell you about the mistake you would make using a dead language like VB6, I am firmly convinced that, from a commercial point of view, a COM based piece of software is much better than a .NET based one since it's lighter, compiled in machine language and can run without the framework.

Don't be taken in by sweet talks about how powerful the .NET framework is. I am much more scared by the .NET Framework hell than the DLL hell. Remember that the framework is going to be updated on a regular basis and backwards compatibility is not something you can take for granted.

The truth is, MS were afraid of Java because it was a cross-platform language that could exist without Windows, so they decided to come up with a similar byte-code tool. .NET is economically good for MS, not for software developers. If you want to produce commercial software, byte-code is not a winning choice. You will be obliged to spend a lot of money to buy a good obfuscator to protect your product and, more painfully, you will have to provide your customers with a 23MB virtual machine that will slow down the performance of the operating system.

If your software can be produced in VB6, it is crazy to develop it using VB.NET.

[jkmcgrath]

I would really like to see the 20 lines of code in .NET that converted into 5 lines of code in VB6...

chances are the code in .NET is not optimized....

I am sure it wasnt, using Halverson Step by Step book. Parsing/Writting Text files is what I started out programming in both languages.

maybe when you are FIRST FIRST starting out.. yes I can see how VB6 can be LESS INTIMIDATING.. but by no means would I call it easier...

anything super basic is just as easy in .NET (if not easier) than it is in VB6

just wait until you have to open text files in VB6 and have to use file handles and use lineinputs and crap that has been around since QBASIC...

its NOT easier... but I agree with jmcilhinney "there will always be people who will love it and those who hate it"...

I dont hate VB.NET nor do I dislike it. Its just not what I prefer.

This is what I was saying about being a better fit for some. I find/found VB6 to fit me better than I did VB.NET. I dont want to sound antagonistic here BUT VB6 was easier for me then VB.NET was. Maybe its not for most but for me it was. Also I had messed around with ASP 3.0 in web development so that may explain the comfort level as well. NET 1.0 was what I tried VB.NET with btw.

VB.NET/2005 probally will not be the next language I learn but rather vc++ or c#. But anything I have needed to do I have done with VB6.

I seem to recall an issue with VB.NET accessing the majority of the windows API is that still the case? I would miss not being able to do that like I can with VB6.

@esposito, I agree with you, I dont think VB6 is dead yet. Either way, I like it and enjoy using it. It gets the job done for me.

[Shaggy Hiker]

seem to recall an issue with VB.NET accessing the majority of the windows API is that still the case? I would miss not being able to do that like I can with VB6.

Feels almost identical to me. Only difference is that you use an int for a pointer rather than a long.

[kleinma]

the .NET framework is installed via windows update.. if you don't use windows update, then you shouldn't use windows because sooner or later (if you don't already have one) you will get some sort of virus or someone will expliot a hole that the end user will complain about to MS only to find out it was patched 2 years ago...

also, MS has not had a new OS in 5 years.... that is the longest time they have gone without releasing a new OS since windows 95... with this new OS, (as of reports right now) the .NET framework will ship with the OS.

MS will probably release other various products that will include .NET framework code, and therefore the number of windows users running with the framework is going to skyrocket. Not to mention that talking about a 23MB file is not really the argument it used to be.. seeing as how millions of people everyday download poor quality camera recorded movies that are a gig+ in size off torrent sites...and more and more people are getting away from dialup

.NET is good for developers because they have given developers TONS of resources all within the framework...

you guys are also only thinking about the retail world... what about closed corporate environments where the .net framework is guaranteed to be on the end user PC? Do you know how much easier that makes deployment? just a simple copy of the files. If your app has a bunch of support DLLs, then can just be copied too, no regsvr, no MDAC... just your project output...

[kleinma]

Feels almost identical to me. Only difference is that you use an int for a pointer rather than a long.

and that is only because .NET integer IS a VB6 long

[RobDog888]

Oh so true klienma

I read the post where the guy is saying .net code is 20 lines more then the same thing in vb6 in 5. No way, .net is alot of times just a single line of code or a property instead of the vb6 way of using alot of code, APIs, and workarounds to do the same.

Once you go .NET you will not go back!

[szlamany]

vb6 - for the hobbyist who doesn't mind learning some form of BASIC

vb.net - for the real programmer - developing in-house programs for a business or selling real products to real customers

Harsh - yes - true - probably...

Who would want to learn a language that isn't support by the company that used to sell it?

Who would want to learn a language that won't grow with the hardware and software changes that are inevitable in the next decade?

[edit] - oops - deleted it and re-posted it...

[RobDog888]

So to all of you VB 6 lovers out there...

Would you choose VB 6 or VB 1 (or even BASIC for that matter) language? I know you all would choose VB 6 but the VB 1 programmers may give you the same arguments that your giving the .NET programmers.

[RhinoBull]

the .NET framework is installed via windows update.. if you don't use windows update, then you shouldn't use windows because sooner or later (if you don't already have one) you will get some sort of virus or someone will expliot a hole that the end user will complain about to MS only to find out it was patched 2 years ago...

also, MS has not had a new OS in 5 years.... that is the longest time they have gone without releasing a new OS since windows 95... with this new OS, (as of reports right now) the .NET framework will ship with the OS....

You don't really have to run auto updates (you better do it but it's not necessary) - you can have anti virus in place.
And lots of small businesses are still using W95/98 and are NOT lanning to upgrade themselves which means .Net isn't suitable for them.

[RobDog888]

Thats a valid point RB. As each situation in the professional world would dictate the tool to use that best fits the job/requirements.

The framework does run on 98 though.

[RhinoBull]

vb6 - for the hobbyist who doesn't mind learning some form of BASIC

vb.net - for the real programmer - developing in-house programs for a business or selling real products to real customers...

I don't even know HOW to respond to this nonsense ... Sorry Steve.

[RobDog888]

I don't even know HOW to respond to this nonsense ... Sorry Steve.

Then use .NET and you will see the big difference.

LOL Just kidding Roy.