Where is the Basic, in Visual Basic?

[RyderS]

What a ridiculous article. This in particular is laughable:-


Imply that this isn't so in VB.Net. This article reads like it was written by someone with years of experience in VB6 but only dabbled in VB.Net for all of 5 minutes. Its bias is utterly insulting.

Well, that's rather dismissive... perhaps because of biases of your own?

And biases are not inherently wrong. They are often there for good reason.

What explains the appearance of Lightswitch?

And is there any debate at all that VB6 still thrives? If true, then an explanation for it seems in order. What is your explanation?

[DataMiser]

Agreed that quote is laughable. If I were to adopt an attitude of "if I couldn’t do it within 10 minutes, I couldn’t do it at all. " I would have been out of a job many years ago.

The fact is that you can write a simple program in VB6 or VB.Net or any other form of Basic in a very short period of time. Communications programs are not simple programs though VB does make it fairly simple with the use of The MSComm control, Winsock Control or in the case of .net Serial Port class and TCP Client/Listener classes. These things would be much more difficult in the older forms of basic and from the quote above would not be possible.

The thing is with the newer forms of VB is that they have added 100s and 1000s of things to the basic language yet the basic language is still there and all the new stuff is done in such a way that if you understand Basic you will be able to pick them up easily. Sure there is much to learn but that is a good thing because there is much you can do and much of it in just a few minutes.

One thing is for sure I could write a program today in VB6 or VB.Net in a day or 2 that would have taken months in the older versions of basic if it were even possible.

[techgnome]

Personally, I couldn't get out of VB6 fast enough. It took a complete change in employers before I could finally shake the last of VB6 off of me... I am a lot faster and more productive in VB .NET than I ever was in VB6. Serializing a class to XML? I farted around for 6months trying to get something to work properly in VB6... had we done it in VB.NET, we could have had it done and coded, tested and released in two months...

I don't wax nostalgic for VB6... for what I do, it wasn't powerful enough. .NET is... and the fact that I get to choose between two languages is just a bonus.

Yes, that power comes at the cost of simplicity, but that's fine with me... I am at the point in my career that simple no longer cuts it. I'm constantly blowing past the envelope of normalcy. Sometimes it's within the language itself, sometimes it's the application framework (we have an internal framework upon which everything is built).

That being said, the comment was made at some point above, I just want to re-iterate it... at the heart of it all VB is still BASIC ... Yes, MS has added to it... and that's the part of VB that makes it VB rather than just BASIC... but that's their prerogative, and why shouldn't they? If languages were left to be stale and not updated to reflect new technologies and changes in patterns and time, I'd be entering this post from a punch card, and y'all would be reading it in green or amber color...

Times have changed. Languages evolve. No language is immune from it except the ones no one uses anymore. For some people VB6 still "jsut works" for them... fine... use it, I don't care... but don't crap on my parade because I chose to evolve with the times and learned a new trick. I understand that it's not always possible to move on - I'm sure my employer from two lifetimes ago is probably STILL running their app in VB6 ... and it was falling apart even in 2008 when I left ... but there was no manpower or time or money (all customization development would have had to stop, meaning there would be no money coming in), and so we were left to using scotch tape, bubble gun and duct tape to keep it going.

Niya - nothing about you surprises me....

As for David Platt... he's been dabbling in .NET for more than 5 minutes (click his name in the by line to get some of his other articles)... in fact I don't think he's extolling VB6 and holding it up as the be-all, end-all... but simply saying, hey, MS has offered to continue to allow VB6-era apps continue to run on Win8... and that's good new for some, here's why. As well as the "here's why VB6 seems to continue to limp along"...

Op-ed pieces like that though are like statistics... you can make them an argument for or against anything you want if you grab the right sound bite.

-tg

[RyderS]

What I think I am seeing is that people are focusing on languages... and I think that is missing the point... "languages evolve", "new tricks" etc. etc.

What DOESN'T evolve is that class of user that is not and never will be a programmer. They don't want to be. They have no interest.

But they do have a need.

Languages don't exist just to exist. They exist to fill a need.

If you can't see the class of people that don't need or want to program (which is most living people), but want to solve small problems that take computational logic and can manipulate their hardware or data to some degree, then you probably won't catch the need for which a certain language might exist.

Again. Explain Lightswitch. Why does it exist.

Here is a great video of a technically focused (read "narrowly") individual, coming up against what would be one of the wealthiest and most successful men to ever live, and the difference in their focus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF-tKLISfPE

[DataMiser]

Basic is not intended for people who are not and don't wnat to be a programmer. It is intended to be a language that can be easliy understood compared to the others. If Then Else and such are pretty easy to understand just by reading the code and always has been.

they do make tools for those who do not want to learn to write programs but just accomplish a task. The company I used to work for created one of these and sold quite a few copies. Basically it was just point and click and the application would write the program for you. This tool was written in VB and as an added bonus we included a VBA script engine that would allow those who did know how to write code to write some VBA for data processing if course when you got into this part you were starting to learn to program yourself.

If Basic would not have evolved then it would be pretty much useless in the modern world of programming, not much call for writing slow console programs with no mouse support, threading or network support anymore. The additions that have been added make for a very powerful language that still uses BASIC syntax and intructions but have been expanded greatly. It is a great tool and keeps getting better.

Remember that the A in basic stand for ALL PURPOSE and for this to be true it must continue to evolve

[dilettante]

LightSwitch (originally codenamed "KittyHawk") is the name for Microsoft's tool for building business applications for the desktop, the Web and the cloud. The HTML rendering capability is aimed at developers interested in building touch-oriented apps using HTML5.

Microsoft updates 'Napa' and 'LightSwitch developer tools

So you can probably safely ignore it, and it just went through another round of churn anyway. These things are moving targets requiring constant developer re-education.

[RyderS]

Basic is not intended for people who are not and don't wnat to be a programmer. It is intended to be a language that can be easliy understood compared to the others.

Right, we agree... but here is the magic. The language, kept attractive on a beginner level because it is restricted thus, gets people in the door so to speak. They may discover that they have a knack, that it wasn't as scary as they thought... that they actually do want to become serious programmers.

Or not.

All I was describing was the NEED, in PEOPLE... while you are still focused on the language. The need exists.. and it nudges people toward a language. The issue then is, which language to they run into first? Who is it intended for. I'm starting with the people, you are starting with the language.

Nobody can look at me with a straight face and say that VBStudio.Net isn't a language for programmers. It very much is. It should be called PASIC.

A Beginner is specifically someone that is not a programmer.

After learning an introductory language like BASIC, a new programmer should then move on to programmers languages, leaving BASIC behind for the next person, instead of getting MS to drag it into a full on programming language where the examples and user experience levels they run into are so far past them as to be meaningless to them.

You talk about basic evolving... again language focused, rather than people focused. Of course it would evolve, but the task, to be true to the B in Basic, is to have an evolved language with limited control and data structures, such that the totality of the language is never very far away. For programmers that evolve.... their task should be to LEAVE the beginners language behind, not reconfigure it to suit their evolution.

Evolution doesn't have to mean more complex, or more complete, or more advanced.

And sure, there are those kind of tools from 3rd parties... we all know that. But in this context, I was specifically examining a hole in the microsoft offerings.

[techgnome]

What I think I am seeing is that people are focusing on languages... and I think that is missing the point... "languages evolve", "new tricks" etc. etc.

What DOESN'T evolve is that class of user that is not and never will be a programmer. They don't want to be. They have no interest.

But they do have a need.

Languages don't exist just to exist. They exist to fill a need.

If you can't see the class of people that don't need or want to program (which is most living people), but want to solve small problems that take computational logic and can manipulate their hardware or data to some degree, then you probably won't catch the need for which a certain language might exist.

Again. Explain Lightswitch. Why does it exist.

