Is VB6 still in use of programmers?

[chris128]

I remove ie from my computers if i don't have any thing that needs it
sadly .net needs it

so if you want to get windows xp without msie .net will not function properly

I dont really care for internet explorer on my computer

OK firstly, why would you remove IE? If you dont want to use it then dont use it, set another browser as your default browser - what advantage do you think you are getting by removing it? Lots of stuff in Windows and 3rd party programs uses the DLLs that are part of IE so I'm sure you get quite a few issues if you do completely remove IE. What I suspect you are doing though is not actually removing IE but just uninstalling it, which actually does very little more than just remove the icons on the start menu etc.
I'm not sure why .NET would need anything from IE though unless you are using the Web Browser control - have you got an example of what problems you encounter if you try to run a .NET app on a machine that supposedly doesn't have IE on it?

[Shaggy Hiker]

I remove ie from my computers if i don't have any thing that needs it
sadly .net needs it

so if you want to get windows xp without msie .net will not function properly

Never knew that. You don't need to use IE, though, so what difference does it make to have it on a computer? Just install a different browser and use it. It's not like anybody really cares about space on computers anymore. Look at the bloat in EVERY type of program.

Microsoft dont have time to fix this problem
Because they are to busy cleaning YOU KNOW WHAT from there underpants after they saw they saw
React os , luinx ,free dos running on the same pc

You're dreaming. There have been fringe players all the time. None of the ones you listed are causing MS to lose any sleep at all. The only company that might be making them anxious is Google.

[SomeStormOutThere]

http://www.litepc.com/
what advantage do you think you are getting by removing it? more disk space

You're dreaming.

Wont be saying that next on the release of the Ms flop

i just figured it out ms is payed every time that ribbon tool bar crap pisses somebody off
they will be here for a long time
if they can stop there mindless (LOYAL) customers from learning how to search for software
they might live another 10 years

LOYAL
keeps up to date buys all the new one
unconditional love for the latest ms products
think that open source is bad
Uses Only 100% Genuine Microsoft Products

[chris128]

what advantage do you think you are getting by removing it? more disk space

haha seriously? If you dont have enough room for IE then I think its time you bought a new hard drive

Wont be saying that next on the release of the Ms flop

Yeah I mean Windows 7 has been such a disaster...

[chris128]

Oh and can you answer my other question?

have you got an example of what problems you encounter if you try to run a .NET app on a machine that supposedly doesn't have IE on it?

[si_the_geek]

SomeStormOutThere, it is clear that you have an unjustified and childish vendetta against Microsoft in particular, either because of the way that the entire computer world has always worked (applications and operating systems from all providers get bigger and more feature rich over time), and/or because of an issue that you had while installing .Net (which is far from normal).

You are in no way helping the thread starter with their question, so do not reply to this thread with further comments of that nature.

If you want to make those kinds of comments create your own thread for it (and I recommend thinking more carefully about what you post, as you aren't justifying your claims - you are just making yourself look foolish and immature).

[si_the_geek]

It seems I was not clear enough before... this thread has been derailed enough, and if anybody wants to continue the off-topic conversation, create another thread for it.

Further posts attempting to continue the off-topic conversation will not be tolerated (and unlike the two replies since my previous post, the actions will not be limited to deleting the post).

[dilettante]

Well back on topic, there are uses for VB6 yet.

One of the most handy things it can help with is creating component libraries for use from VBA or VBScript. These can be considerably faster than VBA/VBScript when compiled to native code, though usually you carefully target them to tasks that are difficult or impossible in the host language. VBScript for example has no direct support for making API calls or creating iterable (For ... Each) collection classes and is limited to FSO I/O without some helper component.

The advantage of using VB5 or VB6 instead of VB.Net or C# is the easy coupling (no VSTO/VSTA or COM Wrapper requirements) and the close similarity of the syntax among the three programming tools.

[chris128]

I thought all you had to do to expose a .NET method to COM was just set the IsComVisible property (or something like that) of an assembly to True ?

[dilettante]

How to call a Visual Basic .NET or Visual Basic 2005 assembly from Visual Basic 6.0 gives the basic outline, and I believe it is similar using later VS versions as well.

As you can see you have some GACcing and strong naming to do to use such a thing from scripts and VBA. You can bypass some of this if you only use the assembly from a single VB6 application, which allows the use of private assemblies.

I have no clue how you deploy such a thing, though I'm sure it isn't all that complicated. It just isn't obvious to me. Somebody who has done it recently could shed a lot more light on the subject.

