Visual Basic - VB6 vs VB.NET

Author

VB6 vs VB.NET

Mike

2004-09-08, 3:55 am

I am sure this question has been answered many times before but I could not
find the answer. VB6 or VB.NET?

I have just reached a modest level of mastery of VB6 where I can utilize
COM. I created an EXE application with multiple DLL classes that I call on
as needed as well as reuse some of my code in different parts of the
program.

I am trying to decide whether to spend my time on learning new "tricks" in
VB6 or stop developing in VB6 and migrate to VB.Net.

I have recently stumbled on msnews.microsoft.com. The first thing that hit
me was "VB6 is still alive and well". My question is:

How long is VB6 going to be supported both by Microsoft and the market
place?

Any reply to this question or direction on where I can get answers to this
question would be appreciated.

Mike

Bob Butler

2004-09-08, 3:55 am

"Mike" <Mike3532@msn.com> wrote in message
news:%23RVEOgUlEHA.1904@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl
> I am sure this question has been answered many times before but I
> could not find the answer. VB6 or VB.NET?

Go to http://groups.google.com and search; there have been *many* long
threads with many voices very entrenched on each side of the question.

The bottom line is that VB6 is essentially a dead language; it will be
around for quite some time simply because it will take many years for
existing VB applications to be rewritten in another language or otherwise
replaced.

If you are going to go .Net my advice would be to forget VB.Net and use C#
instead; that will be MS's language of choice and has, IMO, a better chance
at stability and longer-term support.

Jim Carlock

2004-09-08, 3:55 am

VB.Net is recommended for developing applications for
..Asp.Net. Web Apps fall into this realm.

I don't think the transition from VB6 to VB.Net is all that
difficult if you've got a good foundation of knowledge with
the API. Most of what I've seen seems to be the same thing
as what is put into VBScript. Although, a well respected fellow
here in this newsgroup highly recommends .Net for web
applications.

I think you'll get a good feel for VB.Net by checking out this
newsgroup:
news://msnews.microsoft.com/microso...et.languages.vb

--
Jim Carlock
http://www.microcosmotalk.com/
Post replies to the newsgroup.

"Mike" wrote:
I am sure this question has been answered many times before but I could not
find the answer. VB6 or VB.NET?

I have just reached a modest level of mastery of VB6 where I can utilize
COM. I created an EXE application with multiple DLL classes that I call on
as needed as well as reuse some of my code in different parts of the
program.

I am trying to decide whether to spend my time on learning new "tricks" in
VB6 or stop developing in VB6 and migrate to VB.Net.

I have recently stumbled on msnews.microsoft.com. The first thing that hit
me was "VB6 is still alive and well". My question is:

How long is VB6 going to be supported both by Microsoft and the market
place?

Any reply to this question or direction on where I can get answers to this
question would be appreciated.

Mike

Gerald Hernandez

2004-09-08, 3:55 am

Congratulations on finally mastering VB6. Once you get to this point, you
realize just how powerful it can be. However, it isn't time to stop
learning.

My take on it is simple; use both.
Contrary to some grumblings, VB6 will be around for a long time.
MANY people and companies are at the same place as you and just now finally
figured out the COM thing and ported apps to COM. They are not wanting to
make the next jump to dotNet for quite some time. So considering all the
relatively new stuff out there that works great with VB6, and consider the
number of applications that are just now adopting VBA as a scripting
language, I really believe VB6 will be around for quite some time. Even if
you try to abandon VB6 all together, you won't be able to any time soon.

Now for VB.Net. Definately take some time to start learning it as well. VB6
will be around a long time, but dotNet stuff is growing fast.
But I warn you now. VB.Net is NOT a VB6 upgrade. They are very different
languages and paradigms. Much work has gone into VB.Net to give some
familiar feel to legacy VB6 programmers so you won't be completely lost out
of the gate. But after a short time you will come to realize they are more
different than similar (so much so, that some have started calling it "Fred"
instead of VB). IMHO this is a good thing, as so many good things are in
there. But it does have quite a learning curve and the .Net Framework is
vast.
The worst thing that could happen if you start learning VB.Net is that it
will make you a better VB6 programmer. When using Option Strict it is a
little more C like in that it really makes you think about what you are
doing.

As far as the grumblings over C# vs VB.Net and how one is so much better
than the other. It is the same old argument; C vs VB, Mac vs WinTel, Ford vs
Chevy... In fact, the argument has much less weight than in the past.
Whether you choose VB.Net or C# makes little difference. Aside from the
general syntax conventions, they are the same thing. Choose which is most
comfortable. In fact, learn them both. dotNet is quite friendly when it
comes to mixing the two. I hate C++, but find myself frequently mixing
VB.Net and C# when appropriate.

Certainly check out:
news://msnews.microsoft.com/microso...et.languages.vb

also search around the NG's. You will find countless VB6 vs VB.Net vs C# vs
Java discussions.

Gerald

"Mike" <Mike3532@msn.com> wrote in message
news:%23RVEOgUlEHA.1904@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> I am sure this question has been answered many times before but I could
not
> find the answer. VB6 or VB.NET?
>
> I have just reached a modest level of mastery of VB6 where I can utilize
> COM. I created an EXE application with multiple DLL classes that I call
on
> as needed as well as reuse some of my code in different parts of the
> program.
>
> I am trying to decide whether to spend my time on learning new "tricks" in
> VB6 or stop developing in VB6 and migrate to VB.Net.
>
> I have recently stumbled on msnews.microsoft.com. The first thing that hit
> me was "VB6 is still alive and well". My question is:
>
> How long is VB6 going to be supported both by Microsoft and the market
> place?
>
> Any reply to this question or direction on where I can get answers to this
> question would be appreciated.
>
> Mike
>
>

Rob Windsor [MVP]

2004-09-08, 3:55 am

See this blog post from S. Somasegar, the guy who runs the developer
division at Microsoft, for his view on future of VB.

http://blogs.msdn.com/somasegar/arc.../01/204540.aspx

--
Rob Windsor [MVP-VB]
G6 Consulting
Toronto, Canada

"Mike" <Mike3532@msn.com> wrote in message
news:%23RVEOgUlEHA.1904@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> I am sure this question has been answered many times before but I could
not
> find the answer. VB6 or VB.NET?
>
> I have just reached a modest level of mastery of VB6 where I can utilize
> COM. I created an EXE application with multiple DLL classes that I call
on
> as needed as well as reuse some of my code in different parts of the
> program.
>
> I am trying to decide whether to spend my time on learning new "tricks" in
> VB6 or stop developing in VB6 and migrate to VB.Net.
>
> I have recently stumbled on msnews.microsoft.com. The first thing that hit
> me was "VB6 is still alive and well". My question is:
>
> How long is VB6 going to be supported both by Microsoft and the market
> place?
>
> Any reply to this question or direction on where I can get answers to this
> question would be appreciated.
>
> Mike
>
>

Patty O'Dors

2004-09-08, 8:55 am

> I am sure this question has been answered many times before but I could not
> find the answer. VB6 or VB.NET?

Neither. C# is superior to both, it's got the power of .NET but without the
sheer "sloppiness" of VB.NET, however, VB6 is almost as good for most things,
and to be fair it doesn't really lack power. It's just when you've used .NET
it seems a bit "traditional/quaint/pedestrian".

>
> I have just reached a modest level of mastery of VB6 where I can utilize
> COM. I created an EXE application with multiple DLL classes that I call on
> as needed as well as reuse some of my code in different parts of the
> program.
>
> I am trying to decide whether to spend my time on learning new "tricks" in
> VB6 or stop developing in VB6 and migrate to VB.Net.

Don't migrate to VB.NET, migrate to C# but still keep your hand in with
VB6. After all, if you don't know C++ it's your only way to create managed
code, should you see the need to.

>
> I have recently stumbled on msnews.microsoft.com. The first thing that hit
> me was "VB6 is still alive and well". My question is:
>
> How long is VB6 going to be supported both by Microsoft and the market
> place?

VB6 isn't supported and hasn't been for a long time, but that's no great
shame. I don't know who in their right mind banks on someone at MS being
arsed to pull their finger out and fix *their* problem.

>
> Any reply to this question or direction on where I can get answers to this
> question would be appreciated.
>
> Mike
>
>
>

Patty O'Dors

2004-09-08, 8:55 am

The main problem is that VBA is holding progress back - it generates a
watered-down skillbase far too unnaturally centred on VB6 - people who
started on VBA.