Here is a great video of a technically focused (read "narrowly") individual, coming up against what would be one of the wealthiest and most successful men to ever live, and the difference in their focus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF-tKLISfPE

Just because YOU can't come up with a reason for a particular language, doesn't mean someone else doesn't otherwise, as you so rightly pointed out, it wouldn't exist (except Perl, I think it simply exists just to exist and for no other reason) ... OK... so you find .NET unweildly and doesn't fit your needs. again, so what? VB6 works for you, fine, have at it. I look at it like this, VB6 is your standard ordinary wood saw... VB.NET is a power saw. For some people, the old tried and true saw is all they need and all they'll ever use... but for me, I'd rather have the power (insert Tim Allen "arr arr" sound here), I find VB6 lacking in a lot of ways... so why can't that just be that? They are tools, no different from the ones in my toolbox. I'm not going to go around using a nail gun to put picture hangers into the wall... but I'll use it to put together the base for a train layout table.

Yeah, sure people, just need something to put together small and quick an app that does a task and be done with it. and VB6 does that nicely, I don't think anyone is going to argue that. But at the same time, to try to use it at this point to put together an enterprise type system, which is what a lot of us do during the day, is suicidal.

But, yes, there is a definite segment out there of people that aren't programmers and have no ambition to be... but do know how to write macros and bend Office to their will ... and they probably out number us "pro" developers by quite a bit... and this is the reason I suspect that VBA is still part of Office, even though the plan was originally to cull it from the suite and add .NET support instead... and not just a subset, but it was going to be full-on .NET support within Office. That was supposed to happen in Office 2010 ... yeah... that didn't happen did it? And I haven't seen or heard that it ever will. My suspicions are that it never will. because the Office audience aren't programmers... they don't NEED or WANT .NET support.

All that said, I have my other suspicions as to why VB6 keeps getting continued support in each version of Windows... and why it will keep going until Win 9 or even 10 .... I wouldn't be surprised to find out that a number of MS developers (on what ever team) probably have their quick and dirty little VB6 apps that does something that they can't live without...

-tg

[techgnome]

Right, we agree... but here is the magic. The language, kept attractive on a beginner level because it is restricted thus, gets people in the door so to speak. They may discover that they have a knack, that it wasn't as scary as they thought... that they actually do want to become serious programmers.

Or not.

All I was describing was the NEED, in PEOPLE... while you are still focused on the language. The need exists.. and it nudges people toward a language. The issue then is, which language to they run into first? Who is it intended for. I'm starting with the people, you are starting with the language.

Nobody can look at me with a straight face and say that VBStudio.Net isn't a language for programmers. It very much is. It should be called PASIC.

A Beginner is specifically someone that is not a programmer.

After learning an introductory language like BASIC, a new programmer should then move on to programmers languages, leaving BASIC behind for the next person, instead of getting MS to drag it into a full on programming language where the examples and user experience levels they run into are so far past them as to be meaningless to them.

You talk about basic evolving... again language focused, rather than people focused. Of course it would evolve, but the task, to be true to the B in Basic, is to have an evolved language with limited control and data structures, such that the totality of the language is never very far away. For programmers that evolve.... their task should be to LEAVE the beginners language behind, not reconfigure it to suit their evolution.

Evolution doesn't have to mean more complex, or more complete, or more advanced.

And sure, there are those kind of tools from 3rd parties... we all know that. But in this context, I was specifically examining a hole in the microsoft offerings.

let me ask this... since you want to concentrate on the person... 1) what does Merv look like? What does he do and what does he know? 2) For this alleged hole, what is the solution? What would a language in this hole look like? What would it do? What wouldn't it be able to do? You lament that fact that BASIC is "dead" but it isn't... you can take 35 year old BASIC code, plop it into a VB (6 or .NET) console application, and with minor changes, it will run. BASIC as a language hasn't changed. It's still there. That's why we still have On Error Resume Next, it's why GOTO 10 will still work, it's the reason why you still have to Dim your variables... and it's why Dim a$ will get you a string variable. Those are all part and parcel of the BASIC language itself, and none of that stuff is going anywhere. The rest of it, that's all add-ons and extensions.

