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

[doofusboy]

because.......No one has volunteered to pay for my retraining [yet]

[dglienna]

I installed 2003 a month or two ago, and have written a couple of small apps. I managed to get them working satisfactorily, although I needed help with a few items. I wish the samples on the Net forum were complete, as many are in VB.
I've downloaded 100's of apps to troubleshoot for someone, and it's made me a better programmer.

I am getting programs from the Codebank, and learning how they work, but there aren't all that many of them. This causes my learning curve to be extended. I'm not ready to start rewriting my main vb app, yet.

Over time, I should get better, but I'm waiting, and proceeding slowly.

[techgnome]

There is only one thing that I absolutely love about VB.Net, and that is the ability to create code "Regions" that can be expanded or minimized. I wish there was something like this in VB6 :-(

Nutterz.... I really wish people would SEPARATE THE IDE from the LANGUAGE. It's not VB.NET that allows you to do that... it's the friggin IDE.

I agree with those who say they shld change to VB.Net. VB has been a gr8 tool and we all use it but VB.Net aint that difficult. Most of the original VB 6 flavor has been retained with some minor changes like Text1.text has become TextBox1.text but these can b learnt quick.

Also I had the chance to lay my hands on VB 2005 code named project Whidbey. I must say therez no gr8 difference between VB.net & VB 2005. Infact there has been some gr8 enhancement & features like Advance Intellisense, Refactoring, Object Control, Compile time Error notification So all those who r planning to learn VB.net get VB 2005 from the MS site. Its a seperate download called the Express edition. Even though its a Beta edition, the IDE is pretty stable and can b used till the original version comes out slated for mid 2005 release.

Again, the differenced are in the IDE, not so much the language. Any language changes come as a result of moving to .NET2.0.

I know this thread has been sleeping for a long time but I just stumbled upon this quote here:

"Still not sure? Here's what the legendary VB Guru Dan Appleman has to say about the idea that you have to switch to VB.NET immediately:

These ideas are basically nonsense. ... The magnitude of the change is such that the transition to VB.NET is likely to be measured in years rather than months -- and for some applications, it may not make sense to switch at all."

That's the best advice I've seen to date on the issue. It's one of the reasons that our app here is still in VB6. Up to now, it didn't make sense. Now it does and we're begining the careful foundation work before we begin to re-write everything we have. But not everything will be done in .NET.... we'll have a couple of peices that will remain in VB6 simply because there's no need to migrate them.

Tg

[Chathura]

I really want to move to .net. But few reasons had slow down it.
1. My boss is ordering me to do things using VB6
2. Need to know lot of things and haven't enough time.
3. .Net need more resources (specially RAM) than VB6
4. It is taking more time to track errors than VB6 (Because of lesser experience and lesser knowledge)

So I'm moving slowly

[hassa046]

I've swithed over to .net 2005 since july this year and aocmplished to convert all my code to vb.net
But now, i keep banging my head with some strange issues that remind me the time some people dit webprogramming with frontpage and frontpage messes up your code.
I want total control over my code. and no strange behavior that throws my work 1 month back.
So bye bye .net, welcome back vb6. sorry that i even thought to leave you.

[some1uk03]

My reasons:

1. Cos its SLOW (IDE)

Otherwise I like it and only use it for certain things which are easier to be done in .NET than VB6.

[Hack]

But now, i keep banging my head with some strange issues that remind me the time some people dit webprogramming with frontpage and frontpage messes up your code.

I think everyone has gone through this. I know I have, and continue to do so, but there is no way I would go back to VB6. I have managed to resolve all head banging issues to my satisfaction generally with the help of the folks in our VB.NET section. Have you tried posting some of your issues in there?

I want total control over my code. and no strange behavior that throws my work 1 month back.

And you have that with .NET

[penagate]

A language is not a marriage partner; it is a tool—nothing more, nothing less. You can't code everything in one language so why even try.

[kleinma]

A language is not a marriage partner; it is a tool—nothing more, nothing less. You can't code everything in one language so why even try.

I'm going to go ask for my ring back from VB then...

[Hack]

I'm going to go ask for my ring back from VB then...

You also write SQL so it is more than one language that you use.

[Max Peck]

VB.Net is fine - especially since we're using it in our Enterprise-level applications. There are still large systems in our code that are VB6 which may convert slowly despite the desire of some here. Those who would have it converted quickly are not the ones doing the work - so I take those "let's convert it all" goals with a grain-of-salt.

