What if there was a NEW vb6

[Niya]

What the....did someone delete my last post ? Pretty sure I made a post ending my involvement in this silly argument ?

[Niya]

BTW....Why did no one mention PureBasic ? Its supposed to have all the goodies that the VB6 fans like such as native compilation and its supposed to be cross platform.

[FunkyDexter]

I'm not seeing any deleted posts. It's possible it's been removed entirely but I doubt it, we normally "soft" delete them (which leaves them in place, they just become invisible to most users).

edit> That PureBasic does look interesting and does have most of the features that people seem to want. The one obvious gap is that I don't see it importing VB6 projects which seems to be the killer requirement for most folks.

[Niya]

I'm not seeing any deleted posts. It's possible it's been removed entirely but I doubt it, we normally "soft" delete them (which leaves them in place, they just become invisible to most users).

Hmmm....well that's strange. Pretty sure I wrote it. Wonder if I posted it in the wrong thread....

[Niya]

Well I can't find the post. I was so sleepy when I wrote it. I was probably logged out or something and didn't realize......

[techgnome]

Well, things were actually going fine until we rolled over to page 13, then things fell apaet... now that we've turned to page 14, may be things will return to civility.


-tg

[Niya]

My mistake was to think that because this is a forum filled with programmers, logic and reason would prevail. I was wrong, this discussion is ruled by fanaticism. I should have realized sooner. It's very much like discussions I've had with people after telling them that the Earth being created in 6 days is childish garbage. No amount of logic and reason can reach them either. I've stopped long ago trying to reason with religious fanatics. I should have adopted the same attitude here.

[szlamany]

If a small amount of money and a large community could produce a tool that allows VB6 code to run why would you care?

Why would you label it at all??

It's a noble cause in their eyes.

They still produce abacus's - they still make film camera's.

[Niya]

huh

[MikiSoft]

Olaf, they (or probably one person who spreads .NET propaganda) are/is now attacking you on UserVoice voting forum - so you should be informed:

I remember having some discussions with this guy called Olaf who claims to have created this VBRichClient. I tried it in some of my old VB6 aspplications and many of the dlls have memory leak problems and basically not well engineered. He uses C++ libraries to use from VB6 and they are quite makeshift libraries. He's been around for many years and lately lost his job in a German company which didn't need him any longer, as they have converted all their code into NET. So he was useless. He is a single shot guy and to depend only on him to promote a drive to collect money is not very wise. So many more capable people tried and failed in replicating VB6. So I don't bet on him. (...)

I tend to agree with Bill. I also heard that Olaf Smith was kicked out of many forums due to his unruly behavior. I guess to depend on an unstable character to create a VB6 platform is not wise to say the least.

[dee-u]

No amount of logic and reason can reach them either. I've stopped long ago trying to reason with religious fanatics.

It is only a difference of beliefs, but if we are right then the consequences for the non-believers will be heavy and there won't be turning back, and if we are wrong we won't suffer any consequence, isn't that a fair deal.

EDIT: This will be my only message for this 'religious' topic.

[Schmidt]

Olaf, they (or probably one person who spreads .NET propaganda) are/is now attacking you on UserVoice voting forum - so you should be informed:

Thanks for the Info, but I will better not engage in discussions in that pointless thread over there anymore.

As for Bill Hutchkins...
He's a stooge, who cannot be found under this name in any VB6-related discussion -
and what he tells are lies throughout.

For the record:
- I'm currently employed
- before that I was self-employed for over 20 years having my own company (and nobody "kicked me out")
- the vbRichClient is "no claim", but reality and I developed it myself
- characterizing the OpenSource SQLite- or cairo-libs as "makeshift-stuff" is idiotic
- as for the alleged "memory-leaks", one could ask him, to simply show code which gives proof of that


As for Zagor Tenay...
He seems to be real - but Googling, I can only find two posts of him in programming-related Forums
(one in the XNView Forum, the other in a turkish Delphi-Forum).

For the record again:
- I post mainly in the (unmoderated) UseNet - so, nobody "kicked me out there" ever
- The only "Web-Forum" I post to is this one here, so you can judge for yourself, whether my behaviour is "unruly"

Here I was "kicked out" 3 times - at all occasions by a single moderator who just seems not
compatible with my style of posting (I demand precision in speech when I argue with someone -
and also that claims are underlined by factual code-examples, when they are made (and
I found them incompatible with the results, whilst running my own ones).

The moderator in question failed to deliver those code-examples in all 3 cases - and my
(continuing) demands into his direction, to "show proof" was always leading to banishment.

That much to my "unruly behaviour" <sigh>.