You want to talk about people and this mythical non-developer... that's fine, but you have to put in context... what does Merv look like? Because the secretary at Howie, Cheatum & Dewey has a different need from you...

Although, I'm still not sure where the failing it... you've been using VBA all these years and quite happily... so why not the big fuss? The next step up from VBA is going to be VB6 ... the next step up from there is going to be .NET in some form. That's going to be the natural progression...

-tg

[RyderS]

you've been using VBA all these years and quite happily... so why not the big fuss? The next step up from VBA is going to be VB6 ... the next step up from there is going to be .NET in some form. That's going to be the natural progression...

-tg

VBA is of course contained to operate in a specific environment... you can't just send someone a VBA program. It's a macro language implementation.

VB6 is no longer. Sure it exists, like the Atari 2600, but it's not for sale or supported by the manufacturer.

.Net is the progression of the language. Classes, methods, namespaces, inheritance, assemblies, accessibility modifiers, enumerations, collections (of two types!), and on and on and on...

There is power there. Is power really the emphasis here?

But to pretend that .Net is still simple (and thus suitable for beginners) because it is still backward compatible with most earlier BASIC expressions (seldom used), would be like saying medical care is still simple because they still use bandages.

[techgnome]

Now who is concentrating on the language? I don't recall ever saying that VB is simple... but it isn't supposed to be... the reason it's Visual BASIC is largely historical and tradition... it's a nod (of sorts) to its heritage...
I know .NET isn't simple, I don't WANT it to be simple... If I did, I'd stick with VB6 or even VB4...

.NET CAN be suitable for beginners... but that depends on a number of factors... so the question I have is - what SHOULD be there? what SHOULD the beginner's language be? What should be the first programming language someone learns?

-tg

[ThEiMp]

-- I just wanna ask this: "Did anyone download the zip from my website???"

[DataMiser]

-- I just wanna ask this: "Did anyone download the zip from my website???"

No, after seeing your posts about it and the questions you were asking while trying to create it I would think that it is not something I would have a use for.

[SamOscarBrown]

Well, "I" like VB6 (now attempting to learn .NET). I didn't start with it, nor with FoxPro (the language I learned before VB), nor with C, the language I learned before that. Before that I learned programming on a Radio Shack's Tandy (CoCo1) by typing in code from a monthly pamphlet to which I subscribed, and then I MOVED UP by ordering the magnetic TAPE which included the programs found in the pamphlets! In DOS, remind you, using the great tool edlin (a line by line editor). BUT, before that, many, many years ago, I learned to program using 80-column punch cards. It was very difficult carrying around hundreds of cards in boxes for a simple little program....and you sure didn't want to drop them....like today, getting things out of order just won't work. SO, what IS the place to start? I say ANYWHERE....(but C is a good choice to learn the BASICS of programming).

[DataMiser]

hehe I had forgotten about the old edlin program, been a long time.

My first exposure was on a Timex Sinclair 1000 that my brother picked up at a yard sale. I then moved to a C64 and started learnign Commadore Basic, then moved to Basic, BasicA, GW Basic, C, Pascal, and eventually Visual Basic for Dos and those that followed which is what I use for most projects though I also use C#, C++ when needed as well as a few not so well know languages for specific tasks.

[dilettante]

If you don't require deep access to the Win32 platform there are plenty of alternatives.

There are tons of Basic-based languages slanted toward beginners such as RealBASIC, Power Basic, NS Basic, not to mention (again) Microsoft's Small Basic.

I have no idea where RealBASIC is now in terms of COM and API access, last time I looked at it was 2005. Power Basic is one I know little about. NS Basic/Desktop had fairly good COM and API access but I don't know how actively supported the product is now.


But if your concern is 3rd party device vendor API support these won't help much without a deeper understanding of things than a VBA plinker is going to have. Vendors tend to support the mainstream, and from there rely on the developer to be able to abstract information and APIs for other programming systems.