For my own side-development projects VB6 is far more than adequate. All the pieces fit and until the platform no longer supports it I will continue to use it.

-Max

[kleinma]

You also write SQL so it is more than one language that you use.

In 2008, you have LINQ, which brings the power of query directly into your code...

If you haven't checked out LINQ, then you should, because its freakin awesome...

you can even run queries on .NET entities, like run a query on the controls on a form and the query returns a collection of controls that are comboboxes (for example)

[RobDog888]

LINQ is awesome, superb idea!

I cant see not running .NET because the IDE is "slow". Get a faster computer or optimize it for better performance. We have members that are using it on very slow systems as the benefit of using .NET outweighs the "slowness".

[juliemac]

A long thread for sure. Why not .net?
Its a WIZIWIG like Front Page. The coders (I have interviewed for the clients) dont fully understand what the code behind does, and cannot correct any errors they encounter. They are wizards. Click on a tab and let some one else write the code, not true programmers in my opinion.

I write code and build prototypes for a living. .net is not RAD. In VB4 I could peek and poke to the I/O, but no more. Now I need to build an OCX to do so. .net made this even worse.

My clients hire me to get the job done. One client had 4 coders come in to update an existing aspx system and after 4 months, the login didn't work, when it did, the drop downs failed to fill and the DB connections failed as well.
The managers asked for a fast fix, I built in in plain old ASP and with in 48 hours, the got their data. That was 3 months ago, and the ASPX system STILL does not work correctly.

I was a good supporter of MS products, but this .net stuff? Bad design

[Pino]

That sounds like coders that don't know the language properly (No offense) but if the combos are not filling it sounds like a coding error. You obviously know ASP allot better than .NET

Pino

[kleinma]

A long thread for sure. Why not .net?
Its a WIZIWIG like Front Page. The coders (I have interviewed for the clients) dont fully understand what the code behind does, and cannot correct any errors they encounter. They are wizards. Click on a tab and let some one else write the code, not true programmers in my opinion.

I write code and build prototypes for a living. .net is not RAD. In VB4 I could peek and poke to the I/O, but no more. Now I need to build an OCX to do so. .net made this even worse.

My clients hire me to get the job done. One client had 4 coders come in to update an existing aspx system and after 4 months, the login didn't work, when it did, the drop downs failed to fill and the DB connections failed as well.
The managers asked for a fast fix, I built in in plain old ASP and with in 48 hours, the got their data. That was 3 months ago, and the ASPX system STILL does not work correctly.

I was a good supporter of MS products, but this .net stuff? Bad design

Sounds like you have shoddy coders.... I am at least 10x more productive writting in .NET than I ever was in VB6

if 4 guys couldn't get an ASPX site working, then there obviously were not professional developers who know how to use ASP.NET

don't fault the language because developers fail to learn it correctly, its VERY obvious that there are MANY MANY MANY sites running fine in ASP.NET

[RobDog888]

No, its not a WYSIWYG editor at all. You dont edit the designer generated code but you can easily write code to modify any and everything, even extend/customize built in controls for less need to create a custom control.

If they dont understand something then they shouldnt knock it until they get a understanding of it.

[Pino]

Amen!

[RobDog888]

A simple example is setting a form to be the top most window like the task manager. In VB 6 it takes an API declaration and call. In .NET is a simple form property - TopMost. .NET is more of a RAD language then ever, just if you get into it and start doing more advanced stuff then VB 6 ever could handle it may actually take a few lines of code

[kleinma]

how about the fact that you don't have to correct EVERY syntax error as it happens like you did in VB6 (yes I know there was an option to turn off the messagebox) but still, in .NET the syntax error handling is about a million times better than VB6.

Don't even get me started on traditional ASP, which was next to impossible to properly debug, versus ASP.NET which supports full debugging (hell you can even cross debug between VB.NET code in your code behind and Javascript on the HTML page)

[RhinoBull]

That's amazing: 3(!) years later still arguing about it.

Anyway...

... In VB 6 it takes an API declaration and call. In .NET is a simple form property - TopMost...

But for that you have to deploy the whole Framework! Overkill !!!

...NET is more of a RAD language then ever...

Let's be realistic - VB.Net can no longer be called RAD tool - development time is even longer than it was in VB6. Common Rob, really.

[kleinma]

But for that you have to deploy the whole Framework! Overkill !!!

20+MB file was overkill in the 90s.... not in 2007 where people are downloading mp3s, movies, and tv shows by the GIG on a daily basis....

This argument is getting as old as the time period its based on, and doesn't really hold much ground anymore...

