Home > Archive > Visual Basic > July 2006 > Playing with the Dark Side
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Playing with the Dark Side
|
|
| Alastair MacFarlane 2006-06-26, 6:56 pm |
| Dear All,
I have been looking at possibly, and I mean ONLY possibly venturing into
VB.NET. I like the look of VB 2005. I am seriously deranged or what do the
rest of the group really think? Are we all just frightened of tackling
something new (something that might only have a passing resemblance to the
VB we all love!)?
I would appreciate the thoughts of the group. Does feature-rich always mean
better?
Thanks again. And sorry if I am straying from the purpose of this group.
Alastair MacFarlane
| |
|
| Inline
Saga
"Alastair MacFarlane" <anonymous@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:OjRLpTVmGHA.2112@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Dear All,
>
> I have been looking at possibly, and I mean ONLY possibly venturing into VB.NET. I like the look
> of VB 2005. I am seriously deranged or what do the rest of the group really think? Are we all just
> frightened of tackling something new (something that might only have a passing resemblance to the
> VB we all love!)?
>
It is just another language, another option.. I personally would get into it, and
into Delphi and Java too. Never hurts to enhance the arsenal. ;-)
> I would appreciate the thoughts of the group. Does feature-rich always mean better?
>
Not necessarily, it only means different. Choose the best weapon for the job.
> Thanks again. And sorry if I am straying from the purpose of this group.
>
> Alastair MacFarlane
>
| |
| Bob Butler 2006-06-26, 6:56 pm |
| "Alastair MacFarlane" <anonymous@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:OjRLpTVmGHA.2112@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl
> Dear All,
>
> I have been looking at possibly, and I mean ONLY possibly venturing
> into VB.NET. I like the look of VB 2005. I am seriously deranged or
> what do the rest of the group really think?
MS abandoned VB when they released VB.Net; if you don't think they'll do it
again when it suits them you are dreaming. *IF* they really start using C#
seriously then that may have a longer life but I've yet to see a reason to
put any trust in the thing they are calling VB now.
> Are we all just
> frightened of tackling something new (something that might only have
> a passing resemblance to the VB we all love!)?
Fear of new things is not even remotely part of the issue. Learning new
languages and tools is fun. Wasting time on something with no foreseeable
future is something else. By all means get into some other toolset but I'd
fight long and hard to not have to use "VB" for anything now.
> I would appreciate the thoughts of the group. Does feature-rich
> always mean better?
No, it often means bloated, rickety and unstable.
> Thanks again. And sorry if I am straying from the purpose of this
> group.
You should probably also ask in a dotnet group to get views from those that
have drunk the koolaid so you can
make up your own mind but I'd look long and hard at what MS did to the VB
community and ask if you have any real reason to believe they won't do it
again.
--
Reply to the group so all can participate
VB.Net: "Fool me once..."
| |
| Robert Comer 2006-06-26, 6:56 pm |
| > I have been looking at possibly, and I mean ONLY possibly venturing into
> VB.NET. I like the look of VB 2005. I am seriously deranged or what do the
> rest of the group really think? Are we all just frightened of tackling
> something new (something that might only have a passing resemblance to the
> VB we all love!)?
I would consider VB 2005 for a large project, but it's not Visual Basic and
it's not as RAD as VB6. Small stuff and supporting my existing code base,
it's VB6 all the way for me.
For you, I'd say go for it, learning something new is always good, and if
you like it, then there's no problem at all!
> I would appreciate the thoughts of the group. Does feature-rich always
> mean better?
Feature rich has little to do with being better or not, but that depends on
what one is looking for...
--
Bob Comer
"Alastair MacFarlane" <anonymous@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:OjRLpTVmGHA.2112@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Dear All,
>
> I have been looking at possibly, and I mean ONLY possibly venturing into
> VB.NET. I like the look of VB 2005. I am seriously deranged or what do the
> rest of the group really think? Are we all just frightened of tackling
> something new (something that might only have a passing resemblance to the
> VB we all love!)?
