[RESOLVED] Save VB6 From it's slow death!

[axisdj]

Hello,

I know some of you may be aware of the new vote on the MS user voice site to push MS to bring back support/enhancement to vb6.

http://visualstudio.uservoice.com/fo...improved-versi

In the last month there has been a surge of votes/activity and I urge you, if you have not already go and vote.

I really believe if we can get to 12,000 votes or so(my opinion), MS cannot ignore it. I have two over 100k lines of code apps with thousands of users, and have struggled to find a proper replacement for vb6. I know many .net folks cringe at the idea, but I'm we want to create native apps that are not bogged down with a huge framework of classes we don't need, and JIT compilation. My apps are NOT business apps they control robotics and radio station automation where native apps just perform better because of constant hardware interaction...

As you know VBA was recently updated in office to include 64bit compilation.. it would reason the same code base is in the msvb6..dll and could easily be updated as well.

Please help our cause and vote. As a group of vb6 users we all appreciate the support.

If there is anyone from MS on this forum that has any inside advice for us.. speak up!

Good Day!

[RhinoBull]

Probably won't help. There were other petitions already signed years ago... Other articles...

[dilettante]

Be happy with the level of support VB6 has now.

Look at it as breathing space, giving you enough time to investigate alternatives and get up to speed on them. There was never an obvious choice and after this much time things have changed a lot making the last decade's options less relevant. Get out there and investigate the possibilities.

In the meantime VB6 works fine for lots of tasks as it is.

Microsoft has never shown any interest in a direct follow-on to VB6. There isn't even any consensus on what such a thing might look like: my list of 10 Things To Change might not look anything like your list.

[axisdj]

Probably won't help. There were other petitions already signed years ago... Other articles...

Yes, the previous petition was ignored in 2005, but almost 9 years later there is still a lot of vb6 code out there running large and small business, so I think the argument is more valid this time then it was in 2005.

Also the whole OOP cult thinking is not as prevalent, as time has shown it may not be the only/best way to write software and is not as perfect as theory would suggest.

WP

[DataMiser]

It seems one of these threads pop up or get revived every few months.
People need to understand that 6 was simply 1 version of Visual Basic along its evolution. It was different before and after, there is no reason to think that MS will ever go backwards and revisit a project they released 16 years ago.

There will be no new version of VB6 6 is the version and they have since released 7, 8,9, 10,11 .... the next one will look more like the last one and will not look at the version 6.

Yes there are pros to VB6 but there are also pros to the later versions, a lot of them and after getting used to the new versions and going back it is somewhat painful to use VB6

[axisdj]

Be happy with the level of support VB6 has now.

Look at it as breathing space, giving you enough time to investigate alternatives and get up to speed on them. There was never an obvious choice and after this much time things have changed a lot making the last decade's options less relevant. Get out there and investigate the possibilities.

In the meantime VB6 works fine for lots of tasks as it is.

Microsoft has never shown any interest in a direct follow-on to VB6. There isn't even any consensus on what such a thing might look like: my list of 10 Things To Change might not look anything like your list.

I am very thankful vb6 still runs on todays OS. In all actuality just supporting what is there now and maybe 64 bit compilation / modern ui, is all I need. I have been able to do everything including bullet proof multi threading and things that are supposedly impossible in vb6

Since 2002 I have investigated/researched and read/bought books and trained myself on - QT-QT Creator, .NET, Powerbasic, Q7Basic, Liberty Basic, wxWidgets, CodeBlocks, purebasic , Jabaco , XEROCODER, and others. The point is to re-write my 100k lines app to arrive at the same functionality is very hard to accept, especially when I am the sole developer and owner of my business and still am updating my application.

Since you have made the transition let me ask you, if you actually have a product or products( controlling robotics/ and Radio Automation) with thousands of users, which direction would you go?
I really don't mind 18 hour days... but I want to make sure that in the end its worth, your advise on this would be helpful.

I understand most people today think the new languages are superior, and that is OK. What if my apps can do anything I need them to do, faster and with less coding, how do I justify the shift to a new technology, work longer hours, just to arrive at the same place?

