VB6 can compile to native code as thoroughly as VC++. They both rely on runtimes and external libraries though, and why not? Reinventing the wheel is pointless. Your definition of "native code" is way off in the weeds. I believe the issue there is the relative ease of reverse-engineering a program's source from its EXE and DLLs.

QBasic was strictly an interpreter, perhaps you meant QuickBasic?

Trotting out Win95 is pretty silly. It has almost no relevance today, and even Win2K is dead as of July.


What I don't understand is why people who use VB.Net want to argue any of these points. They wouldn't even have come up if we just stuck to the original issue about releasing VB6 as open source software.