Feel free to re-post this reply in the Forum in question - but as said, I will refrain from posting there
myself - not interested anymore in arguing with stooges at this "UserVoice-Site".


Olaf

[Tanner_H]

My mistake was to think that because this is a forum filled with programmers, logic and reason would prevail. I was wrong, this discussion is ruled by fanaticism. I should have realized sooner. It's very much like discussions I've had with people after telling them that the Earth being created in 6 days is childish garbage. No amount of logic and reason can reach them either. I've stopped long ago trying to reason with religious fanatics. I should have adopted the same attitude here.

...he says, as he storms from the room like a petulant child.

You need to stop generalizing. The past 30 or so posts in this thread have been remarkably balanced, I think, except for your rants. Instead of engaging on specific points, you keep coming back to a single emotional argument: moving from VB6 to VB.Net was a painful experience for you, and from that, you believe VB6 users are delusional. The rest of us have tried to discuss specifics with both sides of the aisle, but you keep derailing the conversation with name-calling, anecdotal fallacies, and appeals to emotion.

Fanatical devotion over the use (or disuse) of any programming language is silly. These are tools for creating software, nothing more. Freaking out because people use an old language you dislike is just as silly as them freaking out because you use a modern one.

I think the last month or so of this thread has done a nice job reiterating the 80% of cases where .NET is a better choice, the 19% where .NET and VB6 are interchangeable, and the < 1% of cases where VB6 is better.*

*Imaginary numbers, 1% is probably too generous.

It is only a difference of beliefs, but if we are right then the consequences for the non-believers will be heavy and there won't be turning back, and if we are wrong we won't suffer any consequence, isn't that a fair deal.

Well said, dee-u. I think axisdj deserves a ton of credit for "putting his money where his mouth is". That's more than a lot of us are willing to do, and I wish him the best.

[Niya]

...he says, as he storms from the room like a petulant child.

Are you saying I should continue ? Besides, I think by now I've said all I needed to say. Its all logged here in these forums. If anyone has an interest in knowing about this topic, there are 14 pages of discussion from all sides. It should be enough for someone to make a well informed decision. Pressing this further would only lead to stale repetitions.

Truth is, I've lost interest and I've realized that in time, this topic would have no relevance so we are all wasting time arguing about this anyway. Here is one such topic that made me realize just how much of a waste of time arguments like this are. Basically this guy is arguing that DOS is better than Windows and that his ASM backend DB engine is way better and faster than modern equivalents like SQL Server and Oracle. He peddles all the same arguments I've seen here. 20 years ago, he might have actually had solid points but today, he would be considered a quack.

This topic too would fall into irrelevance. We all of us, both in the VB6 and VB.Net camps are going to be dinosaurs in a decade or so. Though I hate to admit it, the desktop is slowly giving way to cloud based, web based and mobile computing. As such, I've already made up my mind to jump on board. I can't right now, not until I finish up some of my current projects and I have another application to port to .Net. When that's finished and I reach the point where I would spend more time maintaining than innovating, I'm going to use that free time to re-skill and dive head long into web development and start learning about the Android platform. I'm not gonna lie, I hope .Net can offer something in that arena but if not, I'm prepared to start learning about Java which seems to be quite strong on other platforms, especially in the Android world.

I've thought about all this and realized that my participation in this topic is ultimately pointless. Don't get me wrong, I stand by every thing I was "trying" to say here but I shouldn't have to fight this hard against the fanaticism I've seen here. We are spending all this energy fighting with each other in this topic for what ? Something only about 10% of developers actually give a damn about ? I decided to be the bigger man and bow out that we might get a measure of peace in this topic. I can't see that the true innovators that are pushing the world forward in technology would actually waste time arguing over dead and dying tech. It is foolish and I've been a fool. I don't want to be the guy arguing about how great VB.Net is 20 years after its died out and desktop PCs are as scarce as telephone booths. I wanna be the guy helping somebody fix his code in a forum somewhere for his digital watch to remotely unlock his door and start his car.

[FunkyDexter]

I think axisdj deserves a ton of credit for "putting his money where his mouth is".

I think he deserves credit for doing something but my concern would be that he's actually putting someone else's money where his mouth is. I don't have anything against kick starter campaigns or the principal of investment but I'd be seriously concerned about what would happen in this case if it did reach it's financial goal because the proposition is woolly and ill defined. There's no time limit for delivery. It still has that 99% in there with no indication as to what the other 1% is or how it would be measured. There's no solid plan for how to move the project forward, just a few notions of paying Olaf or another bunch of devs to do the work, without having ensured or costed their services first, or to "come up with other ideas as we go along. And the figure of $150,000 dollars seems plucked out of the air to me. How was it arrived at? How will it be spent? It's not a business proposition, it's a dream he's asking people to pay for.

