Does anybody still use VB 5/6 ?

[Chris Boss]

This may sound like a silly question, but here goes.

Does anybody still use Visual Basic 5.0/6.0 ?

Do you write apps to run on Windows 7 ?

Has anyone done any testing of their VB apps on Windows 8 ?

The reason for my questions:

I stopped using VB 5.0 about 10 years ago and use another Basic language compiler (non-Microsoft) and work purely with the Windows API (WIN32). I develop tools for programmers (using the other Basic) and am wondering if there is still a need for addons or libraries for use with Visual Basic ?

Are VB'ers (original VB, not dot.net) still needing tools to help them extend the lifespan of Visual Basic ?

Because I work with the pure Windows API, the stuff I write can work on Windows 95 to Windows 8.

I still have VB 5.0 Pro which allows me to test stuff I create (DLL's) with VB.

[Chris Boss]

Just wanted to point out that I am not a fan of dot.net (too big and bloated for my tastes).

I don't know if many of the VB'ers (original) here realize it or not, but even Microsoft sees some disadvantages to managed code (dot.net). One key concern is performance. To appreciate this watch this video of a talk by Herb Sutter, a Microsoft expert on C++, :

http://channel9.msdn.com/posts/C-and...b-Sutter-Why-C

Also another interesting tidbit I came across in my research. From what I read, it was stated that Visual Basic 5.0 and 6.0 actually use a C compiler backend. This is how Microsoft was able to actually make VB a true compiler (early versions were pcode), so code you write can have very good performance, as good as some C compilers. Not sure if this can be verified or not, but if so, this means VB 5/6 are still viable compilers for development.

VB 5/6 done support themes (XML manifest in resources), so do most VB'ers simply create an external manifest file so your VB apps can be themed (and does it work alright) ?

[Chris Boss]

Another question:

Aside from the main VB runtime , what additional runtimes (I assume OCX's) do most VB'ers distribute with their apps ?

I also found the latest tiobe index very interesting : http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/conte...pci/index.html

It would appear that classic VB (like 5/6) is still more popular than VB.NET.
Is this true ?

[DataMiser]

Not much point in using VB5. I quit using it entirely about 10 years ago. I do still use VB6 and will likely continue to us it for the near future. Of course I also use VB.Net 2003-2010 and C# as well.

As for what I distribute with my apps, only what is needed to make it work. This of course depends on the app, most of the time the runtime is already on the end users machine as are the standard OCXs. the one file I must include in most packages is the DLL for Active Reports as I use this in any project that requires reporting, unless of course the customer insists on some other report engine which I discourage as much as possible. I hate Crystal with a passion and love to use Active Reports so odds are it will be there.

[Chris Boss]

I only mention VB 5.0 because it was the last Microsoft programming I used. Been using a non-Microsoft compiler since for the last ten years.

I work with the Windows API (WIN32) directly. I do a good bit of graphic stuff (GDI and OpenGL).

I have been out of touch with the world of Microsoft development tools for the last ten years and only since I have been testing out Windows 8 have I played with anything from Microsoft (downloaded Visual Studio beta and it totally confused me. VB classic no longer exists in any form in Microsoft tools. Would not even know where to start with VB dot.net).

I am just curious how many classic VB'ers could not make the jump to VB dot.net and are still using VB.
I have noticed in a lot of stuff I have read that many VB'ers when making the decision they had to move to dot.net, simply chose to skip VB dot.net and go directly to C#.

So what is really going on in the VB world today ?

[DataMiser]

VB is still going strong. Yes there is a learnign curve to jump into .net but it is not to bad and a very large amount of code that would have worked in VB5 will still work in VB.Net even though there may be better ways to do it in .net.

The reason I say VB5 is pointless is because you can open your vb5 projects with VB6 and rebuild them usually without making any changes so there really is no reason to stay with VB5. VB6 on the other hand is still very useful and having used it regularly for over 10 years now it is comfortable. I will keep using it until it does not serve the purpose but there are many things you can do in .Net that would either not be possible in VB6 or would take a lot more effort.