"Gerald Hernandez" wrote:

> Congratulations on finally mastering VB6. Once you get to this point, you
> realize just how powerful it can be. However, it isn't time to stop
> learning.
>
> My take on it is simple; use both.
> Contrary to some grumblings, VB6 will be around for a long time.
> MANY people and companies are at the same place as you and just now finally
> figured out the COM thing and ported apps to COM. They are not wanting to
> make the next jump to dotNet for quite some time. So considering all the
> relatively new stuff out there that works great with VB6, and consider the
> number of applications that are just now adopting VBA as a scripting
> language, I really believe VB6 will be around for quite some time. Even if
> you try to abandon VB6 all together, you won't be able to any time soon.
>
> Now for VB.Net. Definately take some time to start learning it as well. VB6
> will be around a long time, but dotNet stuff is growing fast.
> But I warn you now. VB.Net is NOT a VB6 upgrade. They are very different
> languages and paradigms. Much work has gone into VB.Net to give some
> familiar feel to legacy VB6 programmers so you won't be completely lost out
> of the gate. But after a short time you will come to realize they are more
> different than similar (so much so, that some have started calling it "Fred"
> instead of VB). IMHO this is a good thing, as so many good things are in
> there. But it does have quite a learning curve and the .Net Framework is
> vast.
> The worst thing that could happen if you start learning VB.Net is that it
> will make you a better VB6 programmer. When using Option Strict it is a
> little more C like in that it really makes you think about what you are
> doing.
>
> As far as the grumblings over C# vs VB.Net and how one is so much better
> than the other. It is the same old argument; C vs VB, Mac vs WinTel, Ford vs
> Chevy... In fact, the argument has much less weight than in the past.
> Whether you choose VB.Net or C# makes little difference. Aside from the
> general syntax conventions, they are the same thing. Choose which is most
> comfortable. In fact, learn them both. dotNet is quite friendly when it
> comes to mixing the two. I hate C++, but find myself frequently mixing
> VB.Net and C# when appropriate.
>
> Certainly check out:
> news://msnews.microsoft.com/microso...et.languages.vb
>
> also search around the NG's. You will find countless VB6 vs VB.Net vs C# vs
> Java discussions.
>
> Gerald
>
>
> "Mike" <Mike3532@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:%23RVEOgUlEHA.1904@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> not
> on
>
>
>

Ralph

2004-09-08, 3:55 pm

"Mike" <Mike3532@msn.com> wrote in message
news:%23RVEOgUlEHA.1904@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> I am sure this question has been answered many times before but I could
not
> find the answer. VB6 or VB.NET?
>
> I have just reached a modest level of mastery of VB6 where I can utilize
> COM. I created an EXE application with multiple DLL classes that I call
on
> as needed as well as reuse some of my code in different parts of the
> program.
>
> I am trying to decide whether to spend my time on learning new "tricks" in
> VB6 or stop developing in VB6 and migrate to VB.Net.
>
> I have recently stumbled on msnews.microsoft.com. The first thing that hit
> me was "VB6 is still alive and well". My question is:
>
> How long is VB6 going to be supported both by Microsoft and the market
> place?
>
> Any reply to this question or direction on where I can get answers to this
> question would be appreciated.
>
> Mike
>

You bring up an interesting point...
"I am trying to decide whether to spend my time on learning new "tricks" in
VB6 or stop developing in VB6 and migrate to VB.Net."

It is seldom mentioned but what I miss most about leaving VB6 behind and
venturing into .NET is the lack of 'maturity' and the number of
'widely-known' solutions. I should also add the number of sane, quick
answers you can get to any problems.

Using VB.NET (while many features are great) is in many ways like going back
7+ years - those days when I wrote 300 line solutions to manage a
masked-edit box. Convoluted On_Change, On_Keystoke, ..., validation
routines, monitoring hooks for something when a two solution existed, etc.
Yes, I will get better, and things will sort themselves out as I become more
familar with the framework - all 126,000+ calls. And fighting the bizzare
'gotchas' with the initial 3rd party grid controls - which we only bought
because you couldn't get the damn Grid to work. <g>

But if I were a programmer today in a small shop with a limited budget - I
believe my environment of choice would be VB6. It is pretty much draw-out on
a legal pad what it is you want to do - then mark the areas you can write -
then surf the web for whatever is left. You can provide solutions very
quickly and look pretty good doing it.

-ralph

Rick Rothstein

2004-09-08, 3:55 pm

> But if I were a programmer today in a small shop with a limited
> budget - I believe my environment of choice would be VB6. It is
> pretty much draw-out on a legal pad what it is you want to do -
> then mark the areas you can write - then surf the web for
> whatever is left. You can provide solutions very quickly and look
> pretty good doing it.

The following is part of a post I once offered on a private newsgroup I
frequent which seems to address the point you are making here...

I'm a simple programmer (you can take that anyway you want to<g> ), so my
needs are simple. I don't play around much with Object or Classes; all
of the things I need to (or have needed to do in the past) can be
handled with the base language along with Function and Sub calls (and
maybe a few API calls thrown in here and there). And, if I may digress
for a moment, this (to me) is the beauty of VB-Classic, you can work at
whatever level of complication you want to. Most of the "fancy" stuff
that was added to VB was done so at the behest of the professional
programming community in an effort make the language stronger (more
attractive?) to them. VB-Classic did a fantastic job of integrating this
complexity along with the existing "simple"... that is its true beauty.
In the case of VB.NET, Microsoft seems to have let the professional
programmers hijack the language out right from under the
non-professional users.... you will deal with Objects and Classes and so
on, whether you want to or not.

Rick

Patty O'Dors

2004-09-08, 3:55 pm

that suffices, but you're missing out on the sheer beauty of lines of code
such as:

dtsworker = new Thread(new ThreadStart(new JobsRunner(server, security,
outputdir, jobs, this).Go));

Three "new"s in one line, and not one of them has to be given a toss about.
Glorious!

"Rick Rothstein" wrote:

>
> The following is part of a post I once offered on a private newsgroup I
> frequent which seems to address the point you are making here...
>
> I'm a simple programmer (you can take that anyway you want to<g> ), so my
> needs are simple. I don't play around much with Object or Classes; all
> of the things I need to (or have needed to do in the past) can be
> handled with the base language along with Function and Sub calls (and
> maybe a few API calls thrown in here and there). And, if I may digress
> for a moment, this (to me) is the beauty of VB-Classic, you can work at
> whatever level of complication you want to. Most of the "fancy" stuff
> that was added to VB was done so at the behest of the professional
> programming community in an effort make the language stronger (more
> attractive?) to them. VB-Classic did a fantastic job of integrating this
> complexity along with the existing "simple"... that is its true beauty.
> In the case of VB.NET, Microsoft seems to have let the professional
> programmers hijack the language out right from under the
> non-professional users.... you will deal with Objects and Classes and so
> on, whether you want to or not.
>
> Rick
>
>

Bob O`Bob

2004-09-08, 3:55 pm

Mike wrote:
> My question is:
>
> How long is VB6 going to be supported both by Microsoft and the market
> place?
>
> Any reply to this question or direction on where I can get answers to this
> question would be appreciated.

I feel the need to point out that "this question" is
actually two VASTLY DIFFERENT questions.

a) How long is VB6 going to be supported by Microsoft?

b) How long is VB6 going to be supported by the market place?

Looked at in that way, the answers get slightly more clear:

a: it's mostly dead to them already

b: maybe forever; only time could possibly tell

Bob

Tim Baur

2004-09-08, 8:55 pm

Bob O`Bob <filterbob@yahoogroups.com> wrote in news:413F5AFC.2211
@yahoogroups.com:

> How long is VB6 going to be supported by the market place?
>

I would rephrase the second question to:

How long is the market place going to support VB6 programmers?

My fear is that my VB experience is rapidly depreciating in value. Each
year that passes is another year's experience that I don't have with
VB.Net.

I've always been a rouge programmer, preferring to teach myself rather than
taking the formal route. It can be difficult for a guy in my situation to
convince a potential employer that I'm the man for the job when I lack the
credentials on paper. My experience is everything to me. It's all I have
to prove my worth. If the programming world moves on to VB.Net, then my
experience will become worthless.

My worst nightmare is that I'll eventually find myself in the job market
again and not being able to write in the most sought after language. The
languages are not all *that* much different, I have a sound foundation and
I can learn fast, but if you've ever been in a tight market where your
resume is one of 800, you know that none of that matters very much.

If you don't think the winds are shifting, search Monster.com someday.
More and more companies are looking for VB.Net programmers. I dare say
more than VB6 programmers already.

Just my opinion.

Ken Halter

2004-09-08, 8:55 pm

Tim Baur wrote:
> I would rephrase the second question to:
>
> How long is the market place going to support VB6 programmers?
>
> My fear is that my VB experience is rapidly depreciating in value. Each
> year that passes is another year's experience that I don't have with
> VB.Net.

If you're lucky, you can skip VB.Net and just learn VB.Next.

> I've always been a rouge programmer, preferring to teach myself rather than
> taking the formal route. It can be difficult for a guy in my situation to

Me too...

