What if there was a NEW vb6

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Sooooo, what your saying is there is a new VB6 and it is called JavaScript ...


or something similar to that i didnt read everything so i may have just made it up

[techgnome]

Sooooo, what your saying is there is a new VB6 and it is called JavaScript ...


or something similar to that i didnt read everything so i may have just made it up

Well it must be true.... I JUST saw it on the internet. And everyone knows you can't put something on the internet if it isn't true.

-tg

[Shaggy Hiker]

Sooooo, what your saying is there is a new VB6 and it is called JavaScript ...


or something similar to that i didnt read everything so i may have just made it up

You didn't read eight pages of commentary?!?!?!?!

You lazy slacker!!!!

[kfcSmitty]

It's like reading a paragraph. Read the first post and last post on each page... it'll give you the gist!

[MikiSoft]

http://visualstudio.uservoice.com/fo...-edition-to-al

Here's another good idea, since all previous are rejected. Let's vote!

[Niya]

http://visualstudio.uservoice.com/fo...-edition-to-al

Here's another good idea, since all previous are rejected. Let's vote!

That is such a ridiculous idea. That's like asking someone for a free bicycle when they're offering a free Audi!

[MikiSoft]

If they can give an Audi for free, why not bicycle too?

[Niya]

Because they expect good sense to prevail. No one would expect someone to want a bicycle when they're being offered an Audi. That would be insane and I don't think they expect insanity to prevail.

[Niya]

And what if they had to dig up their old bicycles from some old basement no one's even sure where it is anymore. And and top of that they are being asked to refurbish the bikes. That's too much effort, they already have thr Audis here and waiting for you and you want them to go back and find their old dated stuff and waste time on that ? If it were me the answer would be a resounding "hell no!!!". I'd be like, "u nuts bro ?....u gettn an Audi and you want to ride bikez....u needz ur head checked son...."

[MikiSoft]

Because they expect good sense to prevail. No one would expect someone to want a bicycle when they're being offered an Audi. That would be insane and I don't think they expect insanity to prevail.

It depends on a purpose. For the bicycles, they're handy and they will never go out of fashion, so many people still prefer to ride that instead to drive a car because it will be always easier to go through the traffic. And most important is that in order to use it, you'll need some BASIC knowledge - unlike for Audi and other cars which usage is all but simple, counting all unnecessary gadgets that come with them

[FunkyDexter]

they are being asked to refurbish the bikes

I think that's probably the key point. MS know that what's being asked for isn't really VB6, it's VB6+. This petition may serve to disguise that behind an intermediary request but they also know that it'd be about a week before more petitions popped up asking for enhancements. They're simply not interested in engaging in that process. .Net is Microsoft's offering to developers now. VB6 is not and isn't going to be again no matter how many petitions get created on User Voice. You can either move on or accept that your developing in a dead language - your choice.

BTW, it's perfectly possible to drive the Audi without any of the gadgets. Indeed, you can stick one foot out the door and push if you really want to. If you want .Net to be as simple as 6 then you simply ignore all the more advanced libraries. You don't have to use them.

[MikiSoft]

BTW, it's perfectly possible to drive the Audi without any of the gadgets. Indeed, you can stick one foot out the door and push if you really want to. If you want .Net to be as simple as 6 then you simply ignore all the more advanced libraries. You don't have to use them.

VB.NET IDE will never be as simple as VB6.

[dilettante]

Audi? More like a Rube Goldberg garbage truck.

Fits and starts, freezes in its tracks, groans and wheezes like a rusted steam calliope, heavyweight fuel hog, repair parts quickly go out of stock forever so you need to constantly rebuild it on the fly. And when the Framework breaks it can't be repaired.

How to repair the .NET Framework 2.0 and 3.0 on Windows Vista applies to Vista and all later Windows versions. Short summary: "Here's some stuff you can try, but you'll probably have to reinstall Windows from scratch."

[NeedSomeAnswers]

VB.NET IDE will never be as simple as VB6.

No but its not difficult to use in anyway its just different, and if your not prepared or not bothered to learn what those differences are then you will find it hard.

When i have to use VS6 to look at some bug in a VB6 program i find it horribly dated. It's like going back to Windows 2000.

Fits and starts, freezes in its tracks, groans and wheezes like a rusted steam calliope, heavyweight fuel hog, repair parts quickly go out of stock forever so you need to constantly rebuild it on the fly. And when the Framework breaks it can't be repaired.

I don't think you have tried to use .net since version 1.1 of something as this bares no resemblance to my experience.

.Net just works i have never ever had to repair the framework and i have never come across a customer who has either!

Also you have a lot more parts and tools then you ever did with VB6 and with many other languages.

[SJWhiteley]

I have a question: why should it be free? Would we still have these complaints if it was available for $600 (which, if I recall, was Retail price - but I think that was for Visual Studio 6).

So, all those people who want VB6, already have VB6, so why does it need to be available? For new programmers, they have much more powerful offerings which are no harder to learn.

It's like being offered an Audi but demanding a bicy.....oh, wait, we already did that analogy....

[NeedSomeAnswers]

It's like being offered an Audi but demanding a bicy.....oh, wait, we already did that analogy....

How about -

Its like being offered a Lobster but demanding a Prawn

or

Its like being given a Picasso but demanding an Emin

or

Its like being taken on a trip to the Bahamas but demanding a holiday in Bognor Regis !!

as acceptable alternatives

[szlamany]

I'm trying to hold back - really - argh....

Why would any company dedicate even 1% effort towards supporting a legacy system that has been retired for years??

And if you think it's possible - even for a minute - that the old VB6 code that MS has might not work perfectly on new devices and O/S's and who knows what. If you think that's possible then the 1% effort goes way up.

What would be the rationale that would allow this to be a project that anyone who has any business sense would ever entertain!?!?!

You are asking Ford to start selling Pinto's again - not new Pinto's - just old ones stored out back with maybe gas tanks that blow up!

If you want to drive a bike - fine - just get off the highway!

[Niya]

I don't think you have tried to use .net since version 1.1 of something as this bares no resemblance to my experience.

.Net just works i have never ever had to repair the framework and i have never come across a customer who has either!

Also you have a lot more parts and tools then you ever did with VB6 and with many other languages.

Same here. The irony here is that I've had these problems with VB6. ActiveX breaking all over the place with fits of cryptic errors like "Automation error". And that ****** package and deployment did a piss poor job of resolving dependencies. You always ended up making a batch files to register this and that. It took forever to add the missed dependencies to the wizard so writing a batch file was far less painful. I for one am glad I'm done with the mess called VB6. I've never had these troubles with .Net. NEVER! MS did a really great job with .Net.

[SJWhiteley]

Same here. The irony here is that I've had these problems with VB6. ActiveX breaking all over the place with fits of cryptic errors like "Automation error". And that ****** package and deployment did a piss poor job of resolving dependencies. You always ended up making a batch files to register this and that. It took forever to add the missed dependencies to the wizard so writing a batch file was far less painful. I for one am glad I'm done with the mess called VB6. I've never had these troubles with .Net. NEVER! MS did a really great job with .Net.

Great. Now you just removed the tint from my rose-colored glasses.

Yeah, I'd forgotten about the crappy hoops you had to jump through. One did eventually get good at it, but dependency management was a pain. I ended up writing a script to create the script for NSIS installer, to get all the correct files.

[Niya]

Audi? More like a Rube Goldberg garbage truck.

Fits and starts, freezes in its tracks, groans and wheezes like a rusted steam calliope, heavyweight fuel hog, repair parts quickly go out of stock forever so you need to constantly rebuild it on the fly. And when the Framework breaks it can't be repaired.