[Nightwalker83]

Not much point in using VB5. I quit using it entirely about 10 years ago. I do still use VB6 and will likely continue to us it for the near future. Of course I also use VB.Net 2003-2010 and C# as well.

Same with me.

[dilettante]

VB5 is pretty much extinct due to its successor VB6. VB.Net was never really a true successor, making VB6's lifetime quite extended.

With some effort you can still get VB5 programs to run on a current version of Windows but it wasn't really considerd supported at any level after Windows XP. The VB6 runtime still gets quiet improvements to keep it viable past XP. The runtime has even been supplemented on later Windows versions by updated versions of many of the VB6 libraries, which are sometimes called "runtime extended."

See Support Statement for Visual Basic 6.0 on Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008, Windows 7, and Windows 8

[BenJones]

I used VB6 for many years, I still have it in installed and have also written my own tools to compile dlls and real console apps, But in the last two years I changed programming tools a lot, First I moved to Lazarus then C#, At first I was not sure to move to .NET because of the bloat and runtimes that people go on about and I did agree at the time. But times have changed .NET is here to stay and if you buy any new computer now the framework is on. But I must say I think I did make the right move to .NET it offers a lot more features and I find it easier than VB it so simple.

I still have VB6 installed and more than likely it will stay but I only use it now maybe if I see a good project and want to test it in VB6 or if I want to write a very small tool for like Win95,Win98

I tested a few of my old apps on Win7 and I must say they all worked fine, But as I not got Windows8 I am unable to test. If Wndows8 does support the old VB6 then this is cool for VB6 people if not then sadly it time for them to move on to .NET or a Opensource Basic Compiler there loads around like many offer the same features as VB6

[Joe Caverly]

I stopped using VB 5.0 about 10 years ago and use another Basic language compiler (non-Microsoft) and work purely with the Windows API (WIN32). I develop tools for programmers (using the other Basic) and am wondering if there is still a need for addons or libraries for use with Visual Basic ?

Hello Chris,
I also use "that other Basic" with VB6, to write code for DLLs to achieve speeds that the VB program cannot.

I have an extensive library of addons and OCXs for VB6. So far this century, I have not had the need for any new commercial addons or OCXs for VB6.

My VB6 toolbox is well stocked, and I do not see the need to add anything new to it.

Joe

[AirE]

I think due to the Great Recession that nobody is using .Net and nobody is using Civil3D.
Fact is, if you can develop a program that works in VB6... use it. I'm trying to find out if a program I developed works on Windows 7, but nobody talks to me.
I don't think a programming language should just go extinct... makes no sense to me (like we're not using forks anymore, we've got chopsticks).
Visual Fortran would be the best thing, but you don't see (NPI) that either. Imagine the creativity you'd see from the old folks.

Note to add: Everybody pushes phone app development nowadays. But you can't use a word processor or a spreadsheet very efficiently on a phone. So, the laptop is still significant, and applications designed for a laptop or desktop will continue to be relevent. That's my opinion. You don't go to work at a phone, do you? No, still a desktop.

[techgnome]

It would appear that classic VB (like 5/6) is still more popular than VB.NET.
Is this true ?

I doubt it... but I see this "statistic" thrown out every once in a while. If you can find a valid, current statistic to back that up, I might believe it.

I think due to the Great Recession that nobody is using .Net

What? Really? Now I'd like to see YOU back that up. Experience tells me otherwise.

-tg

[dilettante]

I expect VB.Net to be more popular because (a.) there is a free personal edition (Express) that can be used to do as much or more than most people ever did using VB6 anyway, and (b.) there are more new people trying to program these days. And don't forget the newest .Net Basic.

What amazes me the most are the number of new people using VB6. This seems very strange considering how hard it is to get hold of a legitimate copy of VB/VS 6.0 anymore.

[DataMiser]

Well if these forums are any indication the VB.Net area pretty much always has more people viewing than any other section with Vb6 usually coming in 2nd.