It actually doesn't look like the financial target will be hit (though I am surprised and impressed at the level of engagement it achieved so far) but I think failure to do so would not be the worst outcome. The worst outcome would be to hit the target, start spending the money, and then start hitting the realities of what is being proposed: time of delivery failing to meet unmanaged expectations; discovery that AxisDJ's 1% turns out to be crucially important to a significant proportion of the investors; discovery that Olaf's vision doesn't match AxisDJ's or the investors; discovery that there isn't a group of developers interested in developing a replacement using Lazarus; the risk that Olaf or the "group of devs" simply fails to deliver. None of these risks has even been examined, let alone addressed and planned for. Before AxisDJ started looking for investment he needed a properly planned and costed business plan and I see no evidence of that at all, I'm afraid.

Assuming the money is raised and you then find yourself unable to deliver due to any one of these unexamined risks, what then?

AxisDJ, a few posts back you said I was forcing you to thing like a politician. I hope not, that's not the point at all. I hope I'm forcing you to think like a business man.

[Niya]

Oh, I forgot to address this.

No, C# and VB.Net are *not* interchangeable. C# has way more third-party libraries, way more source code samples, a much larger development community, and a number of features VB.Net lacks.

I don't know if that singular project makes use of any of those, but you can't hold up C# projects as a defense of VB.Net.

This is where you're dead wrong. The only difference between the two is syntax. Yes there are syntactical features that C# has that VB.Net doesn't but the reverse also holds true(VB has XML Literals, the handles clause and optional parameters). 99% of C# code can be converted to VB.Net code and vice-versa. And very little modification is need to make the code translated from one to work in the other.

As for 3rd party libraries....you're thinking about this all wrong. .Net applications only really care about assemblies. It doesn't matter what language the assemblies were written in. They all compile to MSIL. Assemblies written in C# can work the exact same way in VB.Net apps as if they were written in VB.Net and vice-versa. For example, I use the DotNetZip library in one of my current projects. It allows me to provide ZIP capabilities to this application. It is a complete managed implementation of the ZIP standard and it is written completely in C#. It has no problems whatsoever working with my application which is written in VB.Net. When I say no problems, I mean no problems. If I never had the source for this library, there would be absolutely no way for me to tell what language this was written in.

[Tanner_H]

Oh, I forgot to address this. (snip)

Since you seem to be hung up on C# and VB.Net, let's use another example to make this clearer.

Emscripten is a clever tool that converts C/C++ code to Javascript. This is what allows massive C/C++ projects like the Unreal Engine to run natively in browsers.

By your logic, I can hold up any javascript project and use it as an example of how great C and C++ are. "It's trivial to convert between them," "very little modification is required," "shared plugins," etc.

Similarly, by your logic, I may as well hold up projects written in ASM and use them to justify how great VB6 is. Or use a Spanish-language novel to extol the virtues of English, because any software program can easily convert between the two.

You keep trying to turn my point into something it isn't. I'm simply saying: you can't hold up C# projects and use them to extol the virtues of VB.Net. That is all.

The same logic goes for VB6 users. They can't hold up PowerBasic applications (or whatever else) and use it to play up VB6's virtues. If you want to talk about the strengths of a programming language, you need to reference projects written natively in that language. Then we can have a meaningful discussion.

(FYI: my whole point in badgering you is that you keep using the same flawed logic you claim to hate in VB6 users. You rant about the emotional fanaticism on display, and then proceed to post emotionally charged rants. I think this thread could be very helpful for true beginners to "see the light" about the strengths/weaknesses of VB.Net and VB6, but not if they're going to be called names and accused of fanaticism for being passionate about their choice of language.

And as tempting as it is to focus on new and shiny technology, old languages and tech have a huge role to play in the future - after all, Java is 20 years old now, while C++ is over 30 years old. Well-established technology can often produce better stuff than the "latest and greatest", simply because it's well-understood, well-documented, and well-tested. Before we throw all shades of VB under the bus, let's talk about where they're strong and where they're weak. I think that's a helpful and valid discussion, which is probably why it produces such passionate comments!)

[Tanner_H]

I think he deserves credit for doing something but my concern would be that he's actually putting someone else's money where his mouth is. I don't have anything against kick starter campaigns or the principal of investment but I'd be seriously concerned about what would happen in this case if it did reach it's financial goal because the proposition is woolly and ill defined. There's no time limit for delivery. It still has that 99% in there with no indication as to what the other 1% is or how it would be measured. There's no solid plan for how to move the project forward, just a few notions of paying Olaf or another bunch of devs to do the work, without having ensured or costed their services first, or to "come up with other ideas as we go along. And the figure of $150,000 dollars seems plucked out of the air to me. How was it arrived at? How will it be spent? It's not a business proposition, it's a dream he's asking people to pay for.

