SpiderBear6
Programmer
I recently read an article which was discussing "the extreme lack of interest by experienced VB developers for VB.NET". It goes on to say...
"My concern is that VB.NET is failing. This worries me greatly, because I'm one of the many programmers who have built a successful career largely on programming in Visual Basic. Because VB.NET is the future of Visual Basic, if VB.NET fails, so will Visual Basic. If Visual Basic fails, so will the careers of many VB programmers."
I don't agree with this, cause VB and VB.Net while yes syntaxically they are very similar, they are miles apart in functionality.
And further, it says...
"VB6 is already a RAD language. VB.NET does not significantly improve on this."
Vb.Net may not vastly improve on this sure (there as some new nice points about it), but surely you can't say that there is no point moving to Vb.Net because of this.
"VB6 is far easier to learn than VB.NET. This is primarily because VB.NET is so object-oriented that the numerous VB programmers with hobbyist or power-user backgrounds have considerable trouble learning it."
Sure Vb.Net is so object-oriented, but that's a good thing. It would probably do the "hobbyist or power-user" good to start learning to program this way. Their programs may not be as buggy and hopefully they would stop putting all of the code (business logic and all) in the forms.
"VB6 has better performance. After two years, I've concluded that VB.NET programs don't perform any better once they've started up and they take far longer to start up than VB6 programs."
This is an interesting point. One of the main claim to fames of Vb.Net (and the .net languages) is that they perform better. The Just-In-Time compile is a pain because it can take a while (only the first time) but that's what the users remember and forever brand it a slow app.
"In addition, VB.NET programs require a far more powerful PC than do VB6 programs just to run at all."
This I agree with, but it will be good when the new versions of Windows come out because they will include the .net framework.
"VB.NET is so large that a working programmer does not have the time to learn it."
I don't agree with this... I don't think VB.Net is that hard to learn once you grasp a few basic concepts. So this also means that a working programmer should forget about ever learning something new because it may take them a while? If that were the case, we would all still be writing COBOL.
"VB.NET is missing some critical components, such as a decent grid, a masked edit control, and so on."
What's wrong with the datagrid? It's not bad once you get used to it. The built in controls are far better than those of VB6. There are standard third party controls I always get when I use VB6 - TrueDBGrid being one of them.
"The overwhelming memory requirements of the .NET Framework make it impractical to use the VB6 ActiveX components because that would just increase the already large memory requirement."
So use .Net components.
"The considerable system requirements of .NET programs are a stumbling block in its adoption.
The advantages added to VB.NET mainly help advanced programmers. For example, inheritance is not useful to the many VB programmers who are unacquainted with object-oriented programming and don't write classes. Ending DLL Hell is useless to a programmer who has never written a DLL in VB."
This letter appears to be written by a VB programmer who has never written a class module in his life.
"VB.NET is not the language VB programmers wanted. It is the language that C++ programmers felt VB should be."
It's closer to the language I wanted, than VB6 is and I am a VB programmer.
Do other people share this view? I have been a VB programmer for years and have only just moved over to Vb.Net - am part way through my MCAD. I still write programs in VB 6 though.
Anyone like to share their views?
The whole letter can be read at:
"My concern is that VB.NET is failing. This worries me greatly, because I'm one of the many programmers who have built a successful career largely on programming in Visual Basic. Because VB.NET is the future of Visual Basic, if VB.NET fails, so will Visual Basic. If Visual Basic fails, so will the careers of many VB programmers."
I don't agree with this, cause VB and VB.Net while yes syntaxically they are very similar, they are miles apart in functionality.
And further, it says...
"VB6 is already a RAD language. VB.NET does not significantly improve on this."
Vb.Net may not vastly improve on this sure (there as some new nice points about it), but surely you can't say that there is no point moving to Vb.Net because of this.
"VB6 is far easier to learn than VB.NET. This is primarily because VB.NET is so object-oriented that the numerous VB programmers with hobbyist or power-user backgrounds have considerable trouble learning it."
Sure Vb.Net is so object-oriented, but that's a good thing. It would probably do the "hobbyist or power-user" good to start learning to program this way. Their programs may not be as buggy and hopefully they would stop putting all of the code (business logic and all) in the forms.
"VB6 has better performance. After two years, I've concluded that VB.NET programs don't perform any better once they've started up and they take far longer to start up than VB6 programs."
This is an interesting point. One of the main claim to fames of Vb.Net (and the .net languages) is that they perform better. The Just-In-Time compile is a pain because it can take a while (only the first time) but that's what the users remember and forever brand it a slow app.
"In addition, VB.NET programs require a far more powerful PC than do VB6 programs just to run at all."
This I agree with, but it will be good when the new versions of Windows come out because they will include the .net framework.
"VB.NET is so large that a working programmer does not have the time to learn it."
I don't agree with this... I don't think VB.Net is that hard to learn once you grasp a few basic concepts. So this also means that a working programmer should forget about ever learning something new because it may take them a while? If that were the case, we would all still be writing COBOL.
"VB.NET is missing some critical components, such as a decent grid, a masked edit control, and so on."
What's wrong with the datagrid? It's not bad once you get used to it. The built in controls are far better than those of VB6. There are standard third party controls I always get when I use VB6 - TrueDBGrid being one of them.
"The overwhelming memory requirements of the .NET Framework make it impractical to use the VB6 ActiveX components because that would just increase the already large memory requirement."
So use .Net components.
"The considerable system requirements of .NET programs are a stumbling block in its adoption.
The advantages added to VB.NET mainly help advanced programmers. For example, inheritance is not useful to the many VB programmers who are unacquainted with object-oriented programming and don't write classes. Ending DLL Hell is useless to a programmer who has never written a DLL in VB."
This letter appears to be written by a VB programmer who has never written a class module in his life.
"VB.NET is not the language VB programmers wanted. It is the language that C++ programmers felt VB should be."
It's closer to the language I wanted, than VB6 is and I am a VB programmer.
Do other people share this view? I have been a VB programmer for years and have only just moved over to Vb.Net - am part way through my MCAD. I still write programs in VB 6 though.
Anyone like to share their views?
The whole letter can be read at:
