Clipper2000
Programmer
Personally, I really like coding with VB6 because the door is wide open to ActiveX connections. Will it be worth my efforts to continue upgrading my skills with this coding idiom.
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations Mike Lewis on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
How many here think VB6 is outdated.
- Thread starter Clipper2000
- Start date
- Status
NoCoolHandle
Programmer
.Net still allows for COM and ActiveX.. What it lacks (IMHO) is the built-in abliity to author ActiveX controls for web pages.. It tends to put all it's eggs in either a serverside websoultion or a .net applicaion.
However, that is the only gripe I have about .net.
The wonders of VB5,6 development are a little like the wonders of Access.. They might be an easier way to prototype than building a working shell in.net. However, I have found that after getting my mind around the new ways of doing things, that application development in DotNet can even be faster (for certain soultions) than even working in Access!
Don't get me wrong. I still do much of my development in VB6. BUTTTTT with COM there were a number of problmes that just couldn't be worked around. .NEt is much better at having one app work with another app (language independent). If for on other reason than the ablitiy to spawn and interact with new threads it is better. Coding an async callback in VB5 or 6 was a nightmare! Now it couldn't be simpler.
I guess the advise I would give you is start looking to .net (but jump in at the 2.0 version releasing next year if you haven't begun your journey). Re invesing more time learning NEW tricks in VB6 - don't! See how you might do it in .net and you will be a very happy in the future. Even second learning to take advantage of some of .net's features will be rewarded in gemstones!
My 1c
Rob
However, that is the only gripe I have about .net.
The wonders of VB5,6 development are a little like the wonders of Access.. They might be an easier way to prototype than building a working shell in.net. However, I have found that after getting my mind around the new ways of doing things, that application development in DotNet can even be faster (for certain soultions) than even working in Access!
Don't get me wrong. I still do much of my development in VB6. BUTTTTT with COM there were a number of problmes that just couldn't be worked around. .NEt is much better at having one app work with another app (language independent). If for on other reason than the ablitiy to spawn and interact with new threads it is better. Coding an async callback in VB5 or 6 was a nightmare! Now it couldn't be simpler.
I guess the advise I would give you is start looking to .net (but jump in at the 2.0 version releasing next year if you haven't begun your journey). Re invesing more time learning NEW tricks in VB6 - don't! See how you might do it in .net and you will be a very happy in the future. Even second learning to take advantage of some of .net's features will be rewarded in gemstones!
My 1c
Rob
I agree with Dimandja -- VB6, while not on life support, isn't looking too healthy.
Chip H.
____________________________________________________________________
If you want to get the best response to a question, please read FAQ222-2244 first
Chip H.
____________________________________________________________________
If you want to get the best response to a question, please read FAQ222-2244 first
Nah...
VB6 is good for somethings...
and VB.Net is good for others...
you can do more in .Net (as far as bells and whistles go)
But it is still faster (IMO) to code in VB6
PLUS vb6 does not require you to install the .Net framework. (which .Net framework, in itself, has it's own ups and downs...)
VB6 feels more stable and less resource hungry at the moment, but when they get the bugs worked out of .NET, I'm sure it will Rock too...
I still use them both... (In Moderation, of course ;-))
I do LOVE the ease of creating Inherited Classes with .Net though...
GREAT for extending TreeNodes
Have Fun, Be Young... Code BASIC
-Josh
PROGRAMMER: Red-eyed, mumbling mammal capable of conversing with inanimate objects.
VB6 is good for somethings...
and VB.Net is good for others...
you can do more in .Net (as far as bells and whistles go)
But it is still faster (IMO) to code in VB6
PLUS vb6 does not require you to install the .Net framework. (which .Net framework, in itself, has it's own ups and downs...)
VB6 feels more stable and less resource hungry at the moment, but when they get the bugs worked out of .NET, I'm sure it will Rock too...
I still use them both... (In Moderation, of course ;-))
I do LOVE the ease of creating Inherited Classes with .Net though...
GREAT for extending TreeNodes
Have Fun, Be Young... Code BASIC
-Josh
PROGRAMMER:
Red-eyed, mumbling mammal capable of conversing with inanimate objects.I do not use the builder to code my apps, I usually make al by code and what I saw in vb net is that the changed the sintax for some instructions like global, I cant use a .ico in a imagefile and you got events called "E".
I migrated some apps from VB5/6 to VB.Net and the use the same or more amount of memory, the performance is the same... so for me, for the use I geve to it VB.Net is worse than VB6 (plus I hate contextmenu control i like the old way! )
Cya
I migrated some apps from VB5/6 to VB.Net and the use the same or more amount of memory, the performance is the same... so for me, for the use I geve to it VB.Net is worse than VB6 (plus I hate contextmenu control i like the old way!
)Cya
dilettante
MIS
There is a lot that VB5/6 is still a good fit for. There was also a lot we hoped would find its way into a VB7 we never did get. Most of those are along the lines of a better P&D tool, multithreading, an easier way to create stable NT services, or native console application generation to support CGI and so on. Many of those have well-known alternatives or hacks by now. For the most part they're only needed to push VB beyond its real target application space anyway.