It actually doesn't look like the financial target will be hit (though I am surprised and impressed at the level of engagement it achieved so far) but I think failure to do so would not be the worst outcome. The worst outcome would be to hit the target, start spending the money, and then start hitting the realities of what is being proposed: time of delivery failing to meet unmanaged expectations; discovery that AxisDJ's 1% turns out to be crucially important to a significant proportion of the investors; discovery that Olaf's vision doesn't match AxisDJ's or the investors; discovery that there isn't a group of developers interested in developing a replacement using Lazarus; the risk that Olaf or the "group of devs" simply fails to deliver. None of these risks has even been examined, let alone addressed and planned for. Before AxisDJ started looking for investment he needed a properly planned and costed business plan and I see no evidence of that at all, I'm afraid.

Assuming the money is raised and you then find yourself unable to deliver due to any one of these unexamined risks, what then?

AxisDJ, a few posts back you said I was forcing you to thing like a politician. I hope not, that's not the point at all. I hope I'm forcing you to think like a business man.

These are all really great points, and I hope AxisDJ comes back to answer them.

That said, I guess this is the nature of Kickstarter-type projects. If people think AxisDJ's explanation is good enough to warrant their money (and apparently many do!), then I guess his current explanation is good enough for them...? He could certainly make it better by taking your advice to heart, but I'm not sure if it's possible to change the terms and conditions once he's already launched the project. (If you can, AxisDJ, I have a few suggestions too, but I'll hold off until I hear if change is possible.)

And if nothing else, there have certainly been worse crowdfunded projects...

[szlamany]

...Before we throw all shades of VB under the bus, let's talk about where they're strong and where they're weak. I think that's a helpful and valid discussion, which is probably why it produces such passionate comments!)

I asked exactly those questions back on page 11!

I'm curious - these questions go out to the "New VB6" proponents (or I guess anyone who wants to speak up).

1) What are the top 5 features or aspects of VB6 that are the most important to you - that you really require?

2) What are the top 5 most unwanted features of VB.Net that you never, ever want to see?

I was told that working this argument with logic was a poor idea!

[Tanner_H]

I asked exactly those questions back on page 11!

And they were such good questions!

Bringing this article back on topic... for me, the thing I'd like to see most from a future VB (and C#) is open-sourcing the relevant parts of the compiler chain and .NET stack. I understand Microsoft's reasoning for not open-sourcing Visual Studio itself, given their monetary investment, but in this day and age, there is no reason to keep the compiler toolchain closed-source.

Apple's gone all-in on open-sourcing their chain with Clang and LLVM, and the benefits for developers everywhere have been significant. GCC is obviously the well-known competitor in Linux land, and I'd love to see Microsoft fully join the party.

Obviously they're taking steps in this direction, even though their efforts remain confusing, and refusing to open-source WPF and Windows Forms is a little baffling. But hey, baby steps are better than nothing.

Secondly, I'd love to see .NET become truly usable for cross-platform development. It's very sad that I still find VB6 + Wine to be a more reliable and performance-friendly solution to Windows apps on OSX and Linux than .NET + Mono. (And given the mess that is VB6 + Wine, this is not a good thing.)

I know Microsoft keeps saying good things about cross-platform development, but given their historical efforts in this area, I feel like I need to maintain a "believe it when I see it" mindset.

[Schmidt]

1) What are the top 5 features or aspects of VB6 that are the most important to you - that you really require?

- native compiler
- deployability of the same (compiled) binary to all current Win-platforms
- deterministic behaviour when Objects (or other sidewards allocated stuff as Strings or Arrays) go out of scope
- fast upstarting and (comparably) lightweight IDE
- ability to choose myself, which dependencies I want to incude in my deployment
- reasonably high hurdles with regards to potentially attempted decompilation-efforts
- Debuggability across different IDE-Instances (IDE-Processes)
- 1:1 Code-Compatibility in case of Office-Automation (VBA)

2) What are the top 5 most unwanted features of VB.Net that you never, ever want to see?

Perhaps it was this second question, which caused an: "this is a poor idea"-reply...
(because it has much more potential to heat-up the discussion again).

