Isn't it kind of ironic?

**MundoDragon** · May 8th, 2009, 06:38 AM

Just a quick realization here. There are more people in the VB 6.0 and Earlier Forum than in the VB.NET forum. Hmmmm. heheh

**esposito** · May 8th, 2009, 07:34 AM

Originally Posted by MundoDragon

Just a quick realization here. There are more people in the VB 6.0 and Earlier Forum than in the VB.NET forum. Hmmmm. heheh

The reason for it is under our nose. If you produce commercial software, distributing the .NET Framework becomes a real headache. I have been saying it for years.

**JuggaloBrotha** · May 8th, 2009, 07:40 AM

Originally Posted by MundoDragon

Just a quick realization here. There are more people in the VB 6.0 and Earlier Forum than in the VB.NET forum. Hmmmm. heheh

That possibly wouldnt be because of the sheer number of years that vb6 (and older) have been around, could it?

**FunkyDexter** · May 8th, 2009, 08:01 AM

Only if you have no idea what 'ironic' means. I think you actually mean 'surprising'

.

You're basically right though, and I think Juggalo's explanation is probably on the money. There's not much new software being written in 6 but there's ALOT more legacy code out there than new stuff. As an ex VB6 coder who moved to .Net these are the salad days for me. The number of companies that want the combined skill set is awesome. There's a lesson there: while it's always good to be up on the next generation of technologies, it pays to be up on the last one too.

**Half** · May 8th, 2009, 08:15 AM

It has to do with the no-need-to-move-on. I will leave 2005 only when it is possible to explicitly target a certain core and will always use 2003 for mobile devices (a lot faster). The rest is eye candy nonsense like Office 2007.

**Max Peck** · May 8th, 2009, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

There's not much new software being written in 6 but there's ALOT more legacy code out there than new stuff ... There's a lesson there: while it's always good to be up on the next generation of technologies, it pays to be up on the last one too.

No question about it. Very true in our organization. We're not developing new subsystems in VB6, however the existing ones we have continually need maintenance and improvement.

Our "management" said 5 years ago (in 2004) that "within 6 months we will 'get rid' of all VB6 code in the product". I told this manager that he was overly ambitious. Yes, anything new we develop will be .Net but to convert the ancillary subsystems to .Net for most of them means a complete REWRITE. Most of those subsystems still exist in VB6 today. Why? Simple - they still work and it could cost millions to completely rewrite them all.

The configuration program I maintain for the product's core rules engine has been built over a period of 15 to 18 years - the last 10 to 12 in VB "Classic". To just take it, and all it's trains of thought and just "migrate" it to another platform (even VB.Net) would take many months. As an experiment I re-developed the program for a Web presentation and with about 60% of its functionality available it had taken me 3 or 4 months to do it, and it was nowhere near the functionality level of the existing VB6 app - let alone being debugged.

Whether we like it or not, just "getting rid" of VB6 is going to be a very long and painful process - and it's questionable to me whether we even need to really totally get rid of it. Even now if I want to put together a quick desktop application, database utility or something I can often accomplish it much more quickly in VB6 than I can VB.Net. Sometimes not. However I'm continually amazed at the logevity of VB6. Microsoft obviously realizes this as it still runs fine in Windows 7 (which I am testing right now).

VB6 is going to be around for awhile. Your assertion that having both skillsets being an asset is right on target.

-Max

**Max Peck** · May 8th, 2009, 08:43 AM

Originally Posted by Half

It has to do with the no-need-to-move-on. I will leave 2005 only when it is possible to explicitly target a certain core and will always use 2003 for mobile devices (a lot faster). The rest is eye candy nonsense like Office 2007.

Couldn't agree more (about O2007). I've tried it a few times and keep going back to O2003. That was the best version Microsoft ever produced, IMHO.

It still runs fine on W7, too ... so there's really no reason to throw it out.

-Max

**JuggaloBrotha** · May 8th, 2009, 08:45 AM

I bet it'll take vb6 10 more years, minimum, to drop out of the mainstream view of programming languages, there's many systems built using it that'll simply take time to fade out (or be re-written)

There's nothing wrong with maintaining vb6 apps, but I wouldn't start a new project in it (I haven't started one in it in over 5 years)

Originally Posted by Max Peck

Couldn't agree more (about O2007). I've tried it a few times and keep going back to O2003. That was the best version Microsoft ever produced, IMHO.

It still runs fine on W7, too ... so there's really no reason to throw it out.

-Max

The interface for O2k7 is easy to get used to (I still don't like it either, I prefer O2k3) my biggest problem with it was how buggy it was, but with sp2 out now, thing's arn't that bad. I'm hoping the next version of Office has an improved ribbon.

**Shaggy Hiker** · May 8th, 2009, 08:51 AM

There are still loads of COBOL programs out there, as well. That language has been stagnant or dead for FAR longer than VB6. With the body of VB6 that's out there, I would think 20-30 years might be more realistic before it really fades out.

**Nightwalker83** · May 9th, 2009, 08:57 PM

It's wonder that those old languages haven't been assigned a spot in a museum somewhere! That would probably happen if we were able to travel into the future.

**RobDog888** · May 10th, 2009, 02:06 PM

The traffice varies throughout the day and week. There are times where the VB.NET forum has more traffic and times where the VB6 forum has more.

**Pino** · May 11th, 2009, 04:03 AM

Originally Posted by Half

It has to do with the no-need-to-move-on. I will leave 2005 only when it is possible to explicitly target a certain core and will always use 2003 for mobile devices (a lot faster). The rest is eye candy nonsense like Office 2007.

Have you looked at the additions to the 2008 version? Theres some really useful stuff.

Extension Methods, Partial Methods, LINQ, XML Literals.

Pino

**Psyrus** · May 11th, 2009, 01:54 PM

One of our departments chose VB.Net to create a distribution asset and work management system. I was kind of shocked they didn't buy something off of the shelf and bang that square peg into the round hole. That's kind of what I am doing with my department's WMS.

**chris128** · May 14th, 2009, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

Only if you have no idea what 'ironic' means.

haha glad I wasnt the only one thinking that

Thread: Isn't it kind of ironic?

Thread Tools

Display

Isn't it kind of ironic?

Re: Isn't it kind of ironic?

Re: Isn't it kind of ironic?

Re: Isn't it kind of ironic?

Re: Isn't it kind of ironic?

Re: Isn't it kind of ironic?

Re: Isn't it kind of ironic?

Re: Isn't it kind of ironic?

Re: Isn't it kind of ironic?

Re: Isn't it kind of ironic?

Re: Isn't it kind of ironic?

Re: Isn't it kind of ironic?

Re: Isn't it kind of ironic?

Re: Isn't it kind of ironic?

Posting Permissions