Delphi programmers whinged about this a lot in the past, wanting sample code, docs, etc. for Delphi instead of VB6. So perhaps none of the 3rd party programming tools is any help to you either.


I just don't think there is going to be any resolution you're satisfied with. If working from vendor-supplied VB6 materials doesn't help you in Excel VBA you're sort of screwed. Since the only other thing they support is .Net (?) then biting that bullet may be your only answer.

If you do go shopping for VB6 you might broaden your scope to VB5 as well. While VB5 was never as big a seller as VB6, there may still be some copies out there being resold by people cleaning out their attics. Even VB5 Standard Edition might be "good enough" for your purposes.

Heck, even VB5 Control Creation Edition (which was free) might be good enough even if it can't compile your programs and only runs them within the IDE. With some searching you can probably still find mirrored downloads for that, even if Microsoft pulled it from their own Downloads site years and years ago.

[Doogle]

Isn't the issue here one of adaptation and embracting new technology?

There's a bit of a contradiction going on. OP has a brand new all singing, all dancing CNC Machine plus whatever, latest technology and whizz-bangs which they are happy to embrace yet they're not happy about having to adapt to the new technology that will make it work.

Perhaps somewhere in the Procurement cycle a Risk Assessment and corresponding Contingency Plan was missed: "There's a risk that we will have to re-train someone to program the new machine in a different computer language to that we've been using and there will be a time and financial cost involved"

Isn't the phrase "Lack of planning on your part does not constitute a crisis on mine" ?

EDIT: and of course, 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing.

[ThEiMp]

Well that Visual Basic 6.00 is coming again to the COM/.NET platforms. However there will be superficial changes to the way that the code functions. Which means that you only have to put in less code to do the very same things that you were doing inside the COM platform, when Visual Basic was in it's hay day. However Microsoft told me this, about three years ago and then there wasn't very much said after that, part of the matter that we are speaking here inside this Thread...

[Españolita]

I've been following this thread and people get caught up in nostalgia over old languages and/or the need for the complexity and power of modern Basic. However, the crux of the matter is "Can a non-programmer write a quick and dirty app to do what they need?"
The answer is yes, as techgnome pointed out.

... you can take 35 year old BASIC code, plop it into a VB (6 or .NET) console application, and ... it will run.

Basic BASIC is still there. All the "bells and whistles" can be ignored by non-programmers so it doesn't matter how complex the language becomes. You can still run your quick and dirty app without getting caught up in the more advanced aspects of the language.

[FunkyDexter]

Yes, you understand the situation entirely

Understanding the problem was the easy bit, it's suggesting a solution that's going to be a struggle. I still maintain that .Net can be every bit as simple as VB6 or VBA before it but, unfortunately, you've chosen network programming as your place to start. VB6 was pretty limited in that regard: you had winsocks. VB.Net offers you soooo much more. And, for you, that's the problem right there: you don't want co much more, you just want winsocks.

So search for an example on VB.Net TCP communication and you'll drown in information about a thousand ways of achieving your goal, all of which is irrelevant to you. But fear not, heres a page that gives a very simple explanation. He shows one form that implements a TCP server and one that shows a TCP client, its about 30 lines of code in total and only about 15 of those are doing the work you're really interested in.

The real question is, how did I find that in about 2 minutes when you just drowned in a cascade of noise. The answer is simple and unfortunate, I knew what to search for and you didn't. I didn't go looking for VB.Net TCP, I went looking for TCP socket and this was the first link. Knowing the difference is mainly about experience which you won't have because, quite rightly, you're concentrating on the engineering bit. My suggestion to fill that gap is to come to forums like this and post a question. But don't ask for code, ask what you should be looking for. You'll find plenty of people happt to point you in the right direction. You'll still get sent on a few blind alleys and you'll still be frustrated at times but I'm afraid that's just life.

[ThEiMp]

Also they will post stupid source code that will do bad things to your system. In which I had my work's technicians working on my system, at most of the morning!!