But here we go - what I'd never like to see in a VB6-successor are:

- Garbage-Collection
- Intermediate-, non-native Code
- release-cycles in an (unreasonably) high frequency
- a 100-300MB Class-Library which comes "as a Blob" - and can differ from system to system (or is not there at all)
- a "Babel-like"-scenario in terms of modern GUI-stuff, where nobody really knows where to saddle on
..(instead a GUI-Framework which is well-thought-out, so that new stuff and changes can happen *behind* existing and stable interfaces)

A bit decoupled from .NET as it is today - but becoming more (and more) important (to me) - so I will at least "make a wish" here:
- no AppStore-enforcement (although it seems that this becomes more of an "OS-feature" - and less a restriction of "modern IDEs"

Olaf

[Tanner_H]

- a "Babel-like"-scenario in terms of modern GUI-stuff, where nobody really knows where to saddle on
..(instead a GUI-Framework which is well-thought-out, so that new stuff and changes can happen *behind* existing and stable interfaces)

A million times, this. I find it sad (and a little ridiculous) that the ever-changing world of HTML+CSS provides a more stable, consistent UI framework than Windows itself.

XAML (any of its 4 different incarnations), WPF, HTML5, WinForms - I don't care which platform they pick, but please guarantee that at least one will be a stable, reliable target moving forward.

The same goes for the graphics libraries underlying the UI frameworks. You can't leave something like GDI+ as a major component of the .NET stack, only to deprecate it and leave it in a permanently half-working state. Similarly, GDI desperately needs to be dragged into the modern age (32-bpp support throughout the library as a bare minimum), and ideally, both of these libraries should be layered atop DirectX.

(I actually think Microsoft's fundamental inability to stick with a UI framework is directly tied to the sloppiness of the underlying low-level libraries. Clean those up, and UI frameworks will be a lot easier to support.)

/rant

[Niya]

and ideally, both of these libraries should be layered atop DirectX.

Didn't they attempt this with Vista ?

[Niya]

Since you seem to be hung up on C# and VB.Net, let's use another example to make this clearer.

Emscripten is a clever tool that converts C/C++ code to Javascript. This is what allows massive C/C++ projects like the Unreal Engine to run natively in browsers.

By your logic, I can hold up any javascript project and use it as an example of how great C and C++ are. "It's trivial to convert between them," "very little modification is required," "shared plugins," etc.

Similarly, by your logic, I may as well hold up projects written in ASM and use them to justify how great VB6 is. Or use a Spanish-language novel to extol the virtues of English, because any software program can easily convert between the two.

You keep trying to turn my point into something it isn't. I'm simply saying: you can't hold up C# projects and use them to extol the virtues of VB.Net. That is all.

The same logic goes for VB6 users. They can't hold up PowerBasic applications (or whatever else) and use it to play up VB6's virtues. If you want to talk about the strengths of a programming language, you need to reference projects written natively in that language. Then we can have a meaningful discussion.

(FYI: my whole point in badgering you is that you keep using the same flawed logic you claim to hate in VB6 users. You rant about the emotional fanaticism on display, and then proceed to post emotionally charged rants. I think this thread could be very helpful for true beginners to "see the light" about the strengths/weaknesses of VB.Net and VB6, but not if they're going to be called names and accused of fanaticism for being passionate about their choice of language.

And as tempting as it is to focus on new and shiny technology, old languages and tech have a huge role to play in the future - after all, Java is 20 years old now, while C++ is over 30 years old. Well-established technology can often produce better stuff than the "latest and greatest", simply because it's well-understood, well-documented, and well-tested. Before we throw all shades of VB under the bus, let's talk about where they're strong and where they're weak. I think that's a helpful and valid discussion, which is probably why it produces such passionate comments!)

No, no no no.....you're still missing the point. Or maybe I wasn't clear enough. Let me clarify, when I say VB.Net, what I'm really thinking is VB.Net + Visual Studio + .Net Framework. VB.Net yes is a great language but the language itself is only part of the reason why I prefer to use it. The new IDE is a huge reason as well as the Framework. Given that the C# can access the exact same Framework hence uses the exact same types and C# has many of the same features VB.Net has and C# also works in the same IDE then you can see why I would see both languages as interchangeable. Ignore other implementations of C# like Mono for the time being. I'm talking about MS's implementation only. Sorry for not being clear.

[Niya]

The be more clear my arguments aren't so much for VB.Net as it is for the newer Visual Studio Suite of tools which includes VB.Net and C#, their compilers and the Framework. They all play together quite nicely and allow me to develop applications much faster and much more elegantly than Visual Studio 6's suite of tools which includes VB6.

[Niya]

A million times, this. I find it sad (and a little ridiculous) that the ever-changing world of HTML+CSS provides a more stable, consistent UI framework than Windows itself.

XAML (any of its 4 different incarnations), WPF, HTML5, WinForms - I don't care which platform they pick, but please guarantee that at least one will be a stable, reliable target moving forward.