[whatsup]

as long as you see new windows 32 comes out, vb6 will still work no less good than now.
you may need custom controls, though, instead of the old ones,
but this is not a problem, there are already many on the net.

as what language to learn, i wouldn't recommend any .net product.

you can start with vc6 (which part of vs2010 is enhacement of it)

if you want basic lang, you can try other basics such as bcx, freebasic.

i wouldn't recommend start with vb6, not because its support,
but because other limitiations it has.

[chris128]

as what language to learn, i wouldn't recommend any .net product.

Why?

[Nightwalker83]

as long as you see new windows 32 comes out, vb6 will still work no less good than now.

Do you mean as long as there is a 32bit version of the operating system because Vista and Windows 7 both have a 64bit and a 32bit version.

[whatsup]

why not .net
main reason: they are too slow
also - they are too complicated

nightwalker83: as long as microsoft continue publish 32b versions of their OS,
vb6, continue to work.

[chris128]

why not .net
main reason: they are too slow
also - they are too complicated

nightwalker83: as long as microsoft continue publish 32b versions of their OS,
vb6, continue to work.

Every single part of that post is just plain wrong

[esposito]

I have 64-bit Windows 7 Premium installed on one of my computers and VB5 runs extremely fast on it. As I have been telling you ad nauseam for the last three years, I consider it counterproductive for me to switch to .NET simply because what VB5 allows me to do is more than enough for my needs and I don't have to care about the FW.

My only concern is that, in the not too distant future, MS might break compatibility with software developed in VB5/6.

64-bit Win7 has already broken compatibility with 16-bit software and I got very upset when I found that my old version of Paint Shop Pro stopped working. It was just perfect for me and now I can't use it anymore.

As far as ReactOS is concerned, I was enthused about it when its first alpha version came out. Then I realized it was just pie in the sky. That project has been going on for so many years that it would be foolish for me to rely on it, as I may have to wait for another ten years before a stable version is released.

[chris128]

Well what do you want us to say? You dont want to move to a modern, supported, popular language but then you are complaining that your 10 year old language might not work at all in future versions of Windows... you already know the solution but you are not willing to use it.

[Nightwalker83]

I have 64-bit Windows 7 Premium installed on one of my computers and VB5 runs extremely fast on it.

Same here with Visual Basic 6 on my Win 7 Pro laptop.

[whatsup]

Every single part of that post is just plain wrong

why ?

[chris128]

because .NET is not too slow - unless of course you are writing some extremely performance sensitive application, but I doubt many of us are doing anything that needs to work fast enough that a .NET program cannot keep up. Of course bad code design can make any app in any language slow...

.NET is also not too complicated - if anything VB.NET it is one of the simplest languages out there. What exactly do you find to be complicated? I think perhaps you are confusing "too complicated" with "its not identical to VB6".

As for the last part - I don't see how you can predict how well Microsoft's future operating systems will work with a product that they stopped updating or supporting quite a while ago.

[whatsup]

about the first part:
so you actually agree with what i said,
you're just saying that the lower speed is not a problem for you.

this is probably not a problem, for many people who program in p-code langauges.


for the second part:
it's more complicated than vb6 ==> it is too complicated (at least for me).



for the third part:
this is obvious,
they don't need even to support it,
and not even need to publish the one dll that required for
vb6 applications to work (msvbvm60.dll), on 32b versions.

unless microsoft will make some very weired decision, and decide to block any program which use this dll.

[si_the_geek]

The speed is different, but only slightly - I have a .Net program which does some quite complex work once per second on my computer, and in an entire day it takes about 10 minutes of CPU time, whereas the VB6 equivalent takes about 20 seconds less.

.Net is not more complicated, it is just different (and in various ways much easier, such as no code required for "on top" or "notification icon"). As chris128 implied, the problem is you want to keep using your existing skills and not learn new ones. There are some reasons that .Net is not right for everyone (such as esposito's almost unique situation, and a few others), but not wanting to learn is not one of them.

As for VB6 support on Windows, it has nothing to do with Windows being 32 bit (it works fine on 64 bit for me and others above). What it is about is being able to run 32 bit programs (which is likely for all 64 bit versions), and support of the VB6 runtimes (msvbvm60.dll and many other files), which is by no means guaranteed after Windows 7. If the runtimes are unsupported, it would arguably be foolish to include them (or allow them to be installed without warnings), as total failure of programs is likely to be better than them having a large amount of unknown bugs.


Whether you like it or not, the era of VB6 being a viable option is coming to an end - and as such it isn't nice to recommend that somebody should start learning it now.