Not to mention that Vista comes with 4 .NET framework versions preinstalled...

Let's be realistic - VB.Net can no longer be called RAD tool - development time is even longer than it was in VB6. Common Rob, really.

Maybe you don't call it RAD, but obviously Rob does, and so do I... maybe you are not as productive in .NET, but maybe Rob is, and so am I.

The VB6 IDE was the best thing ever, until .NET came out. Visual Studio has grown by leaps and bounds, and the IDE is worlds ahead of VB6 at this point.

The extra productivity provided by the IDE makes it was more of a RAD language than VB6 ever was.

Sorry if you don't feel this way, but its clear that the people who have actually made the move to .NET fulltime do feel this way. Perhaps you have not embraced it enough to see its strengths, from all the posts I have ever seen regarding .NET that you posted in Rhino, you only like to jab at its weaknesses, which for the most part are not really weaknesses.

[RhinoBull]

I'm afraid you're missing a point here Matt - when we had to spend days writing code in C++ just to produce a button on the form and then VB, Delphi came alone and it was like WOW!
Those were a true RAD tool because you could create a darn button in no time - just paste it and you're done. Just this thing saved you lots of time.
Yes, I agree COM architecture was a major disaster but darn thing worked much faster.
Also, you should not look at "how many MBs" user has to install/download - that's (whith all due respect) a newbies way of looking at deployment.
The thing is that everyone's forced to have it regardless of what was utilized in your program - all 400+K objects are loaded onto the destination machine.
It's 20MB today but it could 400 tomorrow.
Yes, hardware is cheap these days but not to everyone and you have to remember that as well - vast majority of home users cannot afford any upgrade.

I am not by any mean saying that .Net should not be used - I'm using it on a daily basis - I'm saying that there are lots of things to consider so you cannot just push to hard toward one tool vs another - try to ballance and be more philosophical about it too.

[techgnome]

Technology is only a tool, and that's what .NET, VB and VS .... a tool. The tool is only as good as the person using it. Just because I know how to swing a hammer and use a hand saw, doesn't mean I'm capable of building a house. Heck, I'm not even sure I'm capable of building a birdhouse....Doesn't mean the hammer is defective. It means the builder is.

Same goes for a programmer.

I'm doing things in .NET that I only dreamed I wish I could have done in VB6. In fact, I have conniptions everyday because I'm still tied to the VB6 code base (at least for now) at the office. It's very hard. For nearly 5 years now, I've been doing something in VB6 muttering "If only this was in .NET, I could do....."

I can prototype things up faster in .NET than I could have in VB6. ... much to the chagrin of some of my clients.

As for the WYSIWYG.... what ever... VB has been drag and drop, since I don't know when, ....Oh the beginning. So that argument does hold water. As for the wizards... you don't have to use them. I don't. I still code all my DB connections by hand. In fact I've started building up a re-usable library that I can easily port from one project to another, that allows my apps to talk to both SQL Server and SQL Server CE... eventually, if I get the chance, Oracle and Access, and possibly MySQL will be added to it as well.... that's another thing I wouldn't have been able to do so easily in VB6. Cross mojo-ination as a coworker would call it.

And then there's the automated tasks you can setup in the IDE before, during and after a files gets checked out/in.... but that's a topic for another time.

-tg

[kleinma]

your posts makes it sound like you can't plop a button on your form anymore...

see you look at it like that, and I look at it like, now in .NET I can drop a button on a form, and set any number of properties at design time that I used to have to tap into the win32 API to configure, or it simply just was not configurable at all...

Lets say you want to have a button with a red background, and white text...

in .NET you drop your button on the form, set the backcolor to red, set the forecolor to white, and you are done.

in VB6 lets see, you first set the style property to graphical, then you set the backcolor to red, then you.. wait a minute, where is the forecolor property??? RAD indeed.... just declare about 10 Win32 API calls, a few more constants and types and you can subclass the control to set the forecolor. Yeah thats pretty productive...

Don't even get me started on extending controls via inheritence in .NET versus VB6 (aka you can't)

And for you to try to make a point by saying "it may be 400MB tomorrow" is pretty rediculous, wouldn't you agree??? I wasn't trying to compare what people download to how big an installation should be, I was just making the point that when VB6 first hit the market and everyone was on slow 28.8 modems, downloading the VB6 runtime was pretty close in time taken, to downloading the framework now on a 10MB+ cable/fiber connection. Does everyone have one? no of course not, did everyone have a 28.8 modem 10 years ago? nope, most people had no internet...