> convince a potential employer that I'm the man for the job when I lack the
> credentials on paper. My experience is everything to me. It's all I have
> to prove my worth. If the programming world moves on to VB.Net, then my
> experience will become worthless.
>
> My worst nightmare is that I'll eventually find myself in the job market
> again and not being able to write in the most sought after language. The

Oh... so you're talking about C++ now <g>

> languages are not all *that* much different, I have a sound foundation and

They're pretty different. Really bad when the exact same code behaves
completely different "the other" language.

> I can learn fast, but if you've ever been in a tight market where your
> resume is one of 800, you know that none of that matters very much.

Even with extensive experience, the 'head hunters' won't look without
that piece of paper. Funny (not) thing is, those with the degree's are
not necessarily any better programmers. It just provides them with the
proof that... yeah, I went to some boring class and convinced some
teacher (that most likely didn't have a clue) that I could write Hello
World. Oh... and I paid for the training so I'm serious.

> If you don't think the winds are shifting, search Monster.com someday.
> More and more companies are looking for VB.Net programmers. I dare say
> more than VB6 programmers already.

I actually saw an ad for a DOS Quick Basic programmer the other day. and
another ad that asked for a .Net dev with 10 years of .Net experience.
Those devs are very rare since .Net hasn't been available for 10 years.

The HR's pick words from other ads they see. Most are clueless. Doesn't
help us that much but still.

--
Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB - http://www.vbsight.com
Please keep all discussions in the groups..

Rob Windsor [MVP]

2004-09-08, 8:55 pm

VB.NET is neither sloppy nor inferior to C#. If you decide to move to .NET,
VB is just as valid a choice as C#. The question is why would you want to
add a new syntax to the list of things you have to learn.

--
Rob Windsor [MVP-VB]
G6 Consulting
Toronto, Canada

"Patty O'Dors" <PattyODors@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E04BBCE4-73BE-430A-805B-9955D20E0987@microsoft.com...
not[color=darkred]
>
> Neither. C# is superior to both, it's got the power of .NET but without
the
> sheer "sloppiness" of VB.NET, however, VB6 is almost as good for most
things,
> and to be fair it doesn't really lack power. It's just when you've used
..NET[color=darkred]
> it seems a bit "traditional/quaint/pedestrian".
>
on[color=darkred]
in[color=darkred]
>
> Don't migrate to VB.NET, migrate to C# but still keep your hand in with
> VB6. After all, if you don't know C++ it's your only way to create managed
> code, should you see the need to.
>
hit[color=darkred]
>
> VB6 isn't supported and hasn't been for a long time, but that's no great
> shame. I don't know who in their right mind banks on someone at MS being
> arsed to pull their finger out and fix *their* problem.
>
this[color=darkred]

Schmidt

2004-09-08, 8:55 pm

"Tim Baur" <trbo20@disregard_yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Xns955EB1CC5EDE0trbo20hotmailcom@20
7.46.248.16...

> If you don't think the winds are shifting, search Monster.com someday.
> More and more companies are looking for VB.Net programmers.
> I dare say more than VB6 programmers already.

Results from Monster.Com:
searching for jobs after Platform, Language(s), Appserver(s)

With the following (.NET related) search-string:
..Net or C# or VB.Net or Asp.Net or IIS
Last 14 days: 1589
Last 3 days: 360

With the following (Java related) search-string:
J2EE or Java or JBoss or WebSphere or WebLogic or Tomcat
Last 14 days: 3683
Last 3 days: 1157

Shows clearly, where the trend goes ;-).

Olaf

Bob Butler

2004-09-08, 8:55 pm

"Rob Windsor [MVP]" <rwindsor@NO.MORE.SPAM.bigfoot.com> wrote in
message news:OVICUVflEHA.3356@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl
> VB.NET is neither sloppy nor inferior to C#. If you decide to move to
> .NET, VB is just as valid a choice as C#. The question is why would
> you want to add a new syntax to the list of things you have to learn.

ROTFLMAO

Stefan Berglund

2004-09-09, 3:55 am

On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 02:59:16 -0400, "Rob Windsor [MVP]"
<rwindsor@NO.MORE.SPAM.bigfoot.com> wrote:
in <uwXSSFXlEHA.3544@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>

>See this blog post from S. Somasegar, the guy who runs the developer
>division at Microsoft, for his view on future of VB.
>
>http://blogs.msdn.com/somasegar/arc.../01/204540.aspx

What a wonderfully sweet piece of marketing!

---
Stefan Berglund

Stefan Berglund

2004-09-09, 3:55 am

On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 02:33:02 -0700, Patty O'Dors
<PattyODors@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
in <E04BBCE4-73BE-430A-805B-9955D20E0987@microsoft.com>

>VB6 isn't supported and hasn't been for a long time, but that's no great
>shame. I don't know who in their right mind banks on someone at MS being
>arsed to pull their finger out and fix *their* problem.

Ahh, please keep the cogent comments coming...

---
Stefan Berglund

Rob Windsor [MVP]

2004-09-09, 3:55 am

"Bob Butler" <tiredofit@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:eB81cHglEHA.3816@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> "Rob Windsor [MVP]" <rwindsor@NO.MORE.SPAM.bigfoot.com> wrote in
> message news:OVICUVflEHA.3356@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl
>
> ROTFLMAO
>
>

Laugh away, just take your head out of the sand first, I wouldn't want you
to choke.

Don@home.com

2004-09-09, 3:55 am

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 02:10:17 -0400, "Rob Windsor [MVP]"
<rwindsor@NO.MORE.SPAM.bigfoot.com> wrote:

>
>"Bob Butler" <tiredofit@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:eB81cHglEHA.3816@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
>Laugh away, just take your head out of the sand first, I wouldn't want you
>to choke.
>

I have to agree with Bob's laughter...
The last sentence is a real giggle...
No matter what choice you make you'll have to learn *NEW* syntax...

Have a good day...

Don

Patty O'Dors

2004-09-09, 8:55 am

> VB.NET is neither sloppy nor inferior to C#.

I'm afraid it is.

> If you decide to move to .NET,
> VB is just as valid a choice as C#.

Just as *valid*, yes - but there are times when you want to be more than
just 'valid'.

>The question is why would you want to
> add a new syntax to the list of things you have to learn.

That's one way of putting it - another way is when learning a new language,
why not choose one that's got the best things from both of the languages you
currently use...?

Patty O'Dors

2004-09-09, 8:55 am

The first feedback by drebin is so true.

Rob Windsor [MVP]

2004-09-09, 8:55 am

"Patty O'Dors" <PattyODors@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:33EBCF32-647B-465D-ABEF-D26DB8064B12@microsoft.com...
>
> I'm afraid it is.
>
>
> Just as *valid*, yes - but there are times when you want to be more than
> just 'valid'.
>

OK, could you please site some examples of C# superiority or how C# is *more
valid* than VB?

>
> That's one way of putting it - another way is when learning a new
language,
> why not choose one that's got the best things from both of the languages
you
> currently use...?

I believe the original poster was currently only using VB 6.0

Rob Windsor [MVP]

2004-09-09, 8:55 am

<Don@home.com> wrote in message
news:riuvj0huv421av47fhd3tqcrq7g8suf852@
4ax.com...
> On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 02:10:17 -0400, "Rob Windsor [MVP]"
> <rwindsor@NO.MORE.SPAM.bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
you[color=darkred]
>
> I have to agree with Bob's laughter...
> The last sentence is a real giggle...
> No matter what choice you make you'll have to learn *NEW* syntax...
>
> Have a good day...
>
> Don

In VB.NET you have to learn *additional* syntax but virtually all the syntax
you currently use can still be used, you don't have to think about how to
write a select case statement or a for loop. Plus the stuff that went away
(e.g. LINE INPUT) needed to be cleaned up anyway.

Jim Corey

2004-09-09, 3:55 pm

IMO a problem with moving from VB6 to VB.NET is this temptation to use
old syntax, techniques, and routines.

This is the route I took; I think a better route is VB6 to C# because
then you avoid this, but for me all the learning examples for the kind
of things I was doing were in VB.NET.

If I were hiring someone for VB.NET I would look for someone with OOP
experience before VB6 experience.

Jim

*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!

Patty O'Dors

2004-09-09, 3:55 pm

* It uses Legacy VB6 functions like CStr rather than the object-orientated
methods like ToString()
* It can't do like operator overloadning, like "public static explicit
operator string" - which is my main gripe.
* There's reports out there suggesting that Vb.NET falls over when dealing
with large projects - see
http://blogs.msdn.com/csharpfaq/arc...3/11/87816.aspx
* unsigned data types - C# has them, VB.NET doesn't

I could go on, but I've got work to do.

Bob Butler

2004-09-09, 3:55 pm

"Rob Windsor [MVP]" <rwindsor@NO.MORE.SPAM.bigfoot.com> wrote in
message news:%23pEuVTmlEHA.2680@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl
<cut>
> In VB.NET you have to learn *additional* syntax but virtually all the
> syntax you currently use can still be used,

"Virtually" is key there; between the lost features (e.g. non-zero lower
bounds) and things that act differently (e.g. DateDiff, Long/Integer, Dim As
New) it's a line-by-line review in excrutiang detail or your code may not be
doing what you expect.

> you don't have to think
> about how to write a select case statement or a for loop.

I don't have to think about them now; they make perfect sense to me as they
are.

> Plus the stuff that went away (e.g. LINE INPUT) needed to be cleaned up
> anyway.

And *there* is the core problem with what was done. Wait until the next
round when something you rely on heavily gets "cleaned up" for you. LINE
INPUT was quite functional and the right way to clean it up would be to add
new, simpler syntax while deprecating the old syntax. If the language is
not going to allow for a smooth transition from one version to the next then
it is unsuitable for production use.

--
Reply to the group so all can participate
VB.Net... just say "No"

Bob Butler

2004-09-09, 3:55 pm

"Rob Windsor [MVP]" <rwindsor@NO.MORE.SPAM.bigfoot.com> wrote in
message news:%23DHCiOjlEHA.396@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl
<cut>
> Laugh away, just take your head out of the sand first, I wouldn't
> want you to choke.

It is not in the sand; the difference is that I did not drink the koolaid.
If you prefer, I saw that the emperor was naked. Take any analogy you like.

--
Reply to the group so all can participate
VB.Net... just say "No"

Bob Butler

2004-09-09, 3:55 pm

"Patty O'Dors" <Patty O'Dors@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:240F961F-0623-41B5-B7E8-986A0125CA77@microsoft.com
> * It uses Legacy VB6 functions like CStr rather than the object-
> orientated methods like ToString()

Surely that's the programmer's choice; you can restrict yourself to a more
austere VB.Net if you don't want to use the VB6-style functions

> * It can't do like operator overloadning, like "public static explicit
> operator string" - which is my main gripe.

Isn't that added in VB.Net 2005

> * There's reports out there suggesting that Vb.NET falls over when
> dealing with large projects - see
> http://blogs.msdn.com/csharpfaq/arc...3/11/87816.aspx
> * unsigned data types - C# has them, VB.NET doesn't

Isn't that added in VB.Net 2005

> I could go on, but I've got work to do.

That I find hard to believe and somehow terrifying at the same time

--
Reply to the group so all can participate
VB.Net... just say "No"

Larry Serflaten

2004-09-09, 3:55 pm

"Bob Butler" <tiredofit@nospam.com> wrote

> It is not in the sand; the difference is that I did not drink the koolaid.
> If you prefer, I saw that the emperor was naked. Take any analogy you like.

But the sky, really isn't falling, sir...

<gd&r>
LFS

Grahammer

2004-09-09, 3:55 pm

> I've always been a rouge programmer, preferring to teach myself rather
than
> taking the formal route. It can be difficult for a guy in my situation to
> convince a potential employer that I'm the man for the job when I lack the
> credentials on paper. My experience is everything to me. It's all I have
> to prove my worth. If the programming world moves on to VB.Net, then my
> experience will become worthless.

Same here... and to make matters worse, I *DID* try and go to school and get
some VB papers behind me. They decided to stop offering the certificate and
just gave it to me without completing all the required courses.

Talk about a major ripoff.

Grahammer

2004-09-09, 3:55 pm

"Rob Windsor [MVP]" <rwindsor@NO.MORE.SPAM.bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:OVICUVflEHA.3356@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> VB.NET is neither sloppy nor inferior to C#. If you decide to move to
..NET,
> VB is just as valid a choice as C#. The question is why would you want to
> add a new syntax to the list of things you have to learn.

Exactly.. ANYTHING DotNet is pretty much worthless, be it C# or VB.Net.

Grahammer

2004-09-09, 3:55 pm

> > * It can't do like operator overloadning, like "public static explicit
>
> Isn't that added in VB.Net 2005

....and where can I exchange my VB.Net 2003 for VB.Net 2005 for free? No,
then it doesn't have that capability.

Gerald Hernandez

2004-09-09, 3:55 pm

wow, I see these arguments a lot, but I just don't see how they hold any
weight.

In regards to the general "sloppiness" comment, well this can be true. Like
VB6, VB.Net does allow the user to do things they shouldn't. But this is a
programmer issue, not a language issue. If you are not using Option
Explicit, Option Base 0 in VB6, relying on automatic variables/variants,
etc., then IMHO you have a programmer issue. A "bad" programmer can be bad
in any language. I've seen my share of horrific C# code as well.

Yes it provides Legacy VB6 functions, but isn't that the point? So veteran
VB6 programmers won't be completely lost. But in many cases CStr just ends
up calling the ToString function anyway. It isn't like it only allows Legacy
functions or .ToString isn't available. After a short while, even hard core
VB users will end up using ToString. It's not like there isn't a half dozen
different ways of doing the same thing in any language. In the .Net
framework, sometimes there's a dozen ways to do something.

True, operator overloading is something VB.Net power users have been waiting
for. But they don't exist in VB6. So I don't see the problem. Besides,
overloaded operators are not CLS compliant due to the fact that MANY
languages don't support them, not just VB. Hence the CLS recommendation to
include the _op_xxxx convention which works just fine for VB.Net and other
languages. Besides, overloaded operators aren't supported well with COM
either. There is nothing stopping someone from adding an op_Addition()
method to a VB6 class, which is the same thing. But again, operator
overloading is being added to VB.Net in Whidbey.

I've read the reports of problems with VB.Net and large projects. I have
plenty of huge VB.Net projects and so far have had no more problems than C#.

Unsigned data types not supported. Well this one bugs me as well, but they
also are not CLS compliant. In fact C# was not supposed to have them either.
But we all know that they are necessary. Early C# didn't have them. Then it
did, and so did VB.Net. Then they took them out of C#. So they did in VB.Net
as well. Then they put them back in C#. But they didn't make it back into
VB.Net before release. They will be added again to VB.Net in Whidbey.

Does C# currently have some seldomly used advantages? Sure. But those
advantages are mostly just perceived by an already biased audience. And in
Whidby, the most commonly mentioned "advantages" will be available in VB.Net
as well.

It is the same old argument. C is "better" then VB. They are different, but
that doesn't relegate one to be "inferior" to the other. At least in that
argument you could go on and on about the differences. But with dotNet, you
have a short list, which is going to get much shorter with Whidbey.

Gerald

"Patty O'Dors" <Patty O'Dors@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:240F961F-0623-41B5-B7E8-986A0125CA77@microsoft.com...
> * It uses Legacy VB6 functions like CStr rather than the object-orientated
> methods like ToString()
> * It can't do like operator overloadning, like "public static explicit
> operator string" - which is my main gripe.
> * There's reports out there suggesting that Vb.NET falls over when dealing
> with large projects - see
> http://blogs.msdn.com/csharpfaq/arc...3/11/87816.aspx
> * unsigned data types - C# has them, VB.NET doesn't
>
> I could go on, but I've got work to do.
>

Ken Halter

2004-09-09, 3:55 pm

Gerald Hernandez wrote:
> wow, I see these arguments a lot, but I just don't see how they hold any
> weight.

You must be new around here <g> If you weren't, you'd know that "Patty"
is just another troll. One that changes his name every other w

to
make it harder for people to block his crap.

> Yes it provides Legacy VB6 functions, but isn't that the point? So veteran
> VB6 programmers won't be completely lost. But in many cases CStr just ends

imo, mixing VB6 with B# syntax is going to cause more problems in the
long run than it solves.

> True, operator overloading is something VB.Net power users have been waiting
> for. But they don't exist in VB6. So I don't see the problem. Besides,
> overloaded operators are not CLS compliant due to the fact that MANY

Whidbey's not CLS compliant <g>

"With Visual Studio 2005 it seems clear that Microsoft has
effectively abandoned the CLS in favor of a new standard:
specifically - the set of language constructs supported by
Visual Basic .NET and C#."
http://www.danappleman.com/index.php?p=11

> either. There is nothing stopping someone from adding an op_Addition()
> method to a VB6 class, which is the same thing. But again, operator
> overloading is being added to VB.Net in Whidbey.

Exactly. Who needs it.

> Unsigned data types not supported. Well this one bugs me as well, but they

No biggy... it's only a single bit. Twiddle that puppy and you'll have
your unsigned support.

> It is the same old argument. C is "better" then VB. They are different, but
> that doesn't relegate one to be "inferior" to the other. At least in that
> argument you could go on and on about the differences. But with dotNet, you
> have a short list, which is going to get much shorter with Whidbey.
>
> Gerald

--
Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB - http://www.vbsight.com
Please keep all discussions in the groups..

Saga

2004-09-09, 3:55 pm

I have been reading this thread and thinking about its topic.