[whatsup]

i said i don't recommend to start learn it, but not because of the support
but because limitations it has.


about the support,
i think there is a strong connection between the
version, and the support.
if you see new 32bit versions comes out, it means, microsoft
continue give full support to this tech.
if you don't, it means they give only compatibility support,
which doesn't have to be full.


about the speed, it depends .
for real time audio processing for example, it's not good.

for console app for example, there is no need for it.

about the complication, it also depends.
maybe there are thing that less complicated than vb6,
but there are many, that much more.
for example, reference a simple form, and all the files you need for it.

[Max Peck]

The speed is different, but only slightly - I have a .Net program which does some quite complex work once per second on my computer, and in an entire day it takes about 10 minutes of CPU time, whereas the VB6 equivalent takes about 20 seconds less.

.Net is not more complicated, it is just different (and in various ways much easier, such as no code required for "on top" or "notification icon"). As chris128 implied, the problem is you want to keep using your existing skills and not learn new ones. There are some reasons that .Net is not right for everyone (such as esposito's almost unique situation, and a few others), but not wanting to learn is not one of them.

As for VB6 support on Windows, it has nothing to do with Windows being 32 bit (it works fine on 64 bit for me and others above). What it is about is being able to run 32 bit programs (which is likely for all 64 bit versions), and support of the VB6 runtimes (msvbvm60.dll and many other files), which is by no means guaranteed after Windows 7. If the runtimes are unsupported, it would arguably be foolish to include them (or allow them to be installed without warnings), as total failure of programs is likely to be better than them having a large amount of unknown bugs.


Whether you like it or not, the era of VB6 being a viable option is coming to an end - and as such it isn't nice to recommend that somebody should start learning it now.

I can tell you from experience that someone who won't move from VB5 or VB6 to .Net hasn't used .Net for any length of time at all. I was, myself, one of those people who just kept "hanging on" to VB6 believing I could do "anything" with it that you could do in .Net.

True, VB6 is an excellent platform. Much of our code here is still written in it and I still enjoy working with it. However, as to creating anything new with it, no way. After using VB.Net (and now C#) for a couple of years, there is no turning back. Using the fully object-oriented techniques I've picked up over the last year has allowed me to construct code with far less effort than using old legacy techniques ever allowed. I've pulled things off in code with C# that would have taken me 5 times as long using VB6. As for code performance, the rules engine I've written is BLAZINGLY fast as a .Net assembly.

Of all the people around here I'm one of the most reluctant to upgrade unless it's absolutely necessary. (I.E. if it ain't broke, don't fix it). However after sitting on the learning curve with .Net for a year I have to call a spade a spade. It is worth upgrading to. I would liken using VB6 at this point to using a shovel to carve out the yard to replace the drain field when what I really needed was a front-end loader.

VB6 is sweet. I still love it. However it really is time to start thinking about moving on. If you have legacy code to maintain (as I do) fine, but writing new stuff in VB6 when you have a tool like .Net isn't particularly smart.

-Max

[si_the_geek]

That sounds very familiar... I've probably heard the same kind of thing from hundreds of people by now!

about the support, ...

Your comments about support are not valid, you do not seem to know about WoW (which allowed 16 bit apps to run on 32 bit versions of Windows [95 to XP], and 32-bit apps to run on 64-bit versions of Windows) being supported, and even with that whether or not support is given for the VB6 runtimes depends on a wide variety of other factors.

As for speed, I haven't used those things but I presume the speed could be fine if you are willing to put in a bit of extra effort. As always which tool is best depends on the circumstances - and the extra work in .Net might be less time than you save from the other things you need to do.

In terms of complication, I have no idea what your example is referring to... but as yet I haven't found anything that is more complicated, only lots of things that are much simpler, and several things that are just not quite the same as they were in VB6 (but take no extra effort, just different knowledge).

[chris128]

for console app for example, there is no need for it.

Sorry but what an absolutely ridiculous statement. You can do pretty much anything with a console app... so how can you say that there is no need for it in a console app? I would love to see you try half the things that are possible in a VB.NET console app in a VB6 console app.

[dilettante]

This is getting pretty... well more or less the way the discussion always goes.

There is no problem creating console applications in VB6, we do it all the time. I'm not sure the proves anything, assuming there is anything to prove.

What troubles me is how these .Net fans get agitated to the point of being rabid about it. What makes them so hostile?

If you're happy with .Net and don't want to use VB6 anymore that's fine. But why do you feel the need to beat up on everyone else?


The question here was whether VB6 is still of (in?) use by programmers. Sure it is. Not much else to say really.

[chris128]

No the question was essentially "is VB6 a good language to start learning programming with" - the answer being no, for all of the reasons mentioned in this thread and many more.