PS: I wasn't trying to point any fingers at anyone in particular. Just generalising, in deed. Please note that it wasn't this Forum or Members. But it was a tutorial that I had found on the Internet. Not pointing the finger, at any Webpage, also...

[RyderS]

.NET CAN be suitable for beginners... but that depends on a number of factors... so the question I have is - what SHOULD be there? what SHOULD the beginner's language be? What should be the first programming language someone learns?

-tg

Exactly. That's the whole point of discussion. Because you can't pretend that there are no more beginners.

[RyderS]

I look at it philosophically in this fashion:

I started flying at 14.

I did not start in the first airplane, the Wright Flyer. Why? Airplanes, like languages, progress.

Progression is NOT the same as power.

We now have Cessnas and Boeing jumbo jets. Both represent a progression of aviation, but this does NOT mean that beginners should start in a jumbo jet.

Ideally, progression shows up in BOTH flying experiences. Tricycle gear, ailerons, flaps, elevator, rudder, nose wheel steering, etc. This is a modern configuration... and what is learned in the Cessna all applies to the 747.

However, even though it is POSSIBLE to learn the 747 from zero (ignoring the cost! it is unwise to do so.

You can talk about the "reasons" why the 747 is cool... it's max ceiling, max speed, range, capacity, etc. etc. but that doesn't address the actual issue, does it?

A learning platform that is both *progressed* in terms of the fundamentals, and yet stripped down as to have full functionality, but lacking unnecessary complexity or power, is the right choice.

It SEEMS to me, that MS took that platform, and moved it out of that role... and that's a shame. It satisfies the advanced code pilots, clearly... but in a way, that satisfaction is probably a good signal that it has become a jumbo jet.

IMHO, I think that a simple object oriented configuration of BASIC, that has a vastly smaller lexicon, and is a little more forgiving is in order... the Cessna of programming.

[RyderS]

Isn't the issue here one of adaptation and embracting new technology?

a brand new all singing, all dancing CNC Machine plus whatever, latest technology and whizz-bangs which they are happy to embrace yet they're not happy about having to adapt to the new technology that will make it work.
...
Isn't the phrase "Lack of planning on your part does not constitute a crisis on mine" ?

You probably shouldn't be dabbling in things that have many specifics that you are not aware of.

The CNC actually *requires* VB6... and one of our complaints with the vendor of that equipment is that they sold us, AS NEW, the control software which we later found out was in fact years old and out of date. It was fraudulent. VB6 was not (is not?) officially supported on Win7, nor is it supported or sold new... but that is the OS that came with the machine. We have the option of dumping this 5 year old version of the controller software, and at great expense putting in the latest control software that requires .Net for interface tasks.

So we have a choice to make... but this is WELL outside the scope of this forum and this thread.

[dbasnett]

Have you looked at the TcpClient Class? I don't know how it compares to winsock, but it seems simple enough.

I learned to fly in a Cessna 152 and 172.

[RyderS]

FunkyDexter... you're the man! I really appreciate your useful and practical advice.


All,

of course this thread has a basic philosophical core, stimulated into being due to actual circumstance.

What I perceive, and I may be wrong, is that with the advent of .Net, BASIC, with a B, took a significant jump *out* of the realm of the beginner. Cessna to jumbo jet... and without knowing exactly what it looks like, I expect that it COULD have gone the other way... but didn't. Both for the sake of beginners, and those that want to dip into the environment in a quick and dirty sense for reasons of sheer pragmatism, I lament.

I just finished Bob Tabors intro videos into .Net, and at this point am resigning myself to learning a LOT more than I really wanted to, just to hammer out an interface or two, partly on the belief that learning more is never a bad choice, even if the timing is inconvenient, and will feel like drinking from a fire hose...

But I still feel for the beginner... we were all there once... and, again, I may be wrong, but I think that I would be far more intimidated and lost venturing into .Net compared to something along the lines of VBA/VB6. I don't expect that the TRS-80 Coco, starting with line #10, should still be supported... progression IS important, but I stress that progression is not the same as power and options.

