What if there was a NEW vb6

[Shaggy Hiker]

I was going to say: When I was a lad, anybody wandering down the street alone talking, was somebody you steered clear of. These days, it's common.

What technology is doing is making us oblivious to our environment. We act and behave not as if we were invisible, but as if the world around us was. Lord help us if we ever get to the point of virtual sex.

[SJWhiteley]

...

What technology is doing is making us oblivious to our environment. We act and behave not as if we were invisible, but as if the world around us was. Lord help us if we ever get to the point of virtual sex.

It's on its way, you know it.

I recall a movie where everyone went to work in a 'virtual' world - but it was robots/androids they were controlling that looked like them. Just looked it up 'Surrogates' with Bruce Willis.

Indeed, at work people are calling all the data flow and information network 'The Matrix'. Truly, talking to some of the technology guys, they have no idea how it works, the clueless clowns.

(Edit: searching for a movie, just typing in a few things you know about it and it brings up that movie).

[Shaggy Hiker]

It's on its way, you know it.

Quite honestly, I'm shocked that it isn't already here. How long was the internet around before it became clear that the major use of the internet would be the dissemination of porn (and cat videos)? People talk about automating things and virtual reality. Furthermore, these are geeks talking. Why haven't we gotten further with this? It may be lack of real-world experience from which to derive, but the motivation should surely be there.

[Niya]

...How long was the internet around before it became clear that the major use of the internet would be the dissemination of porn...

The internet wouldn't make sense without the ability to get porn easy.

[dilettante]

Porn tech still has a way to go doesn't it?

Last I heard anyway you still can't upload a photo of a celebrity, old flame, etc. and have a search return... er, "models," having a facial match.

Or am I simply out of touch, as usual?

[FunkyDexter]

One should never be out of touch with porn. That would be missing the whole point.

[JackB]

More vb6 “haters” than vb6 “lovers”. In a vb6 thread !!!

Now I could explain that with 2 options.

1. No much porn out there.

2. Vb6 was tooooo sexy.

[MikiSoft]

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

They've declined again suggestion about VB6...

[Niya]

More vb6 “haters” than vb6 “lovers”. In a vb6 thread !!!

Now I could explain that with 2 options.

1. No much porn out there.

2. Vb6 was tooooo sexy.

No one here hates VB6, just the ridiculous notion that MS's decision to start from scratch rather than build on a shaky foundation was somehow a terrible mistake.

[Niya]

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

They've declined again suggestion about VB6...

I must commend them for being pretty nice about it. I'd be flaming and cursing if users kept asking me for the same thing over and over after I said no the first time.

[Niya]

Also, I feel a bit sorry for the people in that thread. They seem to want a new VB6 pretty badly. I don't think they even realize how far MS has come since abandoning VB6. They need to ground themselves in reality. MS is not going back. There is no compelling reason to do so. I don't get how these poor souls can't see that by now.

[Shaggy Hiker]

There's actually a pretty compelling business case NOT to go back, regardless of the qualities of the language. VB6 was a perfectly fine language, and could easily fill the roll of C to VB.NET's C++ (a non-OO language to an OO language, each with some advantages). However, it would be terrible for MS to try it now, and it's hard to believe they don't know that.

[dilettante]

Doesn't matter, .Net's days are numbered anymore too. It'll probably be dead even before Windows is, and that might not be too far off.

All the real action seems to be around JavaScript, sometimes front-ended by preprocessors like Hejlsberg's current hobbyhorse TypeScript:

Announcing TypeScript 1.5

[Shaggy Hiker]

TypeScript is a step in the right direction, as far as Javascript is concerned, but I don't see where you got the idea that .NET was going anywhere. Of course, if Windows DOES die, then I could certainly see .NET going away. Otherwise, it fills a role that no other language does. JS is a perfectly functional language, up to a point, but there is lots that it does very badly or not at all. As long as there are loads of mobile devices running on different OS/platforms, then JS will always have a place because the web will always have a place. Beyond that, why would anybody bother with it?

[Grant Swinger]

Given the investment so many businesses have in Active Directory it's unlikely Windows will be joining CP/M in OS Heaven any time soon. Something better that makes it worth the pain and expense of switching will have to come along first and there's nothing on the horizon. It won't be the OS To Rule Them All but it won't be dead.