If you're happy with .Net and don't want to use VB6 anymore that's fine. But why do you feel the need to beat up on everyone else?

If someone just told me they used VB6 I wouldn't care, its when people are recommending it to people that want to start programming that it annoys me.

[si_the_geek]

Indeed, the actual question was this:

Can anyone tell me that VB6 is still in use of programmers because I am going to learn programming as hobby also confused what version learn to start with whether VB6 or VB2008?

While VB6 still has a purpose and is still used by a reasonable amount of people, it is not a good option for somebody to start learning it now.

VB.Net is a very good option, despite the suggestion/implication from a few people who dislike .Net (often for unjustified reasons, which is where the "hostile" attitude is created).


Like chris128 I don't care what language(s) people want to use themselves, but I get annoyed when people try to persuade others to use (or not use) a particular language due to their own specific situation and/or lack of experience with the language.

No language is perfect, but VB.Net is one of the ones that is good to learn.

[dilettante]

Ahh, yes.

Well given that question I'd almost certainly agree. For most people VB.Net would be a better choice than VB6.

Microsoft is doing a lot to get people up to speed from 0: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/beginner/bb308758.aspx

[FireXtol]

Ahh, yes.

Well given that question I'd almost certainly agree. For most people VB.Net would be a better choice than VB6.

Microsoft is doing a lot to get people up to speed from 0: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/beginner/bb308758.aspx

Software You'll Need
To develop Visual Basic programs, you’ll need :
1. The Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0, which is available, free, from
http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframewo...loads/updates/.

2. A .NET development environment. We recommend Microsoft Visual Basic 2005 Express Edition, which is available free from Microsoft at http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/express/vb/ . The Visual Basic 2005 Express installation package includes the .NET Framework so you don’t need to worry about installing item #1 above separately.

....

It's important that you understand that this book is not about teaching you about the Visual Basic Express Edition software product - rather it teaches you about the Visual Basic language.

...
If you want to learn more about the Visual Basic Express development environment, go to the website at http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/express/vb/ .

Writing a New Program Using Visual Basic Express
 To start Visual Basic Express, click START -> All Programs -> Microsoft Visual Basic 2005 Express Edition

Oh, Microsoft.... I'm speechless. Seriously! I can't breathe because I can't stop laughing.

[chris128]

Why whats funny about that :S It is simply saying that this book teaches you about the language not the IDE..

[FireXtol]

Why whats funny about that :S It is simply saying that this book teaches you about the language not the IDE..

The instructions are specific to Visual Basic 2005 Express Edition. No alternatives are mentioned, besides a text editor. It's clear the book is very much about teaching the reader Microsoft Visual Basic 2005 Express Edition.

Also, the "Visual Basic language" reference is laughable. It's not teaching you VB6 or prior compatible "Visual Basic". And who knows how long the "Visual basic language" it teaches will actually be applicable? Meaning, once they come out with whatever supercedes .NET(or even the next version), and there's a new "Visual Basic language", clearly that book will not entirely apply to a new "VB language".

Then there seems to already be differences between versions of VB.NET. This is the same as it was with previous versions(VB6 and prior). Always changing/adding/removing things making incompatibilities between versions.

That MS itself would refer to a "Visual Basic language" that's not version/IDE specific is just completely ridiculous! Don't you agree?

Regardless of version/IDE/software, they're teaching you "Microsoft's Visual Basic", and that more or less guarantees learners will be using their IDE.

[Max Peck]

The instructions are specific to Visual Basic 2005 Express Edition. No alternatives are mentioned, besides a text editor. It's clear the book is very much about teaching the reader Microsoft Visual Basic 2005 Express Edition.

So what? You're making a really big deal out of this.

Also, the "Visual Basic language" reference is laughabe. It's not teaching you VB6 or prior compatible "Visual Basic". And who knows how long the "Visual basic language" it teaches will actually be applicable? Meaning, once they come out with whatever supercedes .NET(or even the next version), and there's a new "Visual Basic language", clearly that book will not entirely apply to a new "VB language".

OK, so again I say "So What?". There will be a manual out for the next version of Visual Basic.

Then there seems to already be differences between versions of VB.NET. This is the same as it was with previous versions(VB6 and prior). Always changing/adding/removing things making incompatibilities between versions.

OK, so? They improve things from one version to another. As long as it doesn't continually break things then what's the big deal? Yeah, VB6 to VB.Net had to break a lot of things to go to a managed code environment but since VB.Net came out the changes haven't been destructive between versions. What ... would you like them to just stagnate the thing?