Thanks

[Schmidt]

It seems one of these threads pop up or get revived every few months.
People need to understand that 6 was simply 1 version of Visual Basic along its evolution.

People *do* understand that (after all, there was 5 versions which came before VB6 - but those didn't destroy code-investments "on a scale").

What people do *not* understand to this day, was the deliberate and completely unnecessary breakage of those code-investments (from just one version-step to the next one).

It was different before and after, there is no reason to think that MS will ever go backwards and revisit a project they released 16 years ago.

There is *very* good reason to think, that MS would do pretty well with a true VB6-successor -
at least when one considers things from a technical angle (but who does that these days... sigh... hope dies last).

WinRT is COM - and plays best together with a (currently fully supported) unmanaged and refcounting language (VC++).

Technically VB6 is very near, and only a comfort-layer on top of the current MS-C++ compiler-tech of the time (VC6).
And VB6 can understand and use, as well as create COM-Binaries natively.

So, the Source-base of VB6 could be adapted with a much lesser "impedance mismatch" to WinRT, compared with the "forced marriage"
of this new COM-based Windows-Runtime-stuff over "interop-layers" with the non-refcounting, garbage-collecting "VM-based universe" (.NET).

Technical progress in the software-industry is - not always, but very very often these days - only a matter of:
"What's fashionable for the future-embracing nerd, to utter aloud *this* year in all those scrummed-up team-meetings..."

Learning about the relational model, normalization or a decent understanding of a standardized query language?

Who needs that? Come-on - it takes *time* to learn this stuff... much better to simply declare, that one already understands
everything about correct data-handling by bringing up the term "NoSQL" - just insist, that you: "Can do No-SQL very well!",
and everything will work out just fine in your next "agile session", because there's so many different "Key-Value-Stores" out
there in the meantime (each one with their own concepts and APIs) that nobody knows what you're talking about anyways...

Just don't get too technically in those team-sessions ... but consider suggesting the new IDE-plugin for the uploading of new
written lines of sourcecode to Twitter, because an additional backup-repository can never hurt, and your teams code-output
happens in only "scrum-like" bits and pieces anyways (5 lines per day per developer is not bad, considering all the agreement
which was achieved beforehand in the group, you know).

Ok, ...no, no... I'm really better now, no problem...

So (at the side of MS) there's a whole sh..t-load of policies and petty thinking involved (as well as ties to the large consulting-
companies), and perhaps no one who will eagerly come forward, admitting that the emperor was naked all the time -
there's only WinRT for us technicians to look-at in all its re-instated COM-glory (a technology which was officially declared
dead about a dozen years ago - so basically now we have the same cycles as in the fashion-industry - there's strong
characteristics and trends which always re-appear - or are simply "undeadable").

Yes there are pros to VB6 but there are also pros to the later versions, a lot of them and after getting used to the new versions and going back it is somewhat painful to use VB6

That's understandable, since by now people are wont to steer their cars around corners with that joystick-thingy -
whilst in "legacy-models" the classic steering-wheel is still in use ... well, doesn't mean that the joystick is *better*
for that task (since after all, in real racing-cars the wheel is still considered the only reasonable choice) -
it's just that "daily repetition of things" can produce really stunning effects - so there's definitely people out
there who can drive their cars astonishingly well with joysticks...

Olaf

[DataMiser]

That's understandable, since by now people are wont to steer their cars around corners with that joystick-thingy -
whilst in "legacy-models" the classic steering-wheel is still in use ... well, doesn't mean that the joystick is *better*
for that task (since after all, in real racing-cars the wheel is still considered the only reasonable choice) -
it's just that "daily repetition of things" can produce really stunning effects - so there's definitely people out
there who can drive their cars astonishingly well with joysticks...

Olaf

That is really a very lame comparison. People do not drive cars with joysticks aside from video games and even then those of us who are serious about it use a good wheel. Just like serious programers use the right tools for the job at hand.

As for VB.Net breaking code investments, VB did that when it came out and again when it switched to windows and while you could use some VB3 code in VB5,6 it was better to rewrite as is the case from VB6 to one of the later versions.

Remember VB Dos? and before that Quick Basic? Remember how the VBX stuff was completely dropped as of VB5?

Face it VB6 is very very old and it is very unlikely that MS will move back in that direction.

[Schmidt]

That is really a very lame comparison. People do not drive cars with joysticks aside from video games and even then those of us who are serious about it use a good wheel. Just like serious programers use the right tools for the job at hand.

Exactly - I just have the slight suspicion, that you didn't put the same things into the "placeholders" in my analogy, as I did (or had in mind).

As for VB.Net breaking code investments, VB did that when it came out and again when it switched to windows ...

With the shift from DOS to Windows there was a *necessity* for a new, more "Window-
oriented" development-environment, which above all supported the new Event-Driven
paradigm (the message-loop and subclassing-concepts of the new platform).

Whilst forcing .NET on VB6-developers was as unnecessary as introducing Joysticks in cars.

Face it VB6 is very very old and it is very unlikely that MS will move back in that direction.

Again:
For VB6 there exists a C/C++ codebase (and the C++ language is still very much alive and kicking
in the MS-universe) - so there's not the slightest problem from that corner.

Furthermore, with the new Win-Runtime, COM is "fashionable" again (I brought that already -
why seems nobody able, to follow a "line of argumentation" anymore)?

So, if that is the case, then bringing the VB6-codebase "into sync" with WinRt-requirements would be
much easier, than bringing ".NET-stuff" into this world.
The VB6 native compiler is working over only a real thin layer on top of VC6++ - and the VBA-based
PCode-engine is already ported to a 64Bit version without any problems in a different, modern and
also still COM-based Hosting-environment (the new Office-versions).

Can only repeat that, from a technical angle a re-compile with an "allowance" to make use of WinRt-
interfaces + a bit of polishing with regards to the new GUI-concept of WinRT (replacing the intrinsic
controls at least, making them unicode-capable) + 64Bit capabilities and compile-targets, supported
by a new C2.exe - that's it already - no technical challenge at all - if it's not done, then it's not done
out of different reasons than technical ones.

And as for your "very very old" - what kind of argumentation shall that be?

COM is "in again" - and unmanaged languages with refcounting classes are state of the art
(as C++, which is BTW even older than VB6).

Olaf

[Nightwalker83]

Maybe we should pin this thread because the topic comes up every so often?

[dilettante]

I was also struck by the obvious compatibilities between the WinRT application model and VB6's model when early details were revealed. Most of this probably stems from the C++ GUI application model though.

A lot of what people insist on "doing wrong" in VB6 programs (DoEvents buzz-loops instead of asynchronous processing) are exactly what WinRT tries to prevent in applications. Gratuitous multithreading and blocking calls are problematic when you need to control application lifetime, eliminate wasted CPU cycles, and other issues that arise when managing memory and power consumption are important.


I had no illusions that Visual Basic would be resurrected though. An individual's political agenda is at work.

[axisdj]

Maybe we should pin this thread because the topic comes up every so often?

Yes, I agree please pin it. This forum's existence/popularity will be directly affected if vb6 makes a comeback, in addition when someone comes here they naturally are using vb6, and as such would be interested in this topic.


BTW: Thanks Olaf for your wise post in defense of vb6.

Thanks

[sten2005]

Don't forget that Microsoft continue to support VBA. And they updated VBA6 to VBA7 (with some 64 bit extensions). The best angle of attack may be for us to press Microsoft into adding the same modifications to VB6. I appreciate that we all have our own lists of changes but, realistically, asking for the same changes MS have already done in VBA7 may be the only chance we have - and implied in those changes is an IDE updated to run with Windows 7/8 and, of course, support.

Yes, vote for an updated VB6 and leave a comment there too.