[RhinoBull]

I'm doing things in .NET that I only dreamed I wish I could have done in VB6.

That's hardly arguable - every new tool is more powerfull then its predecessors. It must be or it's not new but rather bunch of fixed bugs release - like it was with VB5/6, .Net 2001/2003 ...

[RobDog888]

IMO, bottom line is that if you want fast and weak apps then use VB 6. If you want robust, powerful and rad development times when considering the scale and complexity of the .net app over vb 6 app, go with .NET

Its almost like comparing apples to oranges.

VB 6 took tons of code and time to produce the same features that .net can do simply and quickly. How on earth could that be considered less rad then VB 6.

[RhinoBull]

IMO, bottom line is that if you want fast and weak apps then use VB 6. If you want robust, powerful and rad development times when considering the scale and complexity of the .net app over vb 6 app, go with .NET

Its almost like comparing apples to oranges.

VB 6 took tons of code and time to produce the same features that .net can do simply and quickly. How on earth could that be considered less rad then VB 6.

Try reading what you just said once again. Does it still make sense?

[RobDog888]

Yes it does.

You have to consider that they are not equally comparable unless you factor in things like .net is at a higher level being able to easily write complex apps that are much harder to write in vb 6.

With that being said I dont think there is any more point to trying to compare old technology vs new. Thus I digress...

[RhinoBull]

.net is at a higher level being able to easily write complex apps that are much harder to write in vb 6.

Define complexity... But I'm going to rest my case too - pointless.

[kleinma]

see my post above Rhino #185

just a simple task like customizing a button in VB6 proved to be difficult compared to doing it in .NET

[penagate]

Why all the comparisons still?

Use what suits. It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks of it, or what they use.

[RonR]

I do not have time to learn the language. I have heard that it is totally different from VB 6.

[RhinoBull]

see my post above Rhino #185

just a simple task like customizing a button in VB6 proved to be difficult compared to doing it in .NET

Sorry Matt but you're still missing the point so let's just stop here.
It would probably be nice if this thread is closed - it really is pointless to continue.

Thank you.

[kleinma]

Why would this thread be closed? you can unsubscribe if you like, but others may want to contribute to it and continue to discuss.

[Campion]

VB 6 took tons of code and time to produce the same features that .net can do simply and quickly. How on earth could that be considered less rad then VB 6.

I generally agree with you, except for one thing: working with anything in the System.Net.Socket name space. It takes 3-5x MORE code and object handling, plus listening threads to achieve the same thing that the old WinSock used to do.

[RhinoBull]

Why would this thread be closed? you can unsubscribe if you like, but others may want to contribute to it and continue to discuss.

First: I don't subscribe to anything.
And second: this thread can be closed because it serves no purpose what so ever now nor it did 3 years ago when it was created plus it is very controversial.

[szlamany]

I believe there is a true benefit to discuss the merits (or lack of merits) of VB.Net compared to VB6.

I see posts appears regularly with people wanting to know how to still buy VB6 - so there are obviously people still just getting into all this. We are all not seasoned programmers with opinions steeped in our experiences.

So the issue of why we do or don't use either of these products is important to the forum.

I only got into the PC world 6 or 7 years ago - so my history with VB6 is small. One thing I can say is that I was never able to achieve good use of the Win32 API functionality. The documentation I found was never strong - the idea of subclassing to achieve a simple result was not clear to me.

And I came from a extensive background in mainframe programming where using system libraries to achieve results was common. But we also had a 10 foot shelf of manuals to support us in these goals.

Now when I work in .Net with the framework I feel like I've finally gotten back to having the power at my fingertips and having it truly well doc'ed for use.

The framework in my opinion is the whole reason to use .Net.

Our latest app on pocket PC's using the compact fw further convinces me that MS made a smart decision to repackage the development environment.

And what I see coming down the pike with 2008 and LINQ and other stuff I see on the MS horizon really excites me.

[RhinoBull]

I believe there is a true benefit to discuss the merits (or lack of merits) of VB.Net compared to VB6...

Not in this thread. Common.

[Pino]

I understand the fact that we must choose the right technology for the job etc, but as technology professionals (Not hobbyists) we must keep moving. The ins and outs of it are fairly simple VB6 is dieing and there is no point in fighting it. As things progress and new technology's arise Vb6 will not be able to keep up. .Net is an amazing tool it offers a lot of power and flexibility (Which vb6 didn't offer) and as stated above there are some exciting projects on the horizon.

Just my 2 cents