I have a soft spot for the casual programmer, because I don't think that programming is necessarily about "the big/professional application", or the professional programmer... my bias being that I am not operating in that realm myself.


[EDIT]: BTW, I would like to thank EVERYONE for a pleasant, enlightening, and productive conversation, that could have easily slipped into a flaming language bigotry fest, but didn't, due to the exceptional character of all involved. Hats off to you!

[techgnome]

I'll tell you what I'd like to see: a beginning language that's language agnostic... huh? something that teaches basic fundamentals but is independent to a specific language. PseudoCode++#.NET6 soemthing that teaches logic and reasoning, I wish that flowcharting and UML and simple debugging were also taught... it's amazing the number of posts that crop up in here because someone doesn't know how to follow code or logic and debug their app... granted that's something that is dependent on the IDE... but still, it's somethign of a fundamental thing to do... all IDEs (the good ones at any rate) allow the setting of breakpoints, stepping through code... and all that... to me, that's where the real shame lies...

after giving it a LOT of thought (and restarting this post 4 times) ... I think I might have to agree... there isn't something small and simple that allows for the learning of the basics... two reasons I suspect for this: 1) academia isn't teaching the basics any more... I blame the ITT Techs for that which crank out the developers by the dozens of certifications at a time and 2) the boss's nephew syndrome -- their first foray into programming is VBA in Excel or Word... by the time they get to where they need something more powerful, they're getting into .NET ... and yes, that transition is a bit harsh.

If I had the time, the knowledge and the motivation, I'd take a shot at maybe creating a new kind of base logic type language... but it's not something that's in my wheelhouse, and not really something I want to undertake... I might be convinced to be part of a team though if someone else wants to spearhead it though...

Jsut sayin;

-tg

[Niya]

Niya - nothing about you surprises me....

[dbasnett]

I'll tell you what I'd like to see: a beginning language that's language agnostic... huh? something that teaches basic fundamentals but is independent to a specific language...

Sounds interesting. The problem would be what are the fundamentals? One of the things that BASIC did, that VB .Net frowns upon, is not have strong data types. Are 1 and "1" the same?

Would a fundamental be the ability to easily communicate via TCP/IP? What about multi-programming and multi-threads?

Could we have a data type that was a BIT as well as the abstract version boolean?

[ThEiMp]

VisualBasic.StillSupported = False. I have been talking to Microsoft that they don't still support the Visual Basic IDE, but then they will still be supporting apps being written inside the Visual Basic IDE. Also then they are changing the Visual Basic platform to be written into a different system altogether. Also it will then be still called: Visual Basic, but with a few major and minor changes to the way that it still processes the data and also the way that it functions, will then be different. But then esscentually it will never change...

[DataMiser]

Visual Basic not supported ? What have you been smoking? Visual Basic 2012 was just released and will be supported for the next 5 years or so.

VB6 is no longer supported and hasn't been for some time now. Typically the life span is 5 years and VB6 is 14 years old. That is not to say that it doesn't work just that there is no continuing support for it. If and when it breaks it will be broken.

VB has changed with each and every release and there have been several since VB6. I work mostly in VB6 and VB8 though I also use 7, 9 and 10 as needed.

[RyderS]

Visual Basic not supported ? What have you been smoking? Visual Basic 2012 was just released and will be supported for the next 5 years or so.

Pardon my confusion... What is VB2012??? I mean, compared with VB in Visual Studio.Net... same thing?

[techgnome]

it's the next version... ships with FW 4.5 and comes with templates that support Windows8 & metro interfaces.

jsut like VB2005 was the next version after VB2003... VB2008 followed, followed again by VB2010 and now by VB2012 ... and I'm sure there'll be a 2014 or 2015 at some point too...

-tg

[DataMiser]

Pardon my confusion... What is VB2012??? I mean, compared with VB in Visual Studio.Net... same thing?