As others have said though, the sun is setting. MS has moved on.
Some will go the .Net route sooner, some later. I'm not convinced of .Net's inevitability, but there will never be a "VB7" in a form we once hoped for. Maybe when Avalon is stable we'll see more .Net development of desktop applications.
I do have to wonder who would invest a lot of effort today to learn VB6 from scratch though. To some extent PDS or VBDOS makes more sense, because there are still niche markets for DOS programs today - mostly certain embedded applications.
Maybe Access-oriented applications are the real niche left to VB6 today. A VBA developer can move to VB6 fairly quickly. This too is fading though as the .Net runtime gets more widely deployed, support for Jet databases improves in .Net, and people move to MSDE and SQL Server.
In the meantime I'm still writing and maintaining a lot of VB6.
As others have said though, the sun is setting. MS has moved on.
Some will go the .Net route sooner, some later. I'm not convinced of .Net's inevitability, but there will never be a "VB7" in a form we once hoped for. Maybe when Avalon is stable we'll see more .Net development of desktop applications.
I do have to wonder who would invest a lot of effort today to learn VB6 from scratch though. To some extent PDS or VBDOS makes more sense, because there are still niche markets for DOS programs today - mostly certain embedded applications.
Maybe Access-oriented applications are the real niche left to VB6 today. A VBA developer can move to VB6 fairly quickly. This too is fading though as the .Net runtime gets more widely deployed, support for Jet databases improves in .Net, and people move to MSDE and SQL Server.
In the meantime I'm still writing and maintaining a lot of VB6.
MS needs to continue to make money. The remarket everthing every few years to keep the cashflow going.
.NET is vb7 etc.. 1/2 the planet is on vb6 so its still well in demand. Alot of newer comapnies are going to .net because they believe all the (marketing) hype and their going to browser views. For that reason .not is needed. It also keeps the Java folks running HA.
Learn Both
Dan
.NET is vb7 etc.. 1/2 the planet is on vb6 so its still well in demand. Alot of newer comapnies are going to .net because they believe all the (marketing) hype and their going to browser views. For that reason .not is needed. It also keeps the Java folks running HA.
Learn Both
Dan
>> .NET is vb7 etc..
No it's not...
It's more like a vb++, as C++ was to C
It uses the same overall layout, but there are things you can do in one but not the other...
And there are a few DRASTIC changes to the syntax...
Plus the EXE is not really a true EXE... it is Binary code that requires a JIT Compiler (.NET Framework) to execute
So (in theory) the same exe will eventually be able to run on PC, MAC, UNIX/Linux, etc... Just as Java does...
in VB.NET, just about everything is an Object, including strings, integers, floats, etc...
And since everything is made of objects, that makes everything extendable. You can create a new class, inherit an old one, add properties and methods to it, and use it in place of the old objects... (which as i mentioned above, ROCKS for objects like TreeNodes)
as far as the syntax goes...
The 2 basic original languages were VB and VC++
VB.NET still has the flavour and structure of VB but leans more towards C++ style syntax... (with X++, X+=1, etc...)
C# still resembles VC++ as far as the structure goes, but has more of a VB style interface. Where the VC++ interface tends to scare VB coders away, C# welcomes them...
IMO... the spread of the languages is similar to this:
VB - Easy to learn, less features
VB.NET
C#
VC++ - Harder to learn, more features
And Java would be some where in the middle...
Have Fun, Be Young... Code BASIC
-Josh
PROGRAMMER: Red-eyed, mumbling mammal capable of conversing with inanimate objects.
No it's not...
It's more like a vb++, as C++ was to C
It uses the same overall layout, but there are things you can do in one but not the other...
And there are a few DRASTIC changes to the syntax...
Plus the EXE is not really a true EXE... it is Binary code that requires a JIT Compiler (.NET Framework) to execute
So (in theory) the same exe will eventually be able to run on PC, MAC, UNIX/Linux, etc... Just as Java does...
in VB.NET, just about everything is an Object, including strings, integers, floats, etc...
And since everything is made of objects, that makes everything extendable. You can create a new class, inherit an old one, add properties and methods to it, and use it in place of the old objects... (which as i mentioned above, ROCKS for objects like TreeNodes)
as far as the syntax goes...
The 2 basic original languages were VB and VC++
VB.NET still has the flavour and structure of VB but leans more towards C++ style syntax... (with X++, X+=1, etc...)
C# still resembles VC++ as far as the structure goes, but has more of a VB style interface. Where the VC++ interface tends to scare VB coders away, C# welcomes them...
IMO... the spread of the languages is similar to this:
VB - Easy to learn, less features
VB.NET
C#
VC++ - Harder to learn, more features
And Java would be some where in the middle...
Have Fun, Be Young... Code BASIC
-Josh
PROGRAMMER:
Red-eyed, mumbling mammal capable of conversing with inanimate objects.- Status
