VB vs. VS

[Headwinds]

Seeing the handwriting on the wall, I'm beginning to retrain myself from Visual FoxPro to VB.NET. I'm reading Database Programming with Visual Basic .NET and Programming VB .NET: A Guide for Experienced Programmers, but now I need some actual software to reinforce what I'm learning.

I can get Visual Basic .NET (Standard $190) or Visual Studio .NET (Professional $936) at Amazon. There's a feature list at

http://msdn.microsoft.com/vbasic/howtobuy/choosing.asp

that compares the two packages. Among other things, you can't build class libraries in standard VB.

That surely doesn't mean that I can't define and use new classes in VB, so what do I give up by not being able to build class libraries?

 

[VBRob]

Here's a quote from the VS.Net help file:
ms-help://MS.VSCC/MS.MSDNVS/vbcon/html/vbgrfvisualbasicstandardeditionfeatures.htm

The best way to create new projects is by using Visual Basic and Visual C# project templates, or application wizards. Project templates work in conjunction with application frameworks and libraries to create starter programs for you.
In the Standard Edition of Visual Basic, you do not have access to the empty project types and the project types that compile into DLLs.


So, it sounds like you can still create dlls, but don't have the toys to help you.
(-:

 

[RiverGuy]

VB.Net standard does not include Crystal Reports either, which sucks IMO.

If the lack of features laid out (no templates, no CR, etc.) doesn't bother you, I'd say you can still do some pretty cool stuff in Standard. You can also download J# for free if you want to add another language flavor to your VS IDE.

 

[patrician]

You could buy Microsoft Visual Basic .NET Deluxe Learning Edition ISBN: 0735616345 for $83 includes book and VB.net standard edition.

 

[Guest_imported]

With VS you need to have Win 2000 OS in order for it to run.
Does this hold true for VB.Net as well or can it be installed and run on the various flavors of Win OS - 98, ME
???
B-)

 

[Zarcom]

VB.NET is still VS just that you then can write programs in VB.NET only.

So the answer to your question is that no you still can't run on the various Win OS flavours.

That'l do donkey, that'l do
Mark

 

[RiverGuy]

I've never heard that you have to have Win2K or greater to run VS.Net

 

[Zarcom]

http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/productinfo/sysreq.asp

That'l do donkey, that'l do
Mark

 

[RiverGuy]

The help files in VS.Net always say applies to Win98, NT, 2000, etc.

I don't understand why an NT kernal would be required to run this. The .Net framework only requires 98.

 

[Zarcom]

I honestly don't know. I just know that is what I have read. That'l do donkey, that'l do
Mark

 

[link9]

Microsoft did everyone a favor, if you ask me. I understand why they had to make .NET apps run on win98, but I would not cry if they just completely stopped supporting it. Remember your very first program and how horrible it was? I would bet good money that's how MS feels about anything prior to 2k (save NT)

NT, and especially 2k & XP are such vastly superior operating systems, I just don't even know how I ever put up w/ win9x machines...

I had a little ritual cd burning (in the truest sense of the word) when I finally scrapped that OS.

</>

 

[Zarcom]

kudos to the ritual burnings That'l do donkey, that'l do
Mark