There seems to be much discussion over VB6 vs VB.NET vs C#.NET
vs illusions of VB7 (in another thread). I don't have enough
..NET experience to say whether C# is better than VB (.NET). I
even wonder if this X vs Y thing is really an issue.

One thing I have noticed since I have been at this ng is that
there seems to be fewer posts. I remember a couple years back
(in 2001) that I took too long to look over all the posts within
a 16 hour period. Today I can do this in about 20-30 minutes.
Given that and the Monster info posted by Schmidt it seems that
there is a gradual move to .NET.

I perceive that large corps that need .NET's "abilities" are
moving forward. Others, for example where I work, have decided
to stick with VB6. Even so, I wouldn't be surprised if in a
few years (3 to 4), we would also start the move. Still others,
I believe, are making the move based on marketing info that
tells them that they absolutely and positively need .NET or they
will perish from the face of this Earth.

..NET, for better or for worse, is the next step. More and
more people will move to it. I don't think that technology
is driving this, rather, I think it is a trend:

1. According to MS, it is the next step, period. VB6... die
die die! So everyone: flock flock flock!
2. Demand. More and more employers are looking for .NET people,
even those with 10 years experience <g>
3. Money - .NET is where it is at. VB6 skills are so-so, .NET
skills will sell candidates to employers, so either you
learn and become proficient in .NET or change your career.
4. .NET addresses the new platform: Internet while past versions
made only a passing attempt, so if Internet is the future,
either you're on the .NET bandwagon or your business will
be buried by the compitetion.

Strangely enough, I get the feeling that the move to .NET is not
because it is a must-have item, or because its technology is
vastly superior to what was there before, but rather because
of the information, because of the trend and because the competition
is doing it, so it is more of a "I am going in that direction
because everyone is pushing me" type of scenario.

Although, I also think that VB6 will be around for a long time
to come. Millions (or dare I exagerate and say billions) of lines
of VB code aren't going to just disappear, so there will be a niche
need for VB6 programmers. Companies usually assign a life span
to their tools, so when the lifespan on their VB apps runs out,
they'll just rebuild from scratch, most likely with .NET. This
will also allow them to upgrade to .NET compliant hardware over
a period of time, rather than investing a large sum of money
to do it all at once. VB6 also serves the good of small outfits
that do not need to upgrade to .NET.

Thank you all for your time in reading this and for you insights
into this topic.

Regards and best wishes to all
Saga

"Mike" <Mike3532@msn.com> wrote in message
news:%23RVEOgUlEHA.1904@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> I am sure this question has been answered many times before but I
could not
> find the answer. VB6 or VB.NET?
>
> I have just reached a modest level of mastery of VB6 where I can
utilize
> COM. I created an EXE application with multiple DLL classes that I
call on
> as needed as well as reuse some of my code in different parts of the
> program.
>
> I am trying to decide whether to spend my time on learning new
"tricks" in
> VB6 or stop developing in VB6 and migrate to VB.Net.
>
> I have recently stumbled on msnews.microsoft.com. The first thing that
hit
> me was "VB6 is still alive and well". My question is:
>
> How long is VB6 going to be supported both by Microsoft and the market
> place?
>
> Any reply to this question or direction on where I can get answers to
this
> question would be appreciated.
>
> Mike
>
>

Gerald Hernandez

2004-09-09, 3:55 pm

"Ken Halter" <Ken_Halter@Use_Sparingly_Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%231t4I0olEHA.2020@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Gerald Hernandez wrote:
>
> You must be new around here <g> If you weren't, you'd know that "Patty"
> is just another troll. One that changes his name every other w

to
> make it harder for people to block his crap.

Ah... I've been off visiting the VB.Net world for awhile and have been out
of touch with the VB6 Breathren. Bad Troll, Bad!

>
veteran[color=darkred]
ends[color=darkred]
>
> imo, mixing VB6 with B# syntax is going to cause more problems in the
> long run than it solves.

Agreed. The faster converts learn the "new" way of doing things the better.

>
waiting[color=darkred]
>
> Whidbey's not CLS compliant <g>
>
> "With Visual Studio 2005 it seems clear that Microsoft has
> effectively abandoned the CLS in favor of a new standard:
> specifically - the set of language constructs supported by
> Visual Basic .NET and C#."
> http://www.danappleman.com/index.php?p=11

lol! True. Although they now clarify CLS compliance as to what you expose to
the outside world. Pretty much the same rules as any other sort of interop
spec.

>
>
> Exactly. Who needs it.
>
they[color=darkred]
>
> No biggy... it's only a single bit. Twiddle that puppy and you'll have
> your unsigned support.

Exactly on both counts. Same thing us old school VB'ers have been doing
forever, so it's nothing new to us. Maybe this makes VB gurus "better"
programmers? Cause we know more than one way to solve a problem? lol!

>
but[color=darkred]
that[color=darkred]
you[color=darkred]
>
> --
> Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB - http://www.vbsight.com
> Please keep all discussions in the groups..

Ralph

2004-09-09, 3:55 pm

"Saga" <antiSpam@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:e5pH0BplEHA.3712@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>
< snipped >
>
> I perceive that large corps that need .NET's "abilities" are
> moving forward. Others, for example where I work, have decided
> to stick with VB6. Even so, I wouldn't be surprised if in a
> few years (3 to 4), we would also start the move. Still others,
> I believe, are making the move based on marketing info that
> tells them that they absolutely and positively need .NET or they
> will perish from the face of this Earth.
>

Not sure if it is 'marketing info' or what - but in my experience, in most
shops, the 'push' to go .NET comes predominately from the developers
themselves. The younger the developer - the greater the push. (Which is
perhaps as it should be. <g> )

< snipped >
>
> Strangely enough, I get the feeling that the move to .NET is not
> because it is a must-have item, or because its technology is
> vastly superior to what was there before, but rather because
> of the information, because of the trend and because the competition
> is doing it, so it is more of a "I am going in that direction
> because everyone is pushing me" type of scenario.
>

I agree with everything you had to say including this paragraph with one
slight difference.

What fascinates me when you go into these shops that are making the
transition (with exception of those developing Web Services or other Web)
and ask them why? You get a laundry list of reasons that below the surface
of new 'speak' - don't really have that much to do with .NET technologies.

No one seems to be getting 'pushed' as much as they are all moving forward,
because it is there.

Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward....

-ralph

Gerald Hernandez

2004-09-09, 3:55 pm

I agree with all of this. Innovate or die.
Microsoft needs to make money. We developers need to make money. So we must
all continue along the evolutionary path.
Come on now. Was Windows 2000 really "better" than NT? I'm not convinced. I
had WAY fewer problems with NT. But I migrated, and will continue to do so
to remain marketable.

As far as dotNet being "better" than VB6. To date, I have not found anything
I could do in dotNet that I could not already to in VB6. So no, it is not a
must have.

dotNet is meant to be competition to Java. It is NOT an "upgrade" from
previous development paradigms. It is a new paradigm, well for Microsoft. As
long as you view it in that context, you will be less frustrated.

Microsoft has an excellent marketing team. Companies want to move to the
"new" technology. These are the same people that are convinced that "XML" is
somehow some sort of "new" technology or a magical "solution" to problems
they didn't know they had. Us developers realize it is just a blasted text
file.

If the VB6 IDE was updated to include some of the really

things in the
VB.Net IDE, I would have no desire to move on. But to remain marketable, I
must.

Gerald

"Saga" <antiSpam@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:e5pH0BplEHA.3712@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>
> I have been reading this thread and thinking about its topic.
>
> There seems to be much discussion over VB6 vs VB.NET vs C#.NET
> vs illusions of VB7 (in another thread). I don't have enough
> .NET experience to say whether C# is better than VB (.NET). I
> even wonder if this X vs Y thing is really an issue.
>
> One thing I have noticed since I have been at this ng is that
> there seems to be fewer posts. I remember a couple years back
> (in 2001) that I took too long to look over all the posts within
> a 16 hour period. Today I can do this in about 20-30 minutes.
> Given that and the Monster info posted by Schmidt it seems that
> there is a gradual move to .NET.
>
> I perceive that large corps that need .NET's "abilities" are
> moving forward. Others, for example where I work, have decided
> to stick with VB6. Even so, I wouldn't be surprised if in a
> few years (3 to 4), we would also start the move. Still others,
> I believe, are making the move based on marketing info that
> tells them that they absolutely and positively need .NET or they
> will perish from the face of this Earth.
>
> .NET, for better or for worse, is the next step. More and
> more people will move to it. I don't think that technology
> is driving this, rather, I think it is a trend:
>
> 1. According to MS, it is the next step, period. VB6... die
> die die! So everyone: flock flock flock!
> 2. Demand. More and more employers are looking for .NET people,
> even those with 10 years experience <g>
> 3. Money - .NET is where it is at. VB6 skills are so-so, .NET
> skills will sell candidates to employers, so either you
> learn and become proficient in .NET or change your career.
> 4. .NET addresses the new platform: Internet while past versions
> made only a passing attempt, so if Internet is the future,
> either you're on the .NET bandwagon or your business will
> be buried by the compitetion.
>
> Strangely enough, I get the feeling that the move to .NET is not
> because it is a must-have item, or because its technology is
> vastly superior to what was there before, but rather because
> of the information, because of the trend and because the competition
> is doing it, so it is more of a "I am going in that direction
> because everyone is pushing me" type of scenario.
>
> Although, I also think that VB6 will be around for a long time
> to come. Millions (or dare I exagerate and say billions) of lines
> of VB code aren't going to just disappear, so there will be a niche
> need for VB6 programmers. Companies usually assign a life span
> to their tools, so when the lifespan on their VB apps runs out,
> they'll just rebuild from scratch, most likely with .NET. This
> will also allow them to upgrade to .NET compliant hardware over
> a period of time, rather than investing a large sum of money
> to do it all at once. VB6 also serves the good of small outfits
> that do not need to upgrade to .NET.
>
> Thank you all for your time in reading this and for you insights
> into this topic.
>
> Regards and best wishes to all
> Saga
>
> "Mike" <Mike3532@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:%23RVEOgUlEHA.1904@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> could not
> utilize
> call on
> "tricks" in
> hit
> this
>
>