That MS itself would refer to a "Visual Basic language" that's not version/IDE specific is just completely ridiculous! Don't you agree?

No, not really.

Regardless of version/IDE/software, they're teaching you "Microsoft's Visual Basic", and that more or less guarantees learners will be using their IDE.

There's some problem with Microsoft writing documentation that's specific to their product? I don't get it.

Relax a little, you'll live longer.

-Max

[chris128]

The instructions are specific to Visual Basic 2005 Express Edition. No alternatives are mentioned, besides a text editor. It's clear the book is very much about teaching the reader Microsoft Visual Basic 2005 Express Edition.

What do you expect them to actually do instead of mentioning their own product? The choice they have is:
1. Use examples and instructions based on their own VB.NET IDE
2. Provide examples for every other VB.NET IDE out there and fill the book with "if you are using this IDE do this, if you are using this other IDE do this..." etc etc
3. Provide no information at all about the IDE and make the book pretty useless because the reader will learn about the language but not actually know where or how they can use the language

Surely you realise that option 1 is the only one that makes any kind of sense...

Also, the "Visual Basic language" reference is laughable. It's not teaching you VB6 or prior compatible "Visual Basic". And who knows how long the "Visual basic language" it teaches will actually be applicable? Meaning, once they come out with whatever supercedes .NET(or even the next version), and there's a new "Visual Basic language", clearly that book will not entirely apply to a new "VB language".

I'm sorry are you saying you expect Microsoft to publish books based on versions of the VB language that they have not yet created? No this book will not apply to every new version of VB... so when they release a new version of VB they will update or re-write this book.

Then there seems to already be differences between versions of VB.NET. This is the same as it was with previous versions(VB6 and prior). Always changing/adding/removing things making incompatibilities between versions.

Its called improvement. They very rarely actually remove anything, and the things they remove are removed for good reason... and yes they add things to every new version, to make it better. I really dont see what the problem is. Do you think they should have never changed a thing since the very first version of VB?

Regardless of version/IDE/software, they're teaching you "Microsoft's Visual Basic", and that more or less guarantees learners will be using their IDE.

How terrible of Microsoft to bring out a book that teaches you Microsoft Visual Basic. Why on earth would they do anything else? Microsoft is a business, not a charity that makes learning material to teach you about their competitors products.

[techgnome]

-edit, never mind... -

[Shaggy Hiker]

The instructions are specific to Visual Basic 2005 Express Edition. No alternatives are mentioned, besides a text editor. It's clear the book is very much about teaching the reader Microsoft Visual Basic 2005 Express Edition.

I think this is a good argument as to why there should be an expiration date posted on all web pages. In some cases, the expiration date would be years out, or even never, but for lots of pages, there would be a finite, relatively short term, date after which the information should be disregarded, or considered historical. There are too many pages, on all kinds of subjects, which were relevant at the time they were produced, but are now just chaff.

[chris128]

I think this is a good argument as to why there should be an expiration date posted on all web pages. In some cases, the expiration date would be years out, or even never, but for lots of pages, there would be a finite, relatively short term, date after which the information should be disregarded, or considered historical. There are too many pages, on all kinds of subjects, which were relevant at the time they were produced, but are now just chaff.

Shaggy, I think FireXtol is objecting to the fact that they only mention the Microsoft IDE rather than the version of the Microsoft IDE that they mention.

[FireXtol]

Look, I'm not sure what you're expecting. It seems a couple of you want to go point for point and into some kind of futile argument/debate/he said she said BS. I'm not interested in answering terribly rhetorical questions that are insulting to even a moron's intelligence.

Shaggy, pretty much, nails it! It's simply a book that teaches you "Visual Basic language" in the exclusive and limited context of "Visual Basic 2005 Express Edition". No more. No less. No creation dates or expirations needed, necessarily.

I don't see how I'm making a big deal out of this. Make of it what you will. It's that plain and simple. Microsoft's transparent attempt to disassociate the two is laughable. I went from a good laugh to wondering what the hell is wrong with some of you.

Oh well, not my problem.

[whatsup]

you do not seem to know about WoW (which allowed 16 bit apps to run on 32 bit versions of Windows [95 to XP]

how can someone don't know about this, if this is the only way to run 16b apps on 32b os

the WoW is exactly what i was saying.

if you see that vb6 run only in WoW, because there are no more new 32 OS releases,
that means, 32b is dead.
and in that point, you can start worry about the support.

until then, i don't think you need to.

As for speed, I haven't used those things but I presume the speed could be fine if you are willing to put in a bit of extra effort

it's still much slower
and even if you don't (put extra effort to) make it faster, it's just fine for all its users.