It is the latest release of Visual Basic. Yes it comes in Visual Studio just like it always did. VB6 was part of Visual Studio 6 as well. Visual Basic 6 was the last version that did not use the .Net framework but there have been several versions of VB since then they just stopped putting the number on the box and started using a year instead just like they have did with several of thier products. It is still very much Visual Basic.

I am currently working on a project in VB2005 [a.k.a. VB 8]

[ThEiMp]

Well that is good that you are using a high grade of Visual Basic...

[DataMiser]

high grade? It just happens to be the one needed for the project at hand. I also use 6 7 9 and 10.

Occasionally I still have to use EVB 3 though I hope I do not have to work on those projects again

[ThEiMp]

I had an old version of Access to write a DataBase for. I had to install it on a computer that could run 5.25" 1.2Mb IDE floppy disks...

[FunkyDexter]

FunkyDexter... you're the man!

Finally, the recognition I deserve. Now if everyone else round here would just come to realise that I'm always right then we could all get somewhere. Chit-chat would be a lot more left wing, I can tell you that.

I do disagree that VB.Net is too complicated to write simle apps though. I still think the problem is the examples and tutorials you'll find on line have changed since 6, and that's a function of the people who use the languages.

Back in the days of VB6 people used it almost exclusively for simple, knock out stuff. Sure, there were those of us who were hooking into the Windows API or overloading MFCs but we were the exceptions rather than the norm. That meant that, when you were a noob and had a question about how to connect to a database, you could do a quick google search and get a load of answers from people who were just like you. They would speak to you in terms you'd understand without berating you for not implementing a detached middle tier or properly implementing the MVP pattern. Now you do the same google search and you're drowned in people discussing best practices and explaining how to implement the iBindable interface, not because you have to do those things but because you can do them, and alot of us find it useful. It's no harder to do some dirty hacking in VB.Net than it was in VB6, but it's alot harder to find someone who'll tell you how to.

Us pros probably don't help with that. How often do we sneer at some quick and dirty programmer, telling them that the way they're doing something is wrong and berating them for not swallowing the whole of the MSDN documentation before daring to prostrate themselves before us? We pat ourselves on the back and tell ourselves that we're maintaing standards in our industry but the truth is that half of these people are nothing to do with industry nor will they ever be. They're just some poor JAverage Joe in an unrelated job who's trying to get through their day and is too busy doing other things to learn to be a professional programmer at the same time.

To the above mentioned Average Joe, you need to do your bit too. Learn some Google-Fu. Learn what to search for and when you don't know, ask what to search for before you ask for code. Ask us to point you in the right direction before you ask us to write your app. We'll help you do you job but we don't like to do your job for you, unless you pay us consultancy fees. And bear in mind that, if we're dismissive of you we are so for a reason. We ARE protecting our industry... and with good reason. It's been populated by lazy, good-for-nothing, couldn't care less pin heads for years, and they're still coming into it. We've had to deal with their fall out. We've stood in front of the red faced apoplectic client who's business is collapsing around his ears and try to explain to him that, no, we can't tell him how long it's going to be before his thousand pund a minute call centre working again but it's our number one priority. It's not a pleasant feeling and if we can stop those guys coming into the industry we will. That doesn't mean we don't sympathise with your plight but sometimes it's difficult to spot the difference, so make it clear. And let us know that you want our help, not our work for free.

[dbasnett]

Finally, the recognition I deserve. Now if everyone else round here would just come to realise that I'm always right then we could all get somewhere. Chit-chat would be a lot more left wing, I can tell you that.

I do disagree that VB.Net is too complicated to write simle apps though. I still think the problem is the examples and tutorials you'll find on line have changed since 6, and that's a function of the people who use the languages...

Agreed I looked at the sample for the TcpClient Class and all I can say is . It is my belief that for one-off programs it would be as simple as winsock, but the code given in the documentation isn't good.

[Niya]

I notice people getting into a knot over Winsock lately. Did no one here ever reproduce the implementation of VB6's Winsock in VB.Net ?