>
> I would appreciate the thoughts of the group. Does feature-rich always
> mean better?
>
> Thanks again. And sorry if I am straying from the purpose of this group.
>
> Alastair MacFarlane
>
| |
| Dan Barclay 2006-06-26, 6:56 pm |
|
"Alastair MacFarlane" <anonymous@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:OjRLpTVmGHA.2112@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Dear All,
>
> I have been looking at possibly, and I mean ONLY possibly venturing into
> VB.NET. I like the look of VB 2005. I am seriously deranged or what do the
> rest of the group really think?
Nobody has said VB.Net isn't a good language, it's just that you need to
plan on rewriting whatever you write there. What's more, you can only
deploy where they decide to take .Net. There is *no* option for native
binaries.
> Are we all just frightened of tackling something new (something that might
> only have a passing resemblance to the VB we all love!)?
Heck no, I'm not frightened of tackling something new. I'm well into Delphi
FWIW, and that's *definitely* new to me. I can make native Win32, .Net and
(on the roadmap) native Win64 apps with it.
Again, it's not just how well vFred resembles VB, it's a question of whether
you trust that design team with your code assets. I definitely don't.
> I would appreciate the thoughts of the group. Does feature-rich always
> mean better?
Only if you need the features. You also need to look at your other options
for those features. I'd consider Delphi if I were you (well, I did anyway).
Failing that, and assuming you can tolerate the ".Net only" situation, you
should seriously consider C# instead of VB.Net.
Dan
| |
|
|
"Alastair MacFarlane" <anonymous@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:OjRLpTVmGHA.2112@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Dear All,
>
> I have been looking at possibly, and I mean ONLY possibly venturing into
> VB.NET. I like the look of VB 2005. I am seriously deranged or what do the
> rest of the group really think? Are we all just frightened of tackling
> something new (something that might only have a passing resemblance to the
> VB we all love!)?
>
> I would appreciate the thoughts of the group. Does feature-rich always
> mean better?
I guess you're asking for opinions. That's fine, but keep in mind that
they're only that....opinions. Ultimately, the only one that matters is
yours. IMO, MS is finally getting a few things right in VB2005. I don't
*mind* using it (whereas I detested any previous VB.NET version). But, I
still look at this way....I can write nearly the identical app with the
identical features in 1/4 of the time with VB6 than it'd take me in VB2005.
This is just because I'm much more familiar with VB6 and am still learning
VB2005.
As the others said, it's in your best interest to learn new languages.
That's really what you need to think of VB2005 as....a new language to
learn. It's not a matter of fear. It's a matter of using the right tool (in
this case a programming language) for the job that needs to be done. If you
can do that job using either VB6 or VB2005, then you just need to decide
which one you'd rather use.
--
Mike
Microsoft MVP Visual Basic
| |
| Galen Somerville 2006-06-26, 6:56 pm |
|
"MikeD" <nobody@nowhere.edu> wrote in message
news:ulEqW$XmGHA.4536@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
> "Alastair MacFarlane" <anonymous@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:OjRLpTVmGHA.2112@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
the[color=darkred]
the[color=darkred]
>
>
> I guess you're asking for opinions. That's fine, but keep in mind that
> they're only that....opinions. Ultimately, the only one that matters is
> yours. IMO, MS is finally getting a few things right in VB2005. I don't
> *mind* using it (whereas I detested any previous VB.NET version). But, I
> still look at this way....I can write nearly the identical app with the
> identical features in 1/4 of the time with VB6 than it'd take me in
VB2005.
> This is just because I'm much more familiar with VB6 and am still learning
> VB2005.
>
> As the others said, it's in your best interest to learn new languages.
> That's really what you need to think of VB2005 as....a new language to
> learn. It's not a matter of fear. It's a matter of using the right tool
(in
> this case a programming language) for the job that needs to be done. If
you
> can do that job using either VB6 or VB2005, then you just need to decide
> which one you'd rather use.