The same applies to .NET. Enterprises aren't going to rewrite all their LOB applications in JavaScript.

[Niya]

...VB6 was a perfectly fine language...

I humbly disagree. VB6 was a terrible language for any kind of serious application development. I always thought so, even when I was using it. The reason I never bothered to move to a better language was that VB6 was unmatched in the speed at which you could write a fully functional application. Being a lone developer, such a thing was more valuable than having a well engineered language.

[FunkyDexter]

I humbly disagree

Pah! You've never been humble in your life! I call Shinanigans

I actually think VB6 was a fantastic language for it's time. It did have a few foibles and annoyances but most of the C and Java packages that were floating around at the time were every bit as flaky. One of the things that I think gets missed is that a language is really nothing but a collection functional packages with a bit of syntax thrown in to allow you to call them. And it's not the syntax that's the important bit, it's the packages.

When folks remember VB6's failings they're usually remembering failings in the packages but they miss the fact that Java and C's packages were every bit as flakey unless you rolled your own - but you half expected to roll your own in Java and C whereas you generally didn't in VB6. It wasn't the quality of what was on offer that was different, it was the expectation.

That's one of the reasons I don't understand why VB6 developers say that VB.Net is slow to develop in. Both are just a collection of packages and all the packages that were avilable in 6 have an analogue available in .Net. You just need to spend a small amount of time learning where your old favourites are to be found and then you're every bit as productive (at least for RAD stuff) as you ever were with 6. As you learn some of the newer packages you're actually considerably more productive.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

That's one of the reasons I don't understand why VB6 developers say that VB.Net is slow to develop in

Subjectivity is a funny thing, i think that many people just put there personal subjective use forward as the truth.

Many of those who say VB.Net is slow to develop in haven't really spent any time developing in it, all they have spotted is that there old ways which they liked are no longer there which now makes it slower for them to develop in. What most of them have not done for varying reasons is spent time in the language learning the alternate ways to achieve the same thing.

I find that i am actually slower at developing in VB.Net over C# as i now spend most of my time developing in C#, but this does not make VB.Net a slow language to develop it, but its slower for me and many people then see that as the language being slow full stop rather than just there own subjective use.

[JackB]

Talking about development , the personal subjective feeling is the most important point.

If the tool in hands does not ispire you , you aren’t to be productive.

[Gruff]

Isn't that like saying if my shovel doesn't inspire me I am not going to be productive digging holes?

If your relying on your tool for inspiration you've got problems.

[Shaggy Hiker]

My tool inspires me.

[Gruff]

Proud <> Inspired.

[JackB]

Well , yes , I’m looking for inspiration to every point , I could get any.

Much more helps , when I do avoid things that do not inspire me.

[Gruff]

I draw inspiration from making other's lives better.
From making them more productive, saving them time and money.

This is what keeps me going and what gets me excited about a project.

If I had to chisel the product out of basalt with an ice pick I would still do it.

Are you really talking about motivation (Inspiration) or are you talking about creativity?

[JackB]

No , I did not mention motivation.

I just said (wrote) “If the tool in hands does not iNspire you , you aren’t to be productive. “ (even I missed the N).

So till now , we got inspiration , productivity , motivation and creativity.

[Gruff]

Well according to the dictionary the two are pretty much the same.

Motivation
noun
1.
the act or an instance of motivating, or providing with a reason to act in a certain way:
I don't understand what her motivation was for quitting her job.
Synonyms: motive, inspiration, inducement, cause, impetus.

Which is why I asked the question.

[techgnome]

Well, my motivation is a paycheck... I'd hardly call it inspirational.

-tg

[JackB]

All poets , writers , painters , etc have the motivation to succeed.

Only very few make it real.

[VB6 Programming]

It has often been said that the VB6 programming language will outlast VB.Net.

Now in Windows 10, the last ever version of Windows, Microsoft say "And yes, everyone’s favorite VB6 Runtime will continue to work, too."

With the lukewarm welcome given to VS2015 it is beginning to look like VB6 will outlast the whole of .Net.