But also take other action - phone your local Microsoft Office and ask for an updated VB6 http://www.microsoft.com/worldwide/
or tweet https://twitter.com/microsofthelps
or mail requests to Microsoft at http://support.microsoft.com/contactus/?ln=en-us

[Niya]

Oh God, not another one of these threads.

I know many .net folks cringe at the idea, but I'm we want to create native apps that are not bogged down with a huge framework of classes we don't need, and JIT compilation.

I won't even bother.

My apps are NOT business apps they control robotics and radio station automation where native apps just perform better because of constant hardware interaction...

VB6 would be a half measure at best. Just do it right and write the thing in C. That way you gain portability through all the various C compilers out there that target different platforms. We don't need to revive work on VB6 for this.

[axisdj]

Oh God, not another one of these threads.




I won't even bother.



VB6 would be a half measure at best. Just do it right and write the thing in C. That way you gain portability through all the various C compilers out there that target different platforms. We don't need to revive work on VB6 for this.

hello Niya,

I, by no means want to argue. And I know as you see it, I am an incompetent programmer, and that may be even though I have thousands of copies of my software sold worldwide that controls intelligent lighting in churches and nightclubs.

Having said that maybe you can help me with your wisdom on what IDE/Compiler I should move to. There are two reasons I stick with vb6, 1. I have 100k lines of code ( one person company), 2. I can do anything FAST. Can you recommend which direction I should go. I am completely open. I have trained and researched QT-QT Creator in the c++ realm. It is a bit of learning curve and the .cpp implementation and .h declaration seems like a waste of time where in vb6 I just declare and implement in the same place. Anyway I am willing to change, if the benefits are there. Please, if you can or want, tell me what they are.

Thanks

[jmsrickland]

Viva la VB6!

[Niya]

And I know as you see it, I am an incompetent programmer, and that may be even though I have thousands of copies of my software sold worldwide that controls intelligent lighting in churches and nightclubs.

Good for you mate. I make no pretense about knowing your level of skill as a programmer.

Having said that maybe you can help me with your wisdom on what IDE/Compiler I should move to. There are two reasons I stick with vb6, 1. I have 100k lines of code ( one person company), 2. I can do anything FAST. Can you recommend which direction I should go.

Then by all means stick with VB6. No need to make yet another ridiculous flamebait "VB6 is awesome, .Net sucks" threads which is what these threads eventually boil down to, thinly veiled emotional rants against the perceived injustice called .Net.

[axisdj]

Good for you mate. I make no pretense about knowing your level of skill as a programmer.



Then by all means stick with VB6. No need to make yet another ridiculous flamebait "VB6 is awesome, .Net sucks" threads which is what these threads eventually boil down to, thinly veiled emotional rants against the perceived injustice called .Net.

Thanks for the kind reply.

If I stick with vb6, I will need to fight as hard as I can to revive it's support, my entire livelihood depends on it, and arguing which language is better does not matter to me, only the years of code and work I put into my working and selling products.

WP

[jmcilhinney]

If Microsoft was ever going to revive VB6 then they'd have done it long before now. Just look at Windows 8. The market didn't like the way they went so they started making changes to backtrack in the next point release and further changes will be made in the next one or two releases to restore the bulk of what people have issue with. If Microsoft was going to bow to pressure from the developer community on VB6 then they wouldn't wait nearly two decades to do so.

For the majority of what used to be done in VB6, use VB.NET or some other .NET language. VB.NET can't do everything but then neither could VB6. For those things that cannot reasonably be done in VB.NET, there are other options. If Microsoft didn't bring back VB6 for the masses then they're not going to do it for the niches.

[dee-u]

I won't even bother.

You already bothered to reply.

[Niya]

If Microsoft didn't bring back VB6 for the masses then they're not going to do it for the niches.

And there it is.

You already bothered to reply.

I didn't mean I wouldn't reply. I was making reference to the fact that I've allowed myself to be baited into VB6 vs VB.Net arguments in just about every thread like this since I came here. It usually starts with statements like the one I quoted from his original post. I'm just not bothering anymore. No sense in repeating what I've already said a million times before.