>
> --
> Mike
> Microsoft MVP Visual Basic
>
and while you are looking through the rich-features, try to find one that
draws a simple Horiz/Vert line.
Galen
| |
| Michael C 2006-06-26, 9:56 pm |
| "Galen Somerville" <galen@surewest.net> wrote in message
news:uzixCNYmGHA.3980@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> and while you are looking through the rich-features, try to find one that
> draws a simple Horiz/Vert line.
Doesn't Graphics.DrawLine do that?
Michael
| |
| Michael C 2006-06-26, 9:56 pm |
| "Robert Comer" <bobcomer-removeme-@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:OpliKAWmGHA.2372@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> I would consider VB 2005 for a large project, but it's not Visual Basic
> and it's not as RAD as VB6.
What a load of total and utter bull.
Michael
| |
| Michael C 2006-06-26, 9:56 pm |
| "Alastair MacFarlane" <anonymous@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:OjRLpTVmGHA.2112@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Dear All,
>
> I have been looking at possibly, and I mean ONLY possibly venturing into
> VB.NET. I like the look of VB 2005. I am seriously deranged or what do the
> rest of the group really think? Are we all just frightened of tackling
> something new (something that might only have a passing resemblance to the
> VB we all love!)?
>
> I would appreciate the thoughts of the group. Does feature-rich always
> mean better?
When considering the replies here you should take into account that most of
the inhabitants of this group are die hard vb6 fanatics and the replies will
be biased as such. Unless you're asking this question in other groups also
there's not much point in asking it at all.
Michael
| |
|
|
"Alastair MacFarlane" <anonymous@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:OjRLpTVmGHA.2112@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Dear All,
>
> I have been looking at possibly, and I mean ONLY possibly venturing into
> VB.NET. I like the look of VB 2005. I am seriously deranged or what do the
> rest of the group really think? Are we all just frightened of tackling
> something new (something that might only have a passing resemblance to the
> VB we all love!)?
>
> I would appreciate the thoughts of the group. Does feature-rich always
mean
> better?
>
> Thanks again. And sorry if I am straying from the purpose of this group.
>
> Alastair MacFarlane
>
Opinions are like <insert body part here>, everyone has one. Here's mine.
Realistically if you intend to stay with Microsoft platforms and development
tools you will have to learn dotNet. However as for the 'language' to use,
as Bob pointed out, using "Visual Basic" could easily be a waste of time and
effort. Likely not a major detour, but why take a chance on any aggravation?
For MS platforms I recommend that new programmers (those that actually have
a choice - many need to go where their employer goes <g> ) that if they are
serious about programming and want the best hedge on their investment,learn
VC++/CLI and/or C#.
For three simple reasons; 1) these languages are more likely to remain
stable, 2) you will be better poised to jump ship to Unix (C++ and
Java/Ruby) if MS goes down the tubes, and 3) you will earn more on the long
run with those skills.
[It is interesting to note that even though there is less than a dime's
worth of difference between VB.Net and C#, the latter brings in more bucks.
Go figure?]
More controversially (thus more opinionated <g> ) I would also suggest that
unless you have some kind of legacy investment in Classic VB that you
completely abandon VB6 and totally immerse yourself in dotNet. The Framework
is daunting enough to get a handle on without also trying to keep a foot in
the other camp.
Wave good-bye and don't look back.
-ralph
| |
| Robert Comer 2006-06-27, 6:56 pm |
| > What a load of total and utter bull.
Oh that's a constructive argument.
It was an opinion Michael -- arrived at by using both VB6 and VB.net.
--
Bob Comer
"Michael C" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:OvO49rZmGHA.5052@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> "Robert Comer" <bobcomer-removeme-@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:OpliKAWmGHA.2372@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
> What a load of total and utter bull.
>
> Michael
>
>
| |
| Chris Dunaway 2006-06-27, 6:56 pm |
| Michael C wrote:
>
> When considering the replies here you should take into account that most of
> the inhabitants of this group are die hard vb6 fanatics and the replies will
> be biased as such. Unless you're asking this question in other groups also
> there's not much point in asking it at all.