[VB6 Programming]

The same applies to .NET. Enterprises aren't going to rewrite all their LOB applications in JavaScript.

At last you are beginning to see why VB6 is still needed. Enterprises aren't going to rewrite all their VB6 applications in .Net either.

[szlamany]

At last you are beginning to see why VB6 is still needed. Enterprises aren't going to rewrite all their VB6 applications in .Net either.

Really?

You think VB6 holds some special place in the decades of computer implementations?

As if there have been no prior software/hardware/OS paradigm shifts that can stand up to the station that VB6 has acquired?

[Shaggy Hiker]

So till now , we got inspiration , productivity , motivation and creativity.

And innuendo. Don't for get that one.

[Shaggy Hiker]

All poets , writers , painters , etc have the motivation to succeed.

Only very few make it real.

I would say that it isn't motivation that the non-successful ones lack. If they don't write, paint, or po, then I would agree that they lack motivation. If their subjects suck, then perhaps they lack inspiration, but you'd then have to ask whether it was the tools that didn't inspire them or the subject. However, as long as they are motivated, inspired by the subject, and utterly lacking in talent, they will require profound luck to succeed. These days, luck may be more important than motivation.

[Shaggy Hiker]

At last you are beginning to see why VB6 is still needed. Enterprises aren't going to rewrite all their VB6 applications in .Net either.

For our part, we aren't going to re-write programs that don't need to be rewritten simply because the language is dated. If the program is still working fine, then it is left alone. If the program is no longer needed, then it is abandoned. What isn't happening is that programs written in VB6 are not being maintained. If they fail to meet a changing condition, such that re-writing is the only alternative, we simply don't re-write in VB6. If they are going to the web, then it is a blend of .NET, JS, and/or PHP. If they are desktop, then they are re-written in .NET. But if then don't need to be re-written, then they aren't touched in any way.

Had MS dropped the VB6 runtime from Windows 7 (forget 10, we won't be moving ahead for years, as is our wont). then ALL the programs currently written in VB6 would have had to be re-written, and promptyl, which would have incurred significant expense. Because MS did include the VB6 runtime, then no money at all was spent on re-writing those applications. Instead, the time and effort went into writing new things, but not in VB6.

As for 2015, what advantage does it provide? Not much, for most people. The .NET side is pretty stable, as far as I can see, with no additions to the language since FW 4.0 that add such value that they are, alone, sufficient incentive to upgrade. Frankly, I like the appearance of VS2010, so I've remained at that on one computer. I thought 2012 was visually ugly, but 2013 fixed much of that and 2015 fixed the rest. So, once again 2015 is a nice looking IDE, but why would I change IDEs just because the new one isn't uglier than the one I'm using elsewhere.

On the other hand, I WILL switch, and have been looking forwards to 2015 for several months. I would like to move ALL of my projects to that IDE, but that will take some time and effort, so I want to try it on one system while continuing to work on a different one, and I simply lack the HD space to add 2015 to the computer I would add it to first.

[dilettante]

Really?

You think VB6 holds some special place in the decades of computer implementations?

As if there have been no prior software/hardware/OS paradigm shifts that can stand up to the station that VB6 has acquired?

I believe that in reality the only thing "special" about it is the longevity it has enjoyed. In many ways it is like Cobol, where once each standard has been released over the decades new compiler versions from vendors had few breaking changes until a new standard was issued. Even then many vendors continued to offer compilers for two or more standards (Cobol68 and Cobol74, later Cobol74 and Cobol85, and so on).

Just as with these stable Cobol milestones, VB6 provides a non-moving target that radically cuts the cost of forced programmer retraining and application portfolio maintenance. Not that this doesn't have its downside too, but the attraction to businesses should be pretty obvious.


Another downside to VB6 though is that a lot of shops are stuck with a whole lot of poorly-written legacy code thrown together by plinkers. This only gets worse when they won't hire experienced VB6 programmers and turn cheaper .Net hacks loose on it instead. Ironically many of these hacks were once VB6 programmers, but of course since they never got any good at it they moved on to .Net hoping its self-obfuscating nature would mask their low programming aptitude. This is also why so many prefer C# over VB.Net: they think it covers their ineptitude better.

[Schmidt]

You think VB6 holds some special place in the decades of computer implementations?

FWIW, I surely do...

The platform-OS we use most, to *do-real-work* - (quite efficiently today, in uncounted
Offices, mostly using PC- or Notebook-Hardware), is based on some version of MS-Windows -
(there's a few exceptions, e.g. Designers and other creative folks always preferring their
Macs - but I think the percentage over-all - for "decent Desktop-work" is about 90%-Windows).

Since the dawn of "truly affordable PCs for every Office-clerk" (1990 or so), the "LOB-Apps"
as we call them these days, were now much easier to develop as well - now all following an
easier to manage Message- and Event-driven Paradigm, allowing User-Interaction over
"Windowed-InputScreens" and a "Set of Standard-Controls" + a graphics-abstraction-layer (GDI)
which (beside other things) made e.g. "direct Handling of Printer-Drivers" unnecessary .

Another boost for this paradigm came, when Win95 was entering the stage -
accompanied by the serious introducion of COM, which was now used not only at the
OS-Level, but more importantly also in the new MS-Office-Apps which were now all based
on a User-accessible (COM-)Object-Model, which was programmable not only by the new
introduced VBA-language from within these Office-Apps, but also by using a dedicated
standalone Environment (VB4-32) - which made glueing of COM-Objects (not only through
"Office-Automation", but also when using 3rd-party COM-Dlls and OCXes) extremely easy.

VBA and VB4/5/6 are the main-reason for the countless LOB-Apps (and "LOB-sidewards"
supporting Tools and MS-Office-Addins) which ensured the prevailing dominance of Windows-
OSes over the years in Offices worldwide.

So, the above was 1995 - and in 2015 absolutely *nothing* has changed with regards to
that paradigm (event-driven, windowed Apps, which still rely on flat C-style API-layers,
accompanied by COM-compatible implementations of said APIs - the new Win8/Win10
WinRT-runtime is native (as in "unmanaged") accessible by normal C++ as usual with COM -
and to reduce typing-efforts in C++, the new WinRT-COM-classes are (avoiding ATL) now
addressable also with the C++/CX extensions, but it's still all COM (still ref-counted on top
of IUnknown).

So, with that in mind - VB6 is still (always was) much more near that always used
(by MS in its bread and butter apps) paradigm than .NET.

Note, that I'm not trying to put .NET down in any way - I'm just saying what I think
makes the last version of: "COM-made easy" (aka VB6) stand out - and a valuable tool
for Desktop-Apps even these days.

VBClassic/VBA and COM made Windows what it is today (ensuring its dominance in
Offices worldwide - also against the attempts to use "Linux-Desktops in the Office") -
and there's (technically) no reason, not to make VBClassic a decent companion to
the new C++/CX again (with a fully supported WinRT-COM-lib, native compiling by
using an adapted C++ emitter and -linker, derived from the latest MS-C++ version,
as VB6 was doing with C2.exe, which at that time was derived from MS-VC++ 6.0).

Again - note that I'm not "whining to give us back VBClassic" - I'm quite sure MS will
not do so - I'm just saying that technically the CodeLine-Diffs to produce a modern,
native compiling "WinRT=COM made easy" environment again (based on the VB6-sources,
and what they already have with VBA-64Bit), would be *much* less - than any efforts
to compile .NET-MSIL natively (over cloud-services).

If what I tried to explain above doesn't make VB6/VBA stand out among Programming-
environments, then you're ignoring something in "Lalalala, I have my ears covered"-fashion,
I guess.

Olaf

[Schmidt]

Had MS dropped the VB6 runtime from Windows 7 ...
then ALL the programs currently written in VB6 would have had to be re-written...

Nope, that would only have meant, that we would have to ship the (only 1.3MB sized)
msvbvm60.dll again within our Setups (as we already did in the Win98-era, where
we couldn't count on the VB6-runtime already coming pre-installed).

Olaf

[szlamany]

You wrote volumes man!

FWIW, I surely do...

The platform-OS we use most, to *do-real-work* - (quite efficiently today, in uncounted
Offices, mostly using PC- or Notebook-Hardware), is based on some version of MS-Windows -
(there's a few exceptions, e.g. Designers and other creative folks always preferring their
Macs - but I think the percentage over-all - for "decent Desktop-work" is about 90%-Windows).