Ken Halter

2004-09-09, 3:55 pm

Gerald Hernandez wrote:
> If the VB6 IDE was updated to include some of the really

things in the
> VB.Net IDE, I would have no desire to move on. But to remain marketable, I
> must.

On the other hand, if the .Net IDE had some of the really

things
the VB5/6 IDEs had.....

I'm curious. What's so

about the .Net IDE?

BLOAT:

B-Big
L-Lumbering
O-Overloaded
A-Atmosphere with too many
T-Tabs

--
Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB - http://www.vbsight.com
Please keep all discussions in the groups..

Ken Halter

2004-09-09, 3:55 pm

Gerald Hernandez wrote:
> If the VB6 IDE was updated to include some of the really

things in the
> VB.Net IDE, I would have no desire to move on. But to remain marketable, I
> must.

btw... .Net has NO DECENT IMMEDIATE WINDOW (yelling to see if MS is
listening)

--
Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB - http://www.vbsight.com
Please keep all discussions in the groups..

Ralph

2004-09-09, 3:55 pm

"Gerald Hernandez" <Cablewizard@spam_remove@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:O$WGueplEHA.2968@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> I agree with all of this. Innovate or die.
> Microsoft needs to make money. We developers need to make money. So we
must
> all continue along the evolutionary path.
> Come on now. Was Windows 2000 really "better" than NT? I'm not convinced.
I
> had WAY fewer problems with NT. But I migrated, and will continue to do so
> to remain marketable.
>
> As far as dotNet being "better" than VB6. To date, I have not found
anything
> I could do in dotNet that I could not already to in VB6. So no, it is not
a
> must have.
>
> dotNet is meant to be competition to Java. It is NOT an "upgrade" from
> previous development paradigms. It is a new paradigm, well for Microsoft.
As
> long as you view it in that context, you will be less frustrated.
>
> Microsoft has an excellent marketing team. Companies want to move to the
> "new" technology. These are the same people that are convinced that "XML"
is
> somehow some sort of "new" technology or a magical "solution" to problems
> they didn't know they had. Us developers realize it is just a blasted text
> file.
>
> If the VB6 IDE was updated to include some of the really

things in
the
> VB.Net IDE, I would have no desire to move on. But to remain marketable, I
> must.
>
> Gerald
>

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Games play better on Windows 2000 than they do on NT.

And if you can't appreciate the ability of a config.xml file (1k) along with
its associated .css file (2k) to display better in a browser than a 320-byte
config.ini file (or why you would even want to)...

Then there is just no help for you at all.

-ralph

Ralph

2004-09-09, 3:55 pm

"Ken Halter" <Ken_Halter@Use_Sparingly_Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eJr47nplEHA.3340@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Gerald Hernandez wrote:
the[color=darkred]
I[color=darkred]
>
> btw... .Net has NO DECENT IMMEDIATE WINDOW (yelling to see if MS is
> listening)
>
> --
> Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB - http://www.vbsight.com
> Please keep all discussions in the groups..

Ghod another one....

Ken,

Don't you realize that C/C++ programmers have no need for an intermediate
window? Thats what the Watch Windows, testbed routines, and 3rd party debug
viewers are for. So why would they want to include it with VB.NET?

-ralph

Saga

2004-09-09, 3:55 pm

"Ralph" <msnews.20.nt_consulting32@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:%23SgvIdplEHA.3608@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
> "Saga" <antiSpam@somewhere.com> wrote in message
> news:e5pH0BplEHA.3712@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> < snipped >

<snipped>
[color=darkred]
>
> Not sure if it is 'marketing info' or what - but in my experience, in
most
> shops, the 'push' to go .NET comes predominately from the developers
> themselves. The younger the developer - the greater the push. (Which
is
> perhaps as it should be. <g> )
>
< snipped >

Of course... .NET is "keeewwwl". The young generation wants pic/video/
internet cel phones, WiFi everywhere, TIVO! and .NET. The schools are
teaching it.. the .NET revolution is well under way... why oh why would
an
"in crowd person" want to know VB6? <g>

Once again, the product is technology driven (or in this case, the
developers).

I am not anti.NET, but if I am going to push for this technology, I want
it to
be because my client(s) AND myself will benefit, not just to look "kewl"
using
a new ooo and aaahh technology.

Saga

Gerald Hernandez

2004-09-09, 3:55 pm

Personally, I like the following:
Outlining - It just makes it easier when dealing with a lot of code.
Intellisense - While it is not without problems, I do like the new
intellisense.

True, I can live without those, but are my favorites. Laziness? Perhaps. But
it does seem to improve productivity.
The default setup does drive me nuts. Fortunately you can modify a lot of
things.
The BLOAT thing is true, and in some areas it was a step backward.
IMHO it was 2 steps forward and 1 step backward for a net gain.

Gerald

"Ken Halter" <Ken_Halter@Use_Sparingly_Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:unyRWnplEHA.3340@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Gerald Hernandez wrote:
the[color=darkred]
I[color=darkred]
>
> On the other hand, if the .Net IDE had some of the really

things
> the VB5/6 IDEs had.....
>
> I'm curious. What's so

about the .Net IDE?
>
> BLOAT:
>
> B-Big
> L-Lumbering
> O-Overloaded
> A-Atmosphere with too many
> T-Tabs
>
> --
> Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB - http://www.vbsight.com
> Please keep all discussions in the groups..

Gerald Hernandez

2004-09-09, 3:55 pm

"Ralph" <msnews.20.nt_consulting32@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:OsoSQoplEHA.2504@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
> "Gerald Hernandez" <Cablewizard@spam_remove@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:O$WGueplEHA.2968@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> must
convinced.[color=darkred]
> I
so[color=darkred]
> anything
not[color=darkred]
> a
Microsoft.[color=darkred]
> As
"XML"[color=darkred]
> is
problems[color=darkred]
text[color=darkred]
> the
I[color=darkred]
>
> Tsk, tsk, tsk.
>
> Games play better on Windows 2000 than they do on NT.

Hmm... Nowadays they do. Games evolve to push things to the limits. Many
games that worked awesome on NT didn't work at all on Win2K. Of course, many
games didn't work on NT at all. But this was a DOS vs Win95/98 issue all in
itself.
Today, I have a number of games that no longer work well on Win2K. Need a
hause PC with XP Pro. Technology has added more features and horse power.
Doesn't necessarily mean the core OS has gotten "better". It has gotten
bigger, slower, and has more bugs than ever.

>
> And if you can't appreciate the ability of a config.xml file (1k) along
with
> its associated .css file (2k) to display better in a browser than a
320-byte
> config.ini file (or why you would even want to)...

Display? Prettier = Better? What about the many MB of back end stuff like
parsers and wrappers and all that jaz that make those things work? XML is
just a parsed text file. No different than writing MB's of code to parse
..ini files.

>
> Then there is just no help for you at all.

Maybe not. ;-)

But don't get me wrong. All the new hardware, and software that pushes it to
the limit, is wonderful. Especially in the game arena. But what good is it
if the OS crashes every hour?