I would have to agree with Michael here. If you ask here where most
people prefer VB6, the answers you get will be biased toward VB6. If
you ask in a VB.Net group, the reverse will probably be true.
Why don't you download VB 2005 Express? It's free and you can decide
for yourself if the effort to learning it will be worth your time.
Chris
| |
| CAnderson [MVP] 2006-06-29, 6:56 pm |
| I made the jump. And let me tell you this Kool-Aid tastes gooood.
Unfortunately I'm still stuck in VB6 at work (at least for now) but I don't
know how many times over the past 5 years I've said "If only this was in
..NET." At home in my alternate work, I'm completely invested in .NET and I
haven't looked back since jumping ship. I can do things faster and easier
than I could do in VB6. And I like the fact that I can mix my VB with my C#
in the same solution. I've been able to re-do a couple of owner drawn
controls because of that.
It's really all about what YOU want to do. If YOU want to learn .NET, learn
it. If you want to learn C#, learn it. IF you want to learn VB.NET, learn it.
If you want to take up Delphi, then do so. It's about how and where you want
to progress through your career. Heck, learn more than one language. There's
no harm in that. For me, I'm happy in the .NET world. My apps only target the
Windows platform, so I don't worry about cross-platform. And if Bill suddenly
announces that MS is shuttering its doors tomorrow and there will be nothing
more form them, well, I'll have to take it and start learning JAva. But then
that's a problem for our company and clients as a whole and another topic for
another time.
-ca
"Alastair MacFarlane" wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I have been looking at possibly, and I mean ONLY possibly venturing into
> VB.NET. I like the look of VB 2005. I am seriously deranged or what do the
> rest of the group really think? Are we all just frightened of tackling
> something new (something that might only have a passing resemblance to the
> VB we all love!)?
>
> I would appreciate the thoughts of the group. Does feature-rich always mean
> better?
>
> Thanks again. And sorry if I am straying from the purpose of this group.
>
> Alastair MacFarlane
>
>
>
| |
| Michael C 2006-07-02, 6:55 pm |
| "Robert Comer" <bobcomer-removeme-@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:O9rk4EfmGHA.1252@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
> Oh that's a constructive argument.
My response was tailored to your statement.
> It was an opinion Michael -- arrived at by using both VB6 and VB.net.
A pretty silly opinion really. Considering dot net has a great deal more
functionality your going to spend less time writing more. It also has much
better interop support so where it doesn't have the required functionality
your going to spend less time adding it. The only point I could see is that
ADO isn't as easy to use but this is more of a learning curve than a
permanent problem.
Michael
| |
| Michael C 2006-07-02, 6:55 pm |
| "Chris Dunaway" <dunawayc@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151440775.068299.107370@x69g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
> I would have to agree with Michael here. If you ask here where most
> people prefer VB6, the answers you get will be biased toward VB6. If
> you ask in a VB.Net group, the reverse will probably be true.
>
> Why don't you download VB 2005 Express? It's free and you can decide
> for yourself if the effort to learning it will be worth your time.
On many occasions I think it's done so the poster gets the answer they want
:-)
Michael
| |
|
| On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 09:59:28 +1000, "Michael C" <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:
in <uHM8ZMjnGHA.2264@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>
>"Robert Comer" <bobcomer-removeme-@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:O9rk4EfmGHA.1252@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
>My response was tailored to your statement.
>
>
>A pretty silly opinion really. Considering dot net has a great deal more
>functionality your going to spend less time writing more. It also has much
>better interop support so where it doesn't have the required functionality
>your going to spend less time adding it. The only point I could see is that
>ADO isn't as easy to use but this is more of a learning curve than a
>permanent problem.
>
>Michael
>
Are you by any chance some sort of dot net evangelist?