I've always believed that declarative languages like HTML and XAML are the best ways to author a UI. I think XAML has a bright future and if not there are more than enough ways to utilize HTML.

[Niya]

- native compiler
- deployability of the same (compiled) binary to all current Win-platforms
- deterministic behaviour when Objects (or other sidewards allocated stuff as Strings or Arrays) go out of scope
- fast upstarting and (comparably) lightweight IDE
- ability to choose myself, which dependencies I want to incude in my deployment
- reasonably high hurdles with regards to potentially attempted decompilation-efforts
- Debuggability across different IDE-Instances (IDE-Processes)
- 1:1 Code-Compatibility in case of Office-Automation (VBA)

VB6 already meets these requirements, why need a new one ?

[Schmidt]

- native compiler
- deployability of the same (compiled) binary to all current Win-platforms
- deterministic behaviour when Objects (or other sidewards allocated stuff as Strings or Arrays) go out of scope
- fast upstarting and (comparably) lightweight IDE
- ability to choose myself, which dependencies I want to incude in my deployment
- reasonably high hurdles with regards to potentially attempted decompilation-efforts
- Debuggability across different IDE-Instances (IDE-Processes)
- 1:1 Code-Compatibility in case of Office-Automation (VBA)

VB6 already meets these requirements, why need a new one ?

Well, I've simply answered szlamanys question 1).

And you're right - there's currently not *that* much pressure, but for the future it would be nice to:
- be independent from the old vbRuntime
- be able to compile to 64Bit-targets
- be able to make use of more optimization-features, available in recent C-Compilers
- be able to introduce a few new features into the language itself
- be able to do static linking
- be able to compile for other platforms than Windows

Olaf

[szlamany]

From what I've read seems the 64bit aspect is hard to overcome with the way that vb6 and it's dependencies are written.

Has the venture capital project mentioned the 64bit part of this puzzle?

[dilettante]

From what I've read seems the 64bit aspect is hard to overcome with the way that vb6 and it's dependencies are written.

The truth is that Microsoft has already addressed most of this in 64-bit VBA 7.

They have already written a 64-bit IDE, a 64-bit VBVM, and converted quite a few of the OCXs shipped with VB6 over to 64-bit as well. All that is really missing is a new C2.EXE and LINK.EXE to generate x64 PE file native code.

[dilettante]

I've always believed that declarative languages like HTML and XAML are the best ways to author a UI. I think XAML has a bright future and if not there are more than enough ways to utilize HTML.

I think you misunderstand what a "declarative language" actually is.

Those given are examples of trivial markup "languages" which are actually just INI-like file formats derived from SGML - not languages at all.

[Schmidt]

From what I've read seems the 64bit aspect is hard to overcome with the way that vb6 and it's dependencies are written.

Has the venture capital project mentioned the 64bit part of this puzzle?

Indirectly, yes - since the vbRichClient was mentioned as one possible "stack"
to build an IDE+Compiler-solution on (offering Widgets which are implemented
entirely with the VB6-language - and thus later on easy translatable into
64Bit-versions.

Alternatively mentioned was Lazarus (providing the Backend) - and this environment
has also a platform-independent (32/64Bit) Widget-Stack they can bind to.

The above 32/64 bit capabilities I've mentioned, with platform-independence in mind
(which I would like to focus on - in a first version - having at least the VB6-Standard-
Controls covered in VB-Code-based, 1:1 Widget-Replacements).

As for "OCXes" (Windows-only-tech, and therefore not that high on my personal priority-list so far) ...
the 32Bit-version of the new compiler *could* bind to the older 32Bit-VB-OCXes of course
(FlexGrids and what-not - and for 64Bit-OCXes this wouldn't be different - since there's appropriate
Calls available in the Flat ATL-libs, to "site" these Controls on a Parent-hWnd quite easily).

And other than mentioned here, the most "big and well-known OCX-vendors" are
thriving and still out there (as e.g. Component-One, or CodeJock).
And they *do* have 32Bit- as well as 64Bit-ActiveX-Controls available in their huge suites
(usually delivered as one big bundle, including 32Bit- as well as the 64Bit versions).

Here's links which give proof of that:

ComponentOne:
http://our.componentone.com/2012/02/...ivex-controls/

CodeJock:
http://www.codejock.com/products/suitepro/

Olaf

[Carlos Rocha]

...
As for "OCXes" (Windows-only-tech, and therefore not that high on my personal priority-list so far) ...
the 32Bit-version of the new compiler *could* bind to the older 32Bit-VB-OCXes of course
(FlexGrids and what-not - and for 64Bit-OCXes this wouldn't be different - since there's appropriate
Calls available in the Flat ATL-libs, to "site" these Controls on a Parent-hWnd quite easily).