>
> -ralph
>
>
>
>
>
>

Gerald Hernandez

2004-09-09, 3:55 pm

"Ralph" <msnews.20.nt_consulting32@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:eLaqUtplEHA.2764@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>
> "Ken Halter" <Ken_Halter@Use_Sparingly_Hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eJr47nplEHA.3340@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
in[color=darkred]
> the
marketable,[color=darkred]
> I
>
> Ghod another one....
>
> Ken,
>
> Don't you realize that C/C++ programmers have no need for an intermediate
> window? Thats what the Watch Windows, testbed routines, and 3rd party
debug
> viewers are for. So why would they want to include it with VB.NET?
>
> -ralph
>

Forgive us. Sometimes us lowly VB programmers forget that we are not
infallable like the god-like C++ programmers. ;-)
They never make typos. Always know that their code will do exactly what they
want before they write it. They know all the obscure punctuation we VB'ers
haven't a clue about. Heck, they even know how to use upper and lower case.
In fact, they don't even need an IDE! Imagine how much more productive I
could be if I learned to write all my code in Notepad!

Ok, sarcasm aside. You don't know what you're missing till it is gone. A
decent immediate window is a remarkable tool!

Gerald

Ken Halter

2004-09-09, 3:55 pm

Gerald Hernandez wrote:
> Personally, I like the following:
> Outlining - It just makes it easier when dealing with a lot of code.

I HATE that. I have VB set to show a single procedure at a time. If I
need more, I click the little button on the lower left of the code
window... that shows the entire module. Most of the time, I'm working on
a single procedure at a time.... which is the way I want to look at the
code while working on it.... plus, there's always the option of a split
code window. No need to edit code in a treeview (outline).

> Intellisense - While it is not without problems, I do like the new
> intellisense.

The new intellisense needs its own intellisense. That's the side effect
of all of these overbloated.... I mean overloaded methods.

> True, I can live without those, but are my favorites. Laziness? Perhaps. But
> it does seem to improve productivity.
> The default setup does drive me nuts. Fortunately you can modify a lot of
> things.
> The BLOAT thing is true, and in some areas it was a step backward.
> IMHO it was 2 steps forward and 1 step backward for a net gain.

True. If you want to add functionality to VSNet 2003 without adding a
bunch of extra junk you'll never use, try CodeSmart.

For example, compare the VS.Net project explorer ("solution" explorer?)
with this.....
http://www.axtools.com/products/cs2...eenshots.htm#T2

....no comparison... Not even in Whidbey (from what I've seen). I wish
..Net would allow me to show a single procedure at a time because, since
I have CodeSmart, I surely don't need those stinking outlines (treeview
code window... ick). Guess I'll have to wait for a 3rd party IDE to get
something like that.

Actually, CodeSmart has stuff I'll never ever use but it has so much
stuff I do use that it's worth it. The extra stuff can be hidden/disabled.

To each his own I suppose. Too bad the options I use most were ripped
out by the roots.

--
Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB - http://www.vbsight.com
Please keep all discussions in the groups..

Ken Halter

2004-09-09, 3:55 pm

Ralph wrote:
> Ghod another one....
>
> Ken,
>
> Don't you realize that C/C++ programmers have no need for an intermediate
> window? Thats what the Watch Windows, testbed routines, and 3rd party debug
> viewers are for. So why would they want to include it with VB.NET?

well... for one thing, I'm not a C/C++ programmer. The BASIC programming
environment has had access to a real/functional immediate window since
the early 1980's... why take that away? So I can say that I'm as good as
any C/C++ programmer? Nah. So I can say "but it's .Net and it's
exciting!"? Nah. I'll pass on both.

....and I see that, what you're saying is, if they had an immediate
window, there'd be no need for the Watch Windows, testbed routines, and
3rd party debug viewers. I rest my case ;-)

btw.. it's all of those C/C++ programmers that are the root cause for
the need to plug all of these security holes we have in our OS.. maybe
if they'd had an immediate window, those holes would've been plugged in
the first place eh? <g>

--
Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB - http://www.vbsight.com
Please keep all discussions in the groups..

Galen Somerville

2004-09-09, 8:55 pm

Gerald Hernandez

2004-09-09, 8:55 pm

Thanks for the heads up. I think I might give this CodeSmart thing a try.

Yes, single procedure view was nice.
Sadly, it looks like it isn't coming back :(

Gerald

"Ken Halter" <Ken_Halter@Use_Sparingly_Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uCTCPJqlEHA.3544@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Gerald Hernandez wrote:
>
> I HATE that. I have VB set to show a single procedure at a time. If I
> need more, I click the little button on the lower left of the code
> window... that shows the entire module. Most of the time, I'm working on
> a single procedure at a time.... which is the way I want to look at the
> code while working on it.... plus, there's always the option of a split
> code window. No need to edit code in a treeview (outline).
>
>
> The new intellisense needs its own intellisense. That's the side effect
> of all of these overbloated.... I mean overloaded methods.
>
But[color=darkred]
of[color=darkred]
>
> True. If you want to add functionality to VSNet 2003 without adding a
> bunch of extra junk you'll never use, try CodeSmart.
>
> For example, compare the VS.Net project explorer ("solution" explorer?)
> with this.....
> http://www.axtools.com/products/cs2...eenshots.htm#T2
>
> ...no comparison... Not even in Whidbey (from what I've seen). I wish
> .Net would allow me to show a single procedure at a time because, since
> I have CodeSmart, I surely don't need those stinking outlines (treeview
> code window... ick). Guess I'll have to wait for a 3rd party IDE to get
> something like that.
>
> Actually, CodeSmart has stuff I'll never ever use but it has so much
> stuff I do use that it's worth it. The extra stuff can be hidden/disabled.
>
> To each his own I suppose. Too bad the options I use most were ripped
> out by the roots.
>
> --
> Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB - http://www.vbsight.com
> Please keep all discussions in the groups..

Ken Halter

2004-09-09, 8:55 pm

Galen Somerville wrote:
> Oh for the days of Assembly Language where the immediate window was CodeView
> on a second monitor.
>
> Galen

Here's the last asm/debugger package I used...

A86/A386 assembler and D86/D386 debugger
http://eji.com/a86/

The debugger was/is great! It shows the contents of all math chip
registers (remember math chips?). That's the *only* way I would've been
able to write a few of my CNC related utilities.

--
Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB - http://www.vbsight.com
Please keep all discussions in the groups..

Galen Somerville

2004-09-09, 8:55 pm

"Ken Halter" <Ken_Halter@Use_Sparingly_Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:O4%23AwzqlEHA.2500@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Galen Somerville wrote:
CodeView[color=darkred]
>
> Here's the last asm/debugger package I used...
>
> A86/A386 assembler and D86/D386 debugger
> http://eji.com/a86/
>
> The debugger was/is great! It shows the contents of all math chip
> registers (remember math chips?). That's the *only* way I would've been
> able to write a few of my CNC related utilities.
>
> --
> Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB - http://www.vbsight.com
> Please keep all discussions in the groups..

I think I was smarter when I was younger. Occasionally I have to dig out an
old DOS program and rewrite it in VB6. It amazes me to see all the code to
write to the Graphics chip to make it appear to be a Windows program. Oh
yes, and the math chip.

Galen

Schmidt

2004-09-09, 8:55 pm

"Saga" <antiSpam@somewhere.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:e5pH0BplEHA.3712@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...

> One thing I have noticed since I have been at this ng is that
> there seems to be fewer posts. I remember a couple years back
> (in 2001) that I took too long to look over all the posts within
> a 16 hour period. Today I can do this in about 20-30 minutes.
> Given that and the Monster info posted by Schmidt it seems that
> there is a gradual move to .NET.

No, no stop... meant the opposite ;-)
Same statistics in more detail:
To read a trend, one can use a longer interval and a shorter and compare the
"amount per unit" for each interval.

update from www.monster.com with current data:

VB-Classic-related Searchstring:
VB or VBA or VB6 or VB5 or ASP or WebClasses
jobs in last 14 days/ 3 days: 3374 / 1182

.NET-related Searchstring:
..Net or C# or VB.Net or Asp.Net or IIS
jobs in last 14 days/ 3 days: 1549 / 480

Java-related search-string:
J2EE or Java or JBoss or WebSphere or WebLogic or Tomcat
jobs in last 14 days/ 3 days: 3613 / 1412

How we have to read this?
Let's compare the "per-unit-values" (as mentioned above):
VB avg. Jobs-per-day 14 days / 3 days: 241.00 / 384.00
..NET avg. Jobs-per-day 14 days / 3 days: 110.64 / 160.00
JAVA avg. Jobs-per-day 14 days / 3 days: 258.07 / 470.66
Gives a positive trend for all three candidates.
To eleminate unwanted effects (what ever has caused them), we "normalize" to
the putative worst "performer" -> VB-Classic.
It currently has a quotient of 384/241=1.59 -> normalized with itself gives
1
Now lets look at .NET: 160/110.64=1.45 -> normalized with VB gives 0.91
Same thing for Java: 470.66/258.07=1.82 -> normalized with VB gives 1.15

So we can say, that the .NET-projection regarding job-performance is worse
than VB-Classics.
Clear winner is Java.

So the questions comes up again: when old VBers move on, where they move on.