Since the dawn of "truly affordable PCs for every Office-clerk" (1990 or so), the "LOB-Apps"
as we call them these days, were now much easier to develop as well - now all following an
easier to manage Message- and Event-driven Paradigm, allowing User-Interaction over
"Windowed-InputScreens" and a "Set of Standard-Controls" + a graphics-abstraction-layer (GDI)
which (beside other things) made e.g. "direct Handling of Printer-Drivers" unnecessary .

For the decade prior to 2000 my customers used PC's to run green-screen emulators.

I just recently took a 15 year old VB6 report writer engine using the PRINTER object and converted it to .Net using a PDF creator library running as a web service. Now my clients in my web app can run the same VB6 reports that they ran since 2000 without me re-creating the wheel from both the engine and the layout sense (like pay checks, W2's and 1099's - we aren't talking trivial alignment stuff) .

Another boost for this paradigm came, when Win95 was entering the stage -
accompanied by the serious introducion of COM, which was now used not only at the
OS-Level, but more importantly also in the new MS-Office-Apps which were now all based
on a User-accessible (COM-)Object-Model, which was programmable not only by the new
introduced VBA-language from within these Office-Apps, but also by using a dedicated
standalone Environment (VB4-32) - which made glueing of COM-Objects (not only through
"Office-Automation", but also when using 3rd-party COM-Dlls and OCXes) extremely easy.

Actually the boost my clients needed was a trustworthy SQL database - that's when I first used VB6.

VBA and VB4/5/6 are the main-reason for the countless LOB-Apps (and "LOB-sidewards"
supporting Tools and MS-Office-Addins) which ensured the prevailing dominance of Windows-
OSes over the years in Offices worldwide.

So, the above was 1995 - and in 2015 absolutely *nothing* has changed with regards to
that paradigm (event-driven, windowed Apps, which still rely on flat C-style API-layers,
accompanied by COM-compatible implementations of said APIs - the new Win8/Win10
WinRT-runtime is native (as in "unmanaged") accessible by normal C++ as usual with COM -
and to reduce typing-efforts in C++, the new WinRT-COM-classes are (avoiding ATL) now
addressable also with the C++/CX extensions, but it's still all COM (still ref-counted on top
of IUnknown).

So much has changed imo. Mobile is huge - that 5 years I wasted on POCKET PC's kind of tells me that MS isn't driving this market.

So, with that in mind - VB6 is still (always was) much more near that always used
(by MS in its bread and butter apps) paradigm than .NET.

Note, that I'm not trying to put .NET down in any way - I'm just saying what I think
makes the last version of: "COM-made easy" (aka VB6) stand out - and a valuable tool
for Desktop-Apps even these days.

VBClassic/VBA and COM made Windows what it is today (ensuring its dominance in
Offices worldwide - also against the attempts to use "Linux-Desktops in the Office") -
and there's (technically) no reason, not to make VBClassic a decent companion to
the new C++/CX again (with a fully supported WinRT-COM-lib, native compiling by
using an adapted C++ emitter and -linker, derived from the latest MS-C++ version,
as VB6 was doing with C2.exe, which at that time was derived from MS-VC++ 6.0).

Again - note that I'm not "whining to give us back VBClassic" - I'm quite sure MS will
not do so - I'm just saying that technically the CodeLine-Diffs to produce a modern,
native compiling "WinRT=COM made easy" environment again (based on the VB6-sources,
and what they already have with VBA-64Bit), would be *much* less - than any efforts
to compile .NET-MSIL natively (over cloud-services).

If what I tried to explain above doesn't make VB6/VBA stand out among Programming-
environments, then you're ignoring something in "Lalalala, I have my ears covered"-fashion,
I guess.

Olaf

I prefer being in a browser now - with a clean standard JavaScript library (like jQuery). I am more satisfied with the product I deliver as are my clients.

I just started a 3 year project to convert over a decade of VB6 LOB to browser/iis web methods. The client chose this method because us the decade of SQL data that I am going to keep stable.

I can share my web services with an Android app I have - another huge selling point for my customers.