How to repair the .NET Framework 2.0 and 3.0 on Windows Vista applies to Vista and all later Windows versions. Short summary: "Here's some stuff you can try, but you'll probably have to reinstall Windows from scratch."

Are we talking about the same product ?

Great. Now you just removed the tint from my rose-colored glasses.

You had to become a man some time.

[FunkyDexter]

Just a gentle reminder to everyone to keep this polite. This discussion is known to get... heated.

VB.NET IDE will never be as simple as VB6.

VS2013 is every bit as simple to use as VS6 was. You add new modules and forms to your project in exactly the same way (rclick on project and select add). You can add events in exactly the same way (double click on the element and use the drop downs to specify the event). You can access the code window in exactly the same way (double click on the form or right click and select View Code Window). In it's basic functionality it's all but identical. VS2013 certainly has a bunch of extra productivity tools you can use if you want but if you don't want to use them then just disregard them.

The languages differ but minimally. You've still got all you're old constructs. A loop's still a loop. A module's simply a static class. About the only thing that differs with any substance would be the control set which is more extensive and flexible in .Net. There may be some learning curve there but it's a wonderfully shallow one. Again, .Net framework 4.5 has a bunch of extra features that weren't in VB6 but if you don't want those feature just ignore them.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Just a gentle reminder to everyone to keep this polite. This discussion is known to get... heated.

what this discussion???

I don't believe it, only users with great common sense and erudition have posted in this thread!

[dilettante]

Just a gentle reminder to everyone to keep this polite. This discussion is known to get... heated.

There is a simple solution:

When a thread about VB6 or a possible future VB comes up, start banning anybody who comes in and starts trolling about .Net as off topic, inappropriate, and inflammatory.

Nobody seriously expects Microsoft to revive the old product line so those "new VB6" threads like this one would just die pretty quickly. They only get started by a small minority with unrealistic hopes and dreams.

[szlamany]

There is a simple solution:

When a thread about VB6 or a possible future VB comes up, start banning anybody who comes in and starts trolling about .Net as off topic, inappropriate, and inflammatory.

Nobody seriously expects Microsoft to revive the old product line so those "new VB6" threads like this one would just die pretty quickly. They only get started by a small minority with unrealistic hopes and dreams.

The very mention of VB6, which was replaced by MS with VB.Net, allows for any mention of .Net to be exactly on topic.

Was your "inappropriate and inflammatory" meant to be polite to the .Net folk?

VB6 hobbyists or those with apps to support might have hopes and dreams - realistic or not is outside my jurisdiction.

As senior programmers in our fields I believe it's up to us to help push people into modern venues - .Net, JS, Python - whatever.

[FunkyDexter]

When a thread about VB6 or a possible future VB comes up, start banning anybody who comes in and starts trolling about .Net as off topic, inappropriate, and inflammatory.

I'm perfectly happy to start banning anyone who trolls on either side of the debate. It's perfectly possible for the discussion to be wide ranging and encompass all sorts of alternatives without descending into the unpleasantness we've seen in the past.

I wouldn't want to ban mention of .Net in these threads because
1) the VB6 fans seem just as ready to bring it up as the VB.Net fans.
2) it is a viable alternative in the context of people's worries that VB6 is no longer actively supported and as such is a valid part of the discussion. It's certainly not the only alternative and you yourself have raised several others in the past. I may not always agree with your recommendations but I certainly appreciate the value of you being here to push us out of our comfort zones - that's a very important contribution and your voice has probably been more influential in me finally forcing myself to start actively moving away from desktop (not abandoning it, mind, just making sure the other arrows in my quiver are nice and sharp) than any other. Having you challenge the .Netters is valuable and having .Netters challenge the 6ers is valuable too, as long as the challenge, and the responses, are polite.

[Niya]

There is a simple solution:

When a thread about VB6 or a possible future VB comes up, start banning anybody who comes in and starts trolling about .Net as off topic, inappropriate, and inflammatory.