Some people have stopped using VB6 and many like myself use both Vb6 and the various .Net versions. I would say pretty much anyone using basic professionally now is using VB.Net where many may also use VB6 but very few use Vb6 and not .Net

As for the avialablity of VB6 I think a lot of the new comers are either learning it in school or have downloaded a priated version. The last time I checked you could still buy VB6 and the enterprise edition was available to MSDN subscribers last I looked.

It does seem odd for new comers to be learning VB6 though since much of what they will learn will end up confusing them when they move to dot net.

[Lenggries]

Personally, I think all of VB has a limited future. VB only works on one platform (Windows), and the language itself is hardly ever taught anymore. On the flip-side, teaching any C-Style language gives one some level of proficiency in all C-Style languages, most notably C, C++, Java, Javascript, C# and Objective-C. Thus, it behooves educators to teach in a C-style language. Over time, that means as VB programs die out, development shops will increasingly build newer programs in a C-style language for two reasons: it will be easier to hire developers and because it will be easier to port the code to non-Windows platforms. This is why my company is rewriting our flagship program (VB6) in C#.

Various versions of VB will be around for a very, very long time, but it's a language of the past. The future is C.

[DataMiser]

It is true that microsft basic languages [which have been around forever] work only on microsoft platfroms. That is what they are designed for and frankly having written code for 20+ years I have had very few inquiries about writing code on anything else.

Of course now with smart phones being so popular there is much greater demand for andriod apps as well as iPhone but in the PC world Windows pretty much has it locked down. The last major contender was OS/2 and that was great OS but did not survive competition with Windows.

Keep in mind that there are some basic alternatives that do work on other platfroms.

[techgnome]

"Various versions of VB will be around for a very, very long time, but it's a language of the past. The future is C." --- thanks.... for the laugh. Seriously.... had I been drinking something at the time, I would have snorted and it would have come out my nose. You do realize that C predates VB, and for that matter the Basic that came before it it, by quite a few years? Basic's been around a long long time, but even C has been around even longer.

I have to laugh everytime someone says that such and such language is the future. Seems like at some point, every language has been "the langua futura".

To tell the truth, it behooves educators to teach programming BASICS and concepts that cross ANY language. Sadly they do not. They still use JAva, VB6 (yes, there are still some education institutions that teach it), and some teach using C#. Unfortunately because they are teaching specific languages, they are light on the cross-disciplinary teachings of the basics sometimes. That's why we get a lot of posts in here, roughly twice a year, with people freaking out because of sub-par teachings, or they thought they could skate through the class. Which is how & why the VB6 forums here continue to thrive.

It's grand that your company is re-writing your flgaship app in C# ... we're doing our front end in HTML, with JQuery and the back end is VB.NET - for now... eventually it will get to the point where we'll be able to write our backend in what ever language we prefer be it VB or C#. since the front end it web-based, we've gone truly cross platform and mobile to boot.

The future isn't C. It isn't HTML, it isn't VB either. I remember when the WEB was the future? That didn't work out quite as expected did it? Now the cloud is supposed to be the future. It won't be. But it will become a tool just like the way AJAX and other "waves of the future" have become.

-tg

[Lenggries]

Glad I gave you a chuckle. I had to abbreviate my last post as I was getting called to a meeting, so it ended up more cliché than I would've liked. I agree that computer science fundamentals is language agnostic... bubble sort is a dog in all languages, for example... but schools have an impetus to streamline their classes to as few languages as possible on the theory (flawed or not, depending on one's perspective) that if a student doesn't have to learn new syntax every class they can devote more energy to learning the topic of the class instead.

But you bring up the unknown next great technology. I agree, but I draw the opposite conclusion. I think whoever invents the next great programming language or technology will probably want to minimize the learning curve by adapting the syntax of the most prevalent programming language out there, which is C. Thus, just as Apple chose Objective-C for it's mobile technology, I bet the next great technology will be based on a C-style language, as will the one after that, and the one after that, etc. Thus, I must still conclude that the future will indeed look like C.

ps. I suppose one could just simplify things and say binary is the past, present, and future, but what'd be the fun in that?