I'm a little confused now.
Do you mean that binding to OCXs could be easy, but not making them?
That would be more than enough for a start, imho.

And other than mentioned here, the most "big and well-known OCX-vendors" are
thriving and still out there (as e.g. Component-One, or CodeJock).
And they *do* have 32Bit- as well as 64Bit-ActiveX-Controls available in their huge suites
(usually delivered as one big bundle, including 32Bit- as well as the 64Bit versions).

That's true for many of them but not Codejock, I think (I have a somewhat old version, tho).

[FunkyDexter]

I think you misunderstand what a "declarative language" actually is.

Are you trying to say that XAML isn't a declarative language Because MSDN would disagree with you. Or have I missed your point there?

there have certainly been worse crowdfunded projects...

Hey! Potato salad was the best kick starter evah and I'll fight any man who says otherwise

edit> BTW I'm with Niya on the whole, C# and .Net being interchangeable thing. It's not to do with the ease of converting the code, it's to do with the fact that you needn't even bother. They're essentially the same language operating in the same environment. Indeed, I'm always quite surprised that MS haven't introduced compiler directives that would allow you to switch freely back and forth between the two as you code (although that might lead to some pretty horrendous looking code). That said, I also agree that it's kinda off topic where VB6 is concerned.

Well, I've simply answered szlamanys question 1).

I think a more interesting question would be "What are the five killer features you'd like to see added to VB6 that aren't supported already?". Olaf's pretty much given his answer in post 548 but I'd be curious to hear what the other people want.

[Schmidt]

I'm a little confused now.
Do you mean that binding to OCXs could be easy, ...

Relatively - yes.

The siting (to be able to see the thing on a Parent-hWnd) can be done in two or three
normal Flat-API-calls - a bit harder then is the integration into the Tabbing- and Focus-
System, the Event-Binding and Handling and to generally make them play well together
with the (hWnd-less) Widget-Classes on the same Host-Form.

...but not making them?

Making them, is harder (in case we stick with plain C, as is the plan currently).
An AX-Control is (from my point of view) an over-engineered mess, which
needs a lot of support from the environment, to get the dozens of interfaces
right (C++ has such support - and of course the VB6-environment too) - the
new Widgets are (much) easier to produce, to compile and to site.

That's true for many of them but not Codejock, I think (I have a somewhat old version, tho).

You mean 64Bit-support?
I've seen them state it explicitely on the page I linked to (at the bottom) - and also re-sellers
have the "64Bit-available"-info on their sites as e.g. this one (apparently since 2010):
http://www.componentsource.com/news/...oolkitpro.html

Updates in 2009 Vol 3 V13.3

• ...
• ActiveX x64 Support
  All ActiveX products now come with a 64-bit compatible OCX. With 64-bit support, projects can now be built using x64 configurations.

I mean, that's just normal for this MFC-based C++ stuff, since coming up with a 64Bit-version
is (basically) just a compiler-switch - which is another thing I've read here recently (from
FunkyDexter I think), where there's the totally wrong belief, that producing a 64Bit version
"would cost a lot of time and money" - it does not Funky - it's not "coding" we talk about
in this case, but only "compiling" (from the same existing C/C++ code-base).

Olaf

[FunkyDexter]

(from FunkyDexter I think),

Nope, wasn't me. I imagine it would be a pretty substantial undertaking but it's not something I've examined closely enough to have an opinion on. I would have thought the bulk of the work wouldn't be in the compiler but in converting all the GUI controls to accept 64 bit but since you seem to be advocating a completely new path for the GUI maybe you've sidestepped that.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

No, C# and VB.Net are *not* interchangeable. C# has way more third-party libraries, way more source code samples, a much larger development community, and a number of features VB.Net lacks.

Tanner_H, generally you have good points BUT i really am struggling to understand why you think that C# is so superior to VB.Net?

I mean this come from someone who generally programs in C#. I find myself more efficient in it and more productive and just down right prefer it.

Saying that i cant think of a single thing (apart from Pointers which i only rarely use) that i can do in one that i cant do in the other!!!

You statement that C# has way more third-party libraries i don't understand as you can use C# dll in a VB.Net project and vice-versa

As for code examples, yes there are probably more C# examples but there are plenty enough VB.Net examples if you look around.

So i really am interested in why you think this way?

[Tanner_H]

Tanner_H, generally you have good points BUT i really am struggling to understand why you think that C# is so superior to VB.Net?

I mean this come from someone who generally programs in C#. I find myself more efficient in it and more productive and just down right prefer it.