This kind of thinking is why so many innocent people were burned at the stake in times past. You're basically silencing the voices that challenge the prevailing world view. Putting your fingers in your ears isn't going to change the fact that science is not the devil's work anymore than it would change the fact that VB6 is a child's toy compared to VB.Net.

[Tanner_H]

VB6 is a child's toy compared to VB.Net.

C'mon now, this is just silly. Anything you can do in VB.Net you can do in VB6, and vice-versa. The only question is the amount of work involved. Some tasks are easier in classic VB. Some are easier in VB.Net.

I don't see why this is so hard. VB6 and VB.Net are different tools for different jobs. People need to get over the shared "VB" in their names. C and C++ and C# all have C in their names, but guess what? They're different tools, too! Each has pros and cons, and a good developer will pick the right tool for the job.

People can argue about the syntax and implementation differences between classic VB and VB.Net, but honestly, neither has produced particularly good publicly-available software. For me, that is the Achilles Hell of the "bring back VB6" contingent. No one can point to a piece of software and say, "this was written in VB6, and it's good enough to warrant the return of the language." Do that, and Microsoft might actually take the requests seriously. Whining and theoretical arguments are meaningless.

I think the same warning is in order for VB.Net users. If people aren't producing high-quality, publicly available software that uses the language, Microsoft will eventually drop it. And just as well; I'd honestly like to see them double-down on C#, rather than splitting their attention between it and VB.Net. But maybe that's just me.

If anything, us VB users (6 or .Net) should be far more concerned about the disappearance of Windows development as a whole. But maybe we are far enough along in our careers that only the young guys need worry about that...

[dilettante]

If anything, us VB users (6 or .Net) should be far more concerned about the disappearance of Windows development as a whole. But maybe we are far enough along in our careers that only the young guys need worry about that...

I'm not sure how far "far enough" might be. I retired from one career and found another in contract work. All but one of my regular sources of contracts has made significant moves, mostly to commodity Cloud providers on the server side and thinner clients like Chrome OS and mobile devices on that side. One of them is already 100% Microsoft free now after many years of being Microsoft-only.

Give it another five years and the wheel might turn back around again. But Microsoft is already working hard at their own transition plans and that five-years-out world might look a lot different from today. Right now WinRT and Azure are the hot technologies, tomorrow who can say?

None of that bodes well for the "stealth IT" coder writing desktop applications when he's really paid to answer the phone, deliver mail, clean fish, etc. There is a need and a market there but innovation in that area seems almost flat.

[Niya]

Some tasks are easier in classic VB. Some are easier in VB.Net.

The only thing I've found may be easier in VB6 is writing shell extensions and even that is no longer an issue since version 4 of the CLR which permits side by side execution. Simple Winsock applications are also easier to write in VB6 because of the Winsock control. Winsock in .Net is closer to how the Winsock API is which is quite intimidating for people who are new at Winsock programming.

Aside from those two scenarios, I've found nothing else to be easier in VB6. .Net is especially strong when it comes to dealing with collections(sorting, aggregating, filtering etc) which VB6 was weak at. This accounts for much of the productivity boost I gained since moving to .Net since arrays and collections are such a fundamental part of even the most simple programs.

Another welcomed thing was not having to rely so heavily on the Windows API since so much of it is wrapped in the framework. Gone are the days where I would have to hunt for constants in C header files because the documentation for a particular API didn't provide the value. Gone are the days where I would have to endure frustration when my app mysteriously crashed because I made a mistake in declaring a particular API because of poor documentation or my own lapse in cognitive function. Don't get me wrong, there are times you still need the API in .Net but I've found that I need it far less. One particular example is file handling. That retarded Dir function in VB6 was so weak and useless that using the API was the only choice. I have modules upon modules with tonnes of API declarations and helper functions to make them VB friendly. I always had to add some of them to any non-trival project I was working on. The only consolation was that I only had to write and debug once and then I could re-use them as much as I needed.