[dilettante]

Basic's been around a long long time, but even C has been around even longer.

Uh, no. Basic has been around since about 1964. C wasn't close to stable until about 1973. Hardly really matters though.

Unfortunately because they are teaching specific languages, they are light on the cross-disciplinary teachings of the basics sometimes.

This might be the most important idea voiced in this thread yet.


However the question was about whether VB5 and VB6 are still used. Yes, they are.


As far as "the future" goes I cringe to think how much it might look like JavaScript more than anything else.

[AirE]

What? Really? Now I'd like to see YOU back that up. Experience tells me otherwise.

-tg[/QUOTE]

It's the 50% unemployment/underemployment # I was referring to, but as far as .NET, I have nothing against it beside making my years of development completely irrevelolent. I'm into DX8.1.

[jpbro]

Okay, here's my two cents as a VB6 (still) developer who has not moved to .net.

VB6 is still a capable language, and my skills are amenable to it based on 15+ years (yikes!) of experience.

It has (of course) been deprecated by Microsoft for a few years, but programs compiled with VB6 still run, and the VB6 runtime is still available for Windows (including the Windows8 consumer preview that I recently installed to test my company's software).

Now on a purely hypothetical tangent - I think that there is a brighter *potential* future for legacy VB6 programs than the latest .Net programs due to the fact that some non-Windows platforms are gaining traction (Mac/Linux) and there is such a huge amount of old but useful VB6 programs out there that will eventually be abandoned by MS, that it is almost inevitable that VB6 will "hang around" for quite a long time (think COBOL).

I'd be shocked if an open-source msvbvm60.dll clone doesn't appear in the next 5-10 years.

Now as far as brushing up your skills goes by moving to new languages, I'm not sure if .net is the way to go... I'd consider objective C or android style javascript for the short term, but I'm a contrarian, so I've been recently been programming in Perl, C++ and only dabbling in javascript.

Anyway, I'm lucky to still have a job I guess (regardless of how little it pays)!

[Nightwalker83]

I expect VB.Net to be more popular because (a.) there is a free personal edition (Express) that can be used to do as much or more than most people ever did using VB6 anyway

Although, you can't create apps for sale using the express edition which, makes it hard if you don't make for a company and creating programs yourself.

[Autistic]

This may sound like a silly question.

Of course it does

Does anybody still use Visual Basic 5.0/6.0 ?

Yes. Using it since 2006.

Do you write apps to run on Windows 7 ?

Yes and I write the apps in Win7 itself.

Has anyone done any testing of their VB apps on Windows 8 ?

No. I have a slow connection so downloading Win8CP is a big question mark.

Are VB'ers (original VB, not dot.net) still needing tools to help them extend the lifespan of Visual Basic ?

Yes, (At least here in India)

[techgnome]

Although, you can't create apps for sale using the express edition which, makes it hard if you don't make for a company and creating programs yourself.

WHAAAA? "you can't create apps for sale using the express edition" --- You SURE about that? I don't recall there being anything in the license agreement that expressly prohibits creating commercial software with the Express editions...

-tg

[johndmingione]

I create Internal Software for my Company to use to make their lives easier and they make me use VB6 even though I like 2010 SO MUCH BETTER. But from my experience I can tell you that yes you can create programs that function on Windows 7. Although sometimes they have a little trouble on 64-bit windows 7's. But this is a random problem we've been having.

[ThEiMp]

hehe -- Good for you, because COM, is being rewritten to work with the .NET and also the #, type framework. Also I am working in partnership with a few companies to come up with a language that works with those three types of frameworks, but is esscentually a COM structure. But then again it isn't really. If you get my drift??? Also I really love COM, and then not saying that it will stay around forever, but then again it could just do that...

[szlamany]

My entire customer base uses VB6 code developed over the past decade.

We are migrating to HTML/Javascript/jQuery for front-end and using VB.Net for backend web services.