I can't imagine how I could do any of this with VB6 - maybe I never got far enough into that sorry excuse for an API (I was spoiled by Dec's syslib and the 30 manuals that came with it).

[Shaggy Hiker]

I would agree that VBA was the gateway to VB4/5/6, and that LOTS of programmers probably got their start in that fashion. However, I would say that what drove Windows to dominate the market was not VB, though VB was a contributor. After all, I decided on a computer before I got into programming. My decision was based on: What ran the programs I wanted to use...and that was about all. Windows had the best games, Windows had the best productivity software (pre-Office it was Lotus, which was big in my time, though I realize that was second generation, as well), and Windows had the most innovative hardware at the best price. Mac was great hardware at the time, but it was all controlled by Apple and there was little innovation with the hardware and it cost a lot more. All the innovation with video was happening in PCs, which also meant that all the innovation with games was happening in PCs (once Amiga died out).

Most businesses probably went to PCs because of IBM and the price. Most individuals probably went to PCs because they used them at work, and that's where all the games were (games drive a lot). Along came VB and made it easy to write programs, but VB wasn't the first in that, either. I started with macros in Quattro Pro (which was remarkably like ASM the way I was writing them). When we got Excel95, I re-wrote one of those macros in VBA. The macro in Quattro Pro took 6-8 hours to run, so you started it and went home...and hoped there wasn't a bug. When I re-wrote in VBA, I ran a subset as a test, which would have taken 20 minutes in Quattro Pro. It was finished in about one second, so I assumed I had messed it up. When I realized that it had run correctly, I saw how powerful VBA was. However, I wasn't hired to write macros, I was hired to collect and identify fish, so I was just a person who turned to programming to make a tedious aspect of my job go away. That 'business' (actually academic research) had no interest in programming until I showed what it could do, then they used that program long after I had left. They didn't buy a computer because of VB, they bought because of the software that ran on it, which was all written in C/C++. They did end up benefitting from VB, but it was an afterthought.

I don't know which path to Windows was more common, so if you want to believe that VB was what made Windows, I can't prove it either right or wrong. I will point out that there IS an alternative view that makes sense.

[Schmidt]

I would agree that VBA was the gateway to VB4/5/6, and that LOTS of programmers probably got their start in that fashion. However, I would say that what drove Windows to dominate the market was not VB, though VB was a contributor.

I was more focussing on "Offices" (generally: "places where real work is done") in my thoughts.

Not sure, if you remember the phase around 2003 to 2008, where every other year was:
"the year, Linux will conquer the former Windows-Desktops in Offices worldwide"
(in the meantime we have a bit more silence on that front).

I was a big fan of that idea at this time (using a Debian-derivate as the default-OS on my
dev-machine, running the VB6 IDE under Wine etc. - all the MS-stuff "banned into a VM").

There was quite a lot of "Cities" which tried to make that switch at the time - but only
a remaining few are still keeping up with the idea consequently...

The main-reason (in reviews provided by the Cities which were "going back to MS" -
most when Win7 came out), was the sheer amount of:
Not easy migratable, special "Workflow-Apps, Office-Addins, Access-based solutions and Excel-Makros"
which were popping up out of the underwood at a later time, nobody having them on their
initial "Apps we need to find replacments for"-lists.

So you're right, that VB/VBA was not the sole reason for the great adoption-rate of
the MS-platform (and the MS-Office-package) in the late 90's - but it definitely was the
decisive factor for *keeping the MS-platform where it was* (in the Offices).

These countless helper-tools (most of them developed by people without prior education
on that very subject) are also one of the reasons, why MS is still shipping Win10 with the
VB6-Runtime.

It's still the tool, which allows "non-programmers" to develop decent Helper-Apps for
their daily work - and I find that a good thing.

Instead of progressing on that path (making VBClassic even more easy to use, by
pre-encapsulating certain advanced things in appropriate COM-helper-libs even further),
it was decided to make "programming an elitist thing once more" (making the hurdles
higher, so that the "unwashed masses" were kept out of programming once again) -
a decision, which - especially when paired with constantly changing APIs and paradigms -
was a good thing also for the "consulting-companies" (many of them "MS-Partners").

Olaf