If anything, us VB users (6 or .Net) should be far more concerned about the disappearance of Windows development as a whole. But maybe we are far enough along in our careers that only the young guys need worry about that...

I'm not too concerned about that. If this becomes so then I'll have to adapt. I've been adapting to such changes for more than a decade so you can be sure you won't see any "Bring back Windows" threads from me, as much as I love Windows.

[Niya]

Note though that I'm not hung up on the language itself as much as the libraries available for it and the IDE. Yes the language has been made better in .Net but for me, the real improvement came with the new and highly productive IDE and the massive framework which allows you to do almost anything right out the box.

[SJWhiteley]

C'mon now, this is just silly. Anything you can do in VB.Net you can do in VB6, and vice-versa. The only question is the amount of work involved. Some tasks are easier in classic VB. Some are easier in VB.Net.

...

And then...

...

I don't see why this is so hard. VB6 and VB.Net are different tools for different jobs. People need to get over the shared "VB" in their names. C and C++ and C# all have C in their names, but guess what? They're different tools, too! Each has pros and cons, and a good developer will pick the right tool for the job.

...

So, if they are effectively interchangeable, what is VB6 used for that VB.NET isn't, and visa versa? From my experience, there's nothing easier in VB6 than there is in .NET (maybe the items mentioned, but the minor increase in complexity of socket programming is more than compensated for by the added versatility, capability and reduction in performance impact).

Regardless, VB6 is at a 'final version' (SP6a?) and will not change. Isn't that a good thing for developers [using VB6]? For those that wanted to continue to use VB, but wanted improvements, MS brought along VB into the .NET world, and maintained a forward upgrade cycle which didn't break anything - for over a decade.

[Tanner_H]

So, if they are effectively interchangeable, what is VB6 used for that VB.NET isn't, and visa versa?

I work with doctors who do charity work in 3rd-world countries. While a lot of my work is moving to mobile devices like iPhones, it used to be that doctors would carry a collection of diagnostic software on a USB drive, and simply plug it into whatever PC they have access to on-site. (This approach is still used in areas with crime problems, as a stolen USB drive is easier to replace than a stolen iPhone or laptop.)

Anyway, there are no guarantees about these target PCs. XP is common, a lot of times they don't have Internet access, or they haven't been updated beyond the initial OS install. Doctors can't waste time playing tech support, so they need software that can be plugged into a PC like that and run without any effort or configuration on their part.

VB6 is ideal for this. Its projects run on anything from XP to Windows 10 without needing configuration or additional run-time dependencies, and because my focus is on medical imaging software, I have to produce code that does things like real-time Retinex adjustments on a video feed from a pill camera. There are only so many programming languages that a) can run without dependencies or special run-time configuration, and b) provide native-compiled performance.

So you're right: VB6's stability, predictability, and lack of run-time dependencies is exactly why I use it on some projects. (I'm not campaigning for a new VB6, in case that wasn't clear.)

Developers seem to forget that there are use-cases for all programming languages. If there weren't, the languages would disappear. Just because VB.Net is a good fit for one person's work doesn't mean it's a good fit for everyone. Same goes for the VB6 guys who think VB6 is the solution to everything. People waste an inordinate amount of energy evangelizing various programming tools.

[MikiSoft]

I have something special for the .Netters worth reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TradElect

On the other side: "VB6 is still the product to beat in performance." - Paul Yuknewicz

[Niya]

VB6 is ideal for this. Its projects run on anything from XP to Windows 10 without needing configuration or additional run-time dependencies, and because my focus is on medical imaging software...

Actually these requirements make C/C++ ideal for this. Static linking, which the C++ compiler can do, can eliminate the need to install any dependency. And pointers make for writing image processing code somewhat more elegantly than VB6. Plus, VB6's arrays have the extra overhead of being SAFEARRAYs instead of direct references into virtual memory so the code will always perform better when written in C, however with release build optimizations you can gain a close match to the performance of a C/C++ implementation. VB6's greatest advantage over C and C++ is that you can churn out apps much faster. You have to do too much plumbing with C/C++.