Although to produce reports we still have the VB.Net backend run the old VB6 app in a batch file - will probably do that until someone here has the free time to move the VB6-report-writer logic into some VB.Net web method.

Regardless - I make my living on VB6 - work new development in mostly C-style Javascript - with a little VB.Net back end work every now and then.

But in the long run everything is just delivering T-SQL CRUD to the user.

Anyone here in this thread creating applications that don't use a database??

[dilettante]

hehe -- Good for you, because COM, is being rewritten to work with the .NET and also the #, type framework.

Um, no.

[mikesimpson]

Yes, I still use VB6, I created a program 10 years ago, a utility for Microsoft Train Simulator which has had several hundred thousand downloads, so I still need to maintain it.

As I had so much code written in VB6, although I have VB.net versions, I have just stuck with VB6 as it will do most things I need.

Mike

[techgnome]

And to further that.... COM isn't a framework... it's a technology... and neither is # ... in fact there isn't a such thing as # any more than there is ++ .... it's C#, and it's a language not a framework. So the only framework there is in that sentence is the .NET Framework.

-tg

[dilettante]

Anyone here in this thread creating applications that don't use a database??

Sure.

One of my most successful beta products being tested right now is a sort of PowerPoint-like or "blackboard" tool used to pace and annotate screencast captures.

Another thing I do a lot of programming for is data capture and transformation. Now admittedly the clients may take the output and import it into some database to do "what if" analysis or further processing on it. But most of the time the output is CSV, XML, or specialized formats required by specific software products.

One of my most popular freeware utilities is LANegram, a replacement for the Windows Messenger Service and NET SEND command. Over 800 downloads and each averages 23 installs.

I can't be the only one creating all sorts of non-database programs using VB6.

[szlamany]

I'm curious - is this a full time job or something you do on the side?

[dilettante]

Mostly contract work and freebies done on the side. Some of the freeware has evolved into fancier paid versions, probably a common thing for small-market software.

I don't think you could get a full time job doing a lot of this stuff anymore. The kind of people who hire programmers for full-time regular employment these days have their thinking locked "inside the box." Being short-sighted they don't realize they have these needs... until suddenly they have them. That's where the contracts come in.

The bulk of my income is related to... er, "governmental" contracts involving data communication, message switching, and data brokering. Not anything secret but also not anything they want you talking about. Sadly the "down" economy is making these jobs fewer and farther between as budgets shrink and shrink - what's left seems to get spent on "project managers" and other supercargo.

[Bobbles]

VB6 is an improved version of VB5. Caters for ADO better. Has some cool tricks like Split.

A VB6 program can be given to a user using Win 98 SE, XP, Win 7, Win 8, and it will run without installation.
I use SP5 on my development machine, as I figure that is the most common runtime that MS kindly supplies with those versions of Windows. Possibly Win 7 and Win 8 have SP6 runtimes, but I have never had a problem.

When running programs in later versions of windows, and in 64 bit, you may have to experiment with the Compatibility settings Tab for the program, and/or the shortcut to it.

I avoid the extra MS controls and DLLs, to avoid DLL H-E-L-L, and also allows my 'No Install' portable claim.

When my program does need a control or reference (ADO or free SGrid2), I build a standalone project with those references, and NO CODE.
They run that JUST ONCE, and from then on I can distribute programs that do not require installation.

Regarding VB.NET -
They will have to pry VB6 out of my dying hand.

[ThEiMp]

Writing ActiveX Control Objects in .NET is hell. Because I have tried to do so, before and have failed misrably. Also I work using the ActiveX Control Wizard that comes with VB6 COM. Then fill in the blanks and the Source Code that I need to write into it...

[DataMiser]

.Net is not really intented to create or be used with activex controls, though it can work with them. When creating controls in VB.Net they should be dlls rather than OCXs. Creating a control in .Net is simple but again it is not designed to create activex controls.

[ThEiMp]

So sorry, that was exactly what I had meant in my last post on this Thread...