Frank
| |
| Michael C 2006-07-02, 6:55 pm |
| <Frank> wrote in message news:b6oga2t8sc99cv0fgues5opo179u8f8416@
4ax.com...
> Are you by any chance some sort of dot net evangelist?
Not really, I just can't help responding to the stupid statements presented
here. Think about it, "VB6 is more RAD than dot net", you've gotta be
kidding me.
Michael
| |
| Galen Somerville 2006-07-02, 9:55 pm |
|
"Michael C" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:eflnIkjnGHA.2312@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> <Frank> wrote in message
news:b6oga2t8sc99cv0fgues5opo179u8f8416@
4ax.com...
>
> Not really, I just can't help responding to the stupid statements
presented
> here. Think about it, "VB6 is more RAD than dot net", you've gotta be
> kidding me.
>
> Michael
>
>
I agree that dot.net is RAD if you have plenty of time.
Galen
| |
| Michael C 2006-07-02, 9:55 pm |
| "Galen Somerville" <galen@surewest.net> wrote in message
news:ux0fLBknGHA.776@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> I agree that dot.net is RAD if you have plenty of time.
Are you trying to prove me right? (about this group containing a lot of
stupid statements on the topic of dot net)
>
> Galen
>
| |
| Bob O`Bob 2006-07-03, 3:55 am |
| Michael C wrote:
> "Galen Somerville" <galen@surewest.net> wrote in message
> news:ux0fLBknGHA.776@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
> Are you trying to prove me right? (about this group containing a lot of
> stupid statements on the topic of dot net)
>
>
>
Among actual experts on dot net,
one would pretty much have to be
a complete idiot to hang around here.
Well, I suppose it's not actually a requirement,
but it IS what we've seen, time after time.
| |
| Dan Barclay 2006-07-03, 3:55 am |
|
"Michael C" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:eflnIkjnGHA.2312@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> <Frank> wrote in message
> news:b6oga2t8sc99cv0fgues5opo179u8f8416@
4ax.com...
>
> Not really, I just can't help responding to the stupid statements
> presented here. Think about it, "VB6 is more RAD than dot net", you've
> gotta be kidding me.
<shrug> Anybody can argue either side from the standpoint of IDE and
available public documentation and code, but there is one Rapid Application
Development process for which there is no comparison.... "There is no more
rapid development method than to reuse existing, tested, code." You can
chisle that in stone. Can you do that in .Net? Nope. How about VB6?
Yup... you can use most core code from as far back as DOS and CP/M. In
addition to your own code libraries that includes tons of sample code
burried in the internet.
But, then, VB6 is a dead end so I suppose it really doesn't matter.
Dan
| |
| Dan Barclay 2006-07-03, 3:55 am |
|
"Michael C" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:e5AWcGknGHA.1248@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> "Galen Somerville" <galen@surewest.net> wrote in message
> news:ux0fLBknGHA.776@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
> Are you trying to prove me right? (about this group containing a lot of
> stupid statements on the topic of dot net)
You're not looking at the whole picture. Dot.net is RAD if you have plenty
of time... TO REWRITE YOUR $@#$ APPLICATION!
Dan
| |
|
|
"Bob O`Bob" <filterbob@yahoogroups.com> wrote in message
news:%23s4jyOnnGHA.764@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Michael C wrote:
>
>
> Among actual experts on dot net,
> one would pretty much have to be
> a complete idiot to hang around here.
>
> Well, I suppose it's not actually a requirement,
> but it IS what we've seen, time after time.
>
ROFLMAO!
That needs to copied and used as canned reply, a la the common admonishments
to re-post in a dotNet group, don't use the FSO, and END is usually a bad
idea.
-ralph
| |
| Robert Comer 2006-07-03, 7:55 am |
| > My response was tailored to your statement.
I disagree.
> A pretty silly opinion really.
That's for me to decide.
>Considering dot net has a great deal more functionality your going to spend
>less time writing more.
All I can say is I'm calling it like it works for the kind of functionality
I need here, and that's not even counting that the .NET IDE is so painfully
slow.