My only point in this mess of an argument is that VB.Net is far better than VB6. VB6 was good in its hey-day but its been overshadowed by VB.Net. Your point about needing software to run on XP systems without any hassle and its native performance are a couple of only a very few sensible reasons mentioned that VB6 is preferable to VB.Net. Your requirements are very specific so its understandable but the vast majority of reasons usually stated in threads like this are garbage.

[Tanner_H]

P.S. "VB6 is still the product to beat in performance." - Paul Yuknewicz

This quote is taken out of context. See the original source (from 2009) here.

Paul made the comment in reference to the VB6 IDE, not to compiled VB6 projects. The VB6 IDE is indeed very low-resource, and on modern hardware it provides excellent compile performance.

That said, the compiler is much less sophisticated than recent .NET iterations, and obviously the IDE is not nearly as powerful or as user-friendly as modern versions of Visual Studio. So it is what it is.

tl;dr - don't trot out this quote to defend VB6 projects. It's referencing the VB6 IDE, only.

[Niya]

I have something special for the .Netters worth reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TradElect

On the other side: "VB6 is still the product to beat in performance." - Paul Yuknewicz

Is there a point here somewhere ? What does TradElect have to do with what we're talking about ?

[MikiSoft]

tl;dr - don't trot out this quote to defend VB6 projects. It's referencing the VB6 IDE, only.

Whatever, we were talking also about the IDE here.

Is there a point here somewhere ? What does TradElect have to do with what we're talking about ?

It's based on .Net and it was a big failure, they had to switch to Linux after 4 years of developing that project and after two years of service until it failed miserably and caused economic damage. It was developed by Microsoft and Accenture. Enough said?

[Niya]

It's based on .Net and it was a massive failure, they had to switch to Linux after 4 years of developing that project and another two until it failed. Enough said.

Read....Nuff said.

[Tanner_H]

Actually these requirements make C/C++ ideal for this.

Not when the UI requirements are considered. A complex multi-featured UI that spans all those Windows OS versions is incredibly difficult to do with something like MFC, or you once again get into the problem of shipping additional libraries for something like Qt.

And you misunderstand on performance: obviously I could write faster image processing code by hand-tuning C/C++ implementations. (And for really performance-critical stuff, this is the case.) But the development cost is not generally worth it, especially with charity work, where the most important factor is very high reliability while keeping costs as low as possible.

(C# or VB.Net wouldn't solve any of the performance issues, either. You'll always end up at C/C++ or ASM if performance is crucial.)

My only point in this mess of an argument is that VB.Net is far better than VB6. VB6 was good in its hey-day but its been overshadowed by VB.Net. Your point about needing software to run on XP systems without any hassle and its native performance are a couple of only a very few sensible reasons mentioned that VB6 is preferable to VB.Net. Your requirements are very specific so its understandable but the vast majority of reasons usually stated in threads like this are garbage.

I don't disagree. But if we're being honest, VB.Net has a very small niche of use-cases too. (Basically, VB6 guys who can't be convinced to give up VB syntax for C#.)

I see VB.Net and VB6 in pretty much the same light: not recommended for newcomers, and useful only to people who are maintaining existing codebases or who have extremely specific use-cases. This is what makes disagreements between the two groups ironic, IMO.

[Tanner_H]

Whatever, we were talking also about the IDE here.

No, not whatever. You keep using this quote without understanding it. VB6 does not magically produce faster code than modern versions of Visual Studio. Repeating this quote without understanding it makes conscientious VB6 users - like me - look like idiots. I don't appreciate it.

If you want to be taken seriously, don't use obviously false information to make your point. You aren't helping the VB6 cause by doing this.

It's based on .Net and it was a massive failure, they had to switch to Linux after 4 years of developing that project and another two until it failed. Enough said.

So does this mean VB6 users should also switch to Linux?