Olaf

Ken Halter

2004-09-09, 8:55 pm

Schmidt wrote:
>
> So the questions comes up again: when old VBers move on, where they move on.

Good question too... Since B#'s so much different than VB (yeah... I
know I can still show a msgbox in B#), learning an entirely new language
wouldn't take much more time than it takes to get used to B#.

Opens up all kinds of opportunities if you want to look at it that way.

Funny thing that I noticed recently while poking around the B# groups.
People are asking almost the exact same questions they did here several
years ago. Things like "can I disable all controls in a frame" or "how
do I select all text when the box gets focus"... same old questions but
a new language.

It's too bad that most code snips we posted here won't help them there.
There's a *vast* amount of excellent VB code out there that's worthless
in B#... time to start over I s'pose.

--
Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB - http://www.vbsight.com
Please keep all discussions in the groups..

Schmidt

2004-09-09, 8:55 pm

"Ken Halter" <Ken_Halter@Use_Sparingly_Hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:uFkQVfrlEHA.2892@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

> Funny thing that I noticed recently while poking around the B# groups.
> People are asking almost the exact same questions they did here several
> years ago. Things like "can I disable all controls in a frame" or "how
> do I select all text when the box gets focus"... same old questions but
> a new language.

That's another reason, why the Classic groups don't have the huge traffic
anymore they had some years ago.
For 99% of all possible VB-Classic-questions there are simply enough
tutorials, codesnippets, websites, google-hits out there.
No open questions, now where most classic-developers even understand COM
more and more <g>.

Olaf

Ralph

2004-09-10, 3:55 pm

"Ken Halter" <Ken_Halter@Use_Sparingly_Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OZDHUNqlEHA.948@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Ralph wrote:
intermediate[color=darkred]
debug[color=darkred]
>
> well... for one thing, I'm not a C/C++ programmer. The BASIC programming
> environment has had access to a real/functional immediate window since
> the early 1980's... why take that away? So I can say that I'm as good as
> any C/C++ programmer? Nah. So I can say "but it's .Net and it's
> exciting!"? Nah. I'll pass on both.
>
> ...and I see that, what you're saying is, if they had an immediate
> window, there'd be no need for the Watch Windows, testbed routines, and
> 3rd party debug viewers. I rest my case ;-)
>
> btw.. it's all of those C/C++ programmers that are the root cause for
> the need to plug all of these security holes we have in our OS.. maybe
> if they'd had an immediate window, those holes would've been plugged in
> the first place eh? <g>
>
> --
> Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB - http://www.vbsight.com
> Please keep all discussions in the groups..

The security issue is an interesting one to bring up and surprisingly one
that I didn't really think of as a 'feature' of VB6.

A couple of years ago I was invited to assist an organization with their
"Security Push". It was predominately an Open Source C++ shop.

At their big planning meeting they unveiled their 18-month plan, including a
3-month first phase, 6-month second phase, etc. When it came time to address
the division that had a large core of VB programs - the leaders (setting up
their bosses for disappointing news) lamented that it was "Microsoft", thus
bound to be terribly buggy, and suggested that perhaps they could rewrite
some of the apps in Java.

It was then my turn. I pointed out several server file access issues
(estimated two w

s to cleanup and test, as they were using TS) and two
applications that had unguarded passwords (fixed by COB tomorrow), and
announced that after these issues were addressed the division would be 100%
compliant with Corporate's directives. (The MSCEs had already been doing a
damn good job.)

As I wasn't believed, I almost got run off. Had to quickly create 3 more
months of 'research' items, in order to fit into their 'plan'. <g>

At the time I took it as an opportunity to debunk a few Open Source and Java
myths and expose the general sloppiness of all programmers when it comes to
security. But you are correct in pointing out that VB inherently avoids a
lot of 'security' code issues.

-ralph

Ken Halter

2004-09-10, 3:55 pm

Ralph wrote:
>
> The security issue is an interesting one to bring up and surprisingly one
> that I didn't really think of as a 'feature' of VB6.

To be honest, I never gave it a second thought either.... until I read
the "And the bad code is?" section of...

RAD is not productivity
http://www.danappleman.com/index.php?p=4

> A couple of years ago I was invited to assist an organization with their
> "Security Push". It was predominately an Open Source C++ shop.
>
> At their big planning meeting they unveiled their 18-month plan, including a
> 3-month first phase, 6-month second phase, etc. When it came time to address
> the division that had a large core of VB programs - the leaders (setting up
> their bosses for disappointing news) lamented that it was "Microsoft", thus
> bound to be terribly buggy, and suggested that perhaps they could rewrite
> some of the apps in Java.

You did thump each on of them in the forehead... right?

> It was then my turn. I pointed out several server file access issues
> (estimated two w

s to cleanup and test, as they were using TS) and two
> applications that had unguarded passwords (fixed by COB tomorrow), and
> announced that after these issues were addressed the division would be 100%
> compliant with Corporate's directives. (The MSCEs had already been doing a
> damn good job.)

Good teams make life easy. Bad teams make it 'hell on earth' for
everyone involved.

> As I wasn't believed, I almost got run off. Had to quickly create 3 more
> months of 'research' items, in order to fit into their 'plan'. <g>
>
> At the time I took it as an opportunity to debunk a few Open Source and Java
> myths and expose the general sloppiness of all programmers when it comes to
> security. But you are correct in pointing out that VB inherently avoids a
> lot of 'security' code issues.
>
> -ralph

--
Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB - http://www.vbsight.com
Please keep all discussions in the groups..

Bob O`Bob

2004-09-11, 8:55 pm

Tim Baur wrote:

> If you don't think the winds are shifting, search Monster.com someday.
> More and more companies are looking for VB.Net programmers. I dare say
> more than VB6 programmers already.

Oh, I completely agree.

When there was only classic VB,
and where there used to be opportunties for 100 VB developers,
there are now opportunities for maybe 15 in VB6 and 25 in VB.net

The winds certainly are shifting. *away* from VB.all

Bob

Bob O`Bob

2004-09-11, 8:55 pm

Rob Windsor [MVP] wrote:
> <Don@home.com> wrote

[color=darkred]
> In VB.NET you have to learn *additional* syntax but virtually all the syntax
> you currently use can still be used, you don't have to think about how to
> write a select case statement or a for loop. Plus the stuff that went away
> (e.g. LINE INPUT) needed to be cleaned up anyway.

Problem is ... in some of those "virtually all" places, the same syntax
may not do the same thing.

So you still have to re-learn the new interpretation, which is - at best - no different
from having to learn a new syntax, and in some cases perhaps even more difficult.
Enough "gotchas" in my opinion to cancel out the claimed advantages.

Bob [MVP]

Ralph

2004-09-11, 8:55 pm

"Bob O`Bob" <filterbob@yahoogroups.com> wrote in message
news:41435E90.3613@yahoogroups.com...
> Tim Baur wrote:
>
>
>
> Oh, I completely agree.
>
> When there was only classic VB,
> and where there used to be opportunties for 100 VB developers,
> there are now opportunities for maybe 15 in VB6 and 25 in VB.net
>
> The winds certainly are shifting. *away* from VB.all
>
>
>
> Bob

As a adjunct to Bob's observation, it is useful to note that even when 100
VB developers were being sought out - they were offered less money than
MFC/ATL/C++ programmers. A practice that appears to be continuing between
VB.NET and C#.

It was a debatable valuation back then and it is even more debatable now.
However, if given the opportunity, why would anyone want to devalue
themselves 15-25% in an already shrinking market?

Them's that do silly braces always seem to make more money than them who use
english words. <g>

-ralph

Ken Halter

2004-09-13, 3:55 pm

Rob Windsor [MVP] wrote:
> In VB.NET you have to learn *additional* syntax but virtually all the syntax
> you currently use can still be used, you don't have to think about how to
> write a select case statement or a for loop. Plus the stuff that went away
> (e.g. LINE INPUT) needed to be cleaned up anyway.

Not much experience in VB6? I guess, if you stick to "plain vanilla" VB,
your statement might be true. If you use APIs, subclassing, weak
reference, etc, etc, etc, prepare for a complete re-write.

Plus, this is what you get when you "convert" a VB6 program to .Net (the
exact same code takes 1m:50s in VB Classic takes 2m:40s in .Net)

Subject: VB versus VB.NET timings!!
[url]http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&frame=right&th=a72d07e5b635b8a2&s

m=%23ylbYBPmEHA.3632%40TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl#link1[/url]

And, too bad the replacement for 'Line Input' is an FSO look-a-like.
Also too bad that the "upgrade wizard" doesn't have the slightest clue
what to do with file i/o. This is syntax that has been in place since
the early 1980's... heck... *I* could write a better upgrade wizard
(maybe a project in the future)

--
Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB - http://www.vbsight.com
Please keep all discussions in the groups..

Sponsored Links