>It also has much better interop support so where it doesn't have the
>required functionality your going to spend less time adding it.
I don't need any interop, all I program in VB is front end GUI's to back end
databases on either SQL Server or the i5. (mostly the i5, and that's where
..NET isn't supported so well) Our old code uses ODBC, but now am using
OLE/DB data providers...
>The only point I could see is that ADO isn't as easy to use but this is
>more of a learning curve than a permanent problem.
Bingo, that's the main problem! It's more than a learning curve problem
though, especially when I also have to support a lot of old code. (RDO)
I also cannot program forms as fast on .NET, it seems to take a lot longer
to get the same result...
--
Bob Comer
"Michael C" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uHM8ZMjnGHA.2264@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> "Robert Comer" <bobcomer-removeme-@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:O9rk4EfmGHA.1252@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
> My response was tailored to your statement.
>
>
> A pretty silly opinion really. Considering dot net has a great deal more
> functionality your going to spend less time writing more. It also has much
> better interop support so where it doesn't have the required functionality
> your going to spend less time adding it. The only point I could see is
> that ADO isn't as easy to use but this is more of a learning curve than a
> permanent problem.
>
> Michael
>
| |
| Galen Somerville 2006-07-03, 6:56 pm |
|
"Michael C" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:e5AWcGknGHA.1248@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> "Galen Somerville" <galen@surewest.net> wrote in message
> news:ux0fLBknGHA.776@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
> Are you trying to prove me right? (about this group containing a lot of
> stupid statements on the topic of dot net)
>
>
>
RAD starts with Rapid which means in VB6 you don't spend much time on it.
Galen
| |
| Michael C 2006-07-03, 6:56 pm |
| "Dan Barclay" <Dan@MVPs.org> wrote in message
news:OupbegnnGHA.3532@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> <shrug> Anybody can argue either side from the standpoint of IDE and
> available public documentation and code, but there is one Rapid
> Application Development process for which there is no comparison....
> "There is no more rapid development method than to reuse existing, tested,
> code." You can chisle that in stone. Can you do that in .Net? Nope.
> How about VB6? Yup... you can use most core code from as far back as DOS
> and CP/M. In addition to your own code libraries that includes tons of
> sample code burried in the internet.
Hang on a sec. You're saying that DOS and CP/M code can be reused in VB6?
This wouldn't just cut and paste and would require a fair amount of
reworking. Certainly if it was user interface code it wouldn't be much good
and if it was database code it wouldn't be much good either. VB6 code can be
translated accross to vb.net or even c# without that much effort. I've done
it line by line on a couple of dlls and it was tedious but certainly a lot
easier to do than dos to vb6.
> But, then, VB6 is a dead end so I suppose it really doesn't matter.
That's right, you're going to have to move away from vb6 some time.
Michael
| |
| Michael C 2006-07-03, 6:56 pm |
| "Robert Comer" <bobcomer-removeme-@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:e2UrcYqnGHA.3700@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> I disagree.
Good, it makes for a boring conversation if you agree. :-)
> All I can say is I'm calling it like it works for the kind of
> functionality I need here,
Sorry, I didn't realise the world revolved around you. Other's do more than
generic DB apps.
> and that's not even counting that the .NET IDE is so painfully slow.
That is total rubbish for a professional. VB6 becomes *painfully* slow on
large projects because it loads everything into memory, every form,
usercontrol, class or report is loaded into memory at load time. Dot net on
the other hand loads files as needed and is *much* more scalable.
> I don't need any interop
Other's do. I use it extensively and it has given me access to a large
number of features that were very difficult to implement in vb6.
> Bingo, that's the main problem! It's more than a learning curve problem
> though, especially when I also have to support a lot of old code. (RDO)
Once you get past the learning curve there is a lot more functionality
there.
> I also cannot program forms as fast on .NET, it seems to take a lot longer
> to get the same result...
Dunno, it must be you.
Michael
|
|
|
|
|