Saying that i cant think of a single thing (apart from Pointers which i only rarely use) that i can do in one that i cant do in the other!!!

You statement that C# has way more third-party libraries i don't understand as you can use C# dll in a VB.Net project and vice-versa

As for code examples, yes there are probably more C# examples but there are plenty enough VB.Net examples if you look around.

So i really am interested in why you think this way?

I have probably been overstating my point (sorry!), but for me, it boils down to a couple things:

1) Syntactically, I much prefer C#. This is 100% opinion and probably meaningless, but IMO you can tell C# was designed recently with a strong emphasis on combining the best features of many languages. VB.Net feels very much like they crammed an old language paradigm onto a new technology stack. (Little things, like the way For loops are constructed in VB, drive me nuts!)

2) The unsafe keyword is extremely useful in my line of work, so for me, that's a major loss in VB.Net.

3) 3rd-party libraries was the wrong wording, I think. My apologies. I was lumping that in with "code samples", e.g. "open-source libraries", not compiled libraries. One need only compare the number of source code lines available at an open-source aggregator like OpenHub:

C# open-source projects: 871,129,246 lines of code
VB open-source projects: 49,205,300 lines of code

Not only is there 20x more C# code out there, the VB total includes both VB.Net and VB6. Pretty sad.

4) On average, C# jobs pay some $5k more than VB jobs, at least in the U.S. If you can switch between both languages with ease, that's awesome and the best way to go. But C# skills seem to be valued more highly.

5) All the new toys come to C# first. You can tell it's the first-class .NET citizen (as it should be, IMO, given all the numbers above). While VB.Net eventually gains most those features, if you can use both languages, I just don't see any reason to go with VB.Net over C#.

I've started threads about this before, but one of my big curiosities is why people aren't doing more interesting things in VB. (Any flavor, .NET or classic.) If C# and VB.Net were truly interchangeable, I'd expect to see roughly equal development in both languages, but 20x more code for C#... I don't know, the numbers seem speak for themselves.

Anyway, hope that helps clarify my previous points. I'm a big open-source participant so I would *love* to see more great code written in VB. But open-source VB projects are extremely hard to come by.

[dilettante]

Are you trying to say that XAML isn't a declarative language Because MSDN would disagree with you. Or have I missed your point there?

I'm saying it's all meaningless, like giving a blob of peanut butter to a dog and calling its mouth movements "talking" - little sound and nothing of relelvance is produced.

But I'd be happy to see an example of an interactive game, a database client, a prime number generator, etc. "written in" XAML or HTML. Might inspire me to break out WordPad to "write" a program in RTF too!

Or could it be that these are all static markup formats that fall down like a puppet until some code written in an actual language works the strings?

[FunkyDexter]

one of my big curiosities is why people aren't doing more interesting things in VB

On average, C# jobs pay some $5k more than VB jobs

I think this probably goes a long way towards answering your question. To me the real mystery is why companies seem to think that C# skills are 5k more valuable.

I think it's probably historical. Like it or lump it a lot (and I really ought to capitalize that to ALOT) of folks see the word "Basic" and think "Idiot". This cursed VB6 and continues to curse VB.Net. It's really just snobbery, though, and is largely miss-placed.

True story, a friend of mine writes low level hardware drivers. He sneered at me for years about how VB (first 6, then .Net and C# too in later years) was inefficient and all the developers were bad and didn't really know what they were doing and blah-de-blah-de-blah. A few years back his company started requiring him to knock up windows based test harnesses for his drivers. At first he tried using C++ and muddled along OK but then they started mandating C# for the harnesses. His opinion changed in record time as he finally got that the point of high level languages isn't precision, it's productivity. He had his Damascus moment and, while I sincerely doubt he will even be using C# for the drivers, he aint going to be using C++ for the UI no more.

That's one of the reasons I find the whole "VB6 is powerful enough to out perform VB.Net" arguments a little fatuous. If performance is your driver then both are probably the wrong choice. Sure you can make VB6 run like Usain Bolt but why would you want to? Delegating performant functions to C or even Assembler is going to do a better job at that with less effort.

But I'd be happy to see an example of an interactive game, a database client, a prime number generator

Niya's point, in response to which you loudly declared that he didn't know what a declarative language was, was that declarative languages, and XAML in particular if you're using the MS stack, are ideally suited for describing what a UI needs to do without describing how it needs to do it. It allows you to produce a layer that says "You need to display X, Y and Z information along with the ability to allow the user to send A, B and C message back". It doesn't (or shouldn't) attempt to describe exactly how X, Y and Z will appear or how the User is to generate A, B and C. That is a hugely useful ability if you wish to properly de-couple your UI from your underlying model.