[Core]

Quote

what about DIC (VB6), Should Owner will remove the forum from here?

Currently there are no plans at all on removal of the VB6 forum here. First of, there will be VB6 users for a while. This action from Microsoft only shows that they made the next step in minimizing support for VB6, therefore VB6 will become an obsolete language pretty soon.

[PsychoCoder]

It's about time they do this, it's long over due. I for one am glad they're finally stopping support for the language.

[paperclipmuffin]

Pity, VB 6 was my first real language, and I'm very attached to it.

[firebolt]

VB6 is a somewhat 10 year old language so really it should be "out with the old and in with the new". Most VB6 starters will find the easy transition, but as to experienced, good luck - it'll be hard. Anyway, who knows what could go next? Or is there another VB, after .NET... Maybe .NET will face extinction like soon VB6 will...

[AdamSpeight2008]

The King is dead (vb6) long live The King (vb.net).

[Billgoates]

In other words, 5 years from now VB6 applications need to include the 1MB run-time library again, instead of the 50MB .net applications need.

But who cares about the future of vb6 or vb.net, by that time we are coding javascript for Google OS.

[Core]

Quote

5 years from now VB6 applications need to include the 1MB run-time library again

I'm not even sure that the VB6 runtime will be comptible with the next versions of Windows after Windows 7. And by that time, I'd say that the developers who used VB6 definitely will need to switch to .NET simply because .NET will offer more possibilities for flexible and more efficient/productive applications.

Quote

instead of the 50MB .net applications need.

.NET Framework is now shipped with Windows (including Vista), therefore the .NET runtime should be included in the installation package if only you deploy the applications on Windows XP or 2000, and there is no need to include it with your application for the newer versions of Windows.

[AdamSpeight2008]

Which version of .net ship with which version of Windows OS

[Billgoates]

Core, on 10 Jul, 2009 - 09:09 AM, said:

I'm not even sure that the VB6 runtime will be comptible with the next versions of Windows after Windows 7.

It's impossible for MS to drop COM or the native Win32 api, so you can be sure the vb6 runtime will be compatible in future Windows. Unless they develop a complete new OS, but without backwards compatibility it would be a failure.

Quote

NET Framework is now shipped with Windows (including Vista), therefore the .NET runtime should be included in the installation package if only you deploy the applications on Windows XP or 2000, and there is no need to include it with your application for the newer versions of Windows.

And since you never know the target computers, you always have to include the framework.

Quote

And by that time, I'd say that the developers who used VB6 definitely will need to switch to .NET simply because .NET will offer more possibilities for flexible and more efficient/productive applications.

First of all it's highly debatable .net is more productive. It depends on what you are building, and how much code you already have.
But more important, I don't like the philosophy behind .net. It's more a marketing scheme than a real language. Every new version gives another way to do the same, but is restricted to the latest OS.

[Core]

Quote

It's impossible for MS to drop COM or the native Win32 api, so you can be sure the vb6 runtime will be compatible in future Windows. Unless they develop a complete new OS, but without backwards compatibility it would be a failure.

Backwards compatibility can be supported to a specific extent. And it is also possible that soon we will see a modified WinAPI. It is the developer's task to ensure the compatibility with a system if he wants to see his/her application running on that OS.

Quote

And since you never know the target computers, you always have to include the framework.

You can easily create installers for various versions of the target system. Why bundle a setup package with a component that is already installed?

Quote

But more important, I don't like the philosophy behind .net. It's more a marketing scheme than a real language. Every new version gives another way to do the same, but is restricted to the latest OS.

If you take a look at how .NET evolved for the past years, you can see that it is more than a serious platform. C# and VB.NET are languages that offer more possiblities compared to VB6. Mainly because of the included class libraries. Plus, these .NET languages support the Object-Oriented Programming paradigm, which nowadays is an important part in creating applications (for a demonstration - the need for abstraction and encapsulation).

And so far, it is not restricted to the latest OS. .NET applications run on various versions of Windows, including the good old Windows 2000. Later versions run it too, of course.

[PsychoCoder]

Billgoates, on 13 Jul, 2009 - 06:48 AM, said:

First of all it's highly debatable .net is more productive. It depends on what you are building, and how much code you already have.
But more important, I don't like the philosophy behind .net. It's more a marketing scheme than a real language. Every new version gives another way to do the same, but is restricted to the latest OS.

VB.NET is far more productive than VB6 ever was. With the addition of the Object Orientated paradigm all .Net languages are truly an incredible platform, and more importantly a real language. Those of us who have been in the industry a very long time have always questioned whether VB6 was a real language, or a mere attempt for Microsoft to allow newbies to actually code with the least amount of learning as possible. For that language VB6 has always been viewed as less than a real language.

For the most part all VB6 applications are line after line of spaghetti code (And I would know because VB6 is one of the languages I had used a little in the past. Those who argue that VB.NET isn't as productive as VB6 haven't taken the time to truly learn the language and the Framework it comes with. And those who say that it isnt a real programming language haven't taken the time to truly compare the differences between VB6 and VB.NET.

VB.NET has finally become a real OO language, and with it you can do everything you can do with C#. I can program VB.NET (or C#) applications that can run on XP, Vista, Windows 7, Windows 2000, can the same be said about VB6 (Look through the forums and see how many issues people have with running their VB6 applications on Windows Vista

Quote

It's impossible for MS to drop COM or the native Win32 api, so you can be sure the vb6 runtime will be compatible in future Windows. Unless they develop a complete new OS, but without backwards compatibility it would be a failure.

Microsoft has said adamantly that the VB6 run-time will not be shipped with Windows past Windows 7, so obviously they know more about whether it's need than you or I, wouldn't you agree? Just because there's a Win32 API does not mean VB6 will run on the OS if the run-time files aren't compatible with the OS, or even available for that matter.

They only need to make is backwards compatible to an extent, how are they moving forward if they continue to support an old, outdated language? That's like taking 2 steps forward and 3 steps back. At some point programmers will need to make the switch and see how much more powerful it is than the old VB6.

Quote

And since you never know the target computers, you always have to include the framework.

This is a moot point, you can bootstrap it in the installer and if that version of Windows already has it installed (as do most of the newer versions) then the installer simply skip the process of installing the Framework, unless of course your application runs on an older version of the Framework, and I can think of no logical reasoning for that.

VB6 is a dinosaur in the programming world, and needs to be phased out. Up and coming programmers need to go a head and make the jump to .Net (Whether it be VB.NET, C# of Visual C++ .Net) and join the world of real languages.

Just my 2¢

[Billgoates]

Quote

Core: Backwards compatibility can be supported to a specific extent. And it is also possible that soon we will see a modified WinAPI. It is the developer's task to ensure the compatibility with a system if he wants to see his/her application running on that OS.
PsychoCoder: Just because there's a Win32 API does not mean VB6 will run on the OS if the run-time files aren't compatible with the OS, or even available for that matter. They only need to make is backwards compatible to an extent, how are they moving forward if they continue to support an old, outdated language?

It would take MS a real effort to change the winapi in such a way it's still backwards compatible but not for old VB6 applications. A VB6 exe is not different from a C++ exe. And they won't sell a new OS, if win32 backwards compatibility isn't guaranteed.

Quote

Core:You can easily create installers for various versions of the target system. Why bundle a setup package with a component that is already installed?

Because you don't know the target platform and not all setups can be done over the internet. So you need to create a setup that is complete.

Quote

Core:Plus, these .NET languages support the Object-Oriented Programming paradigm
PsychoCoder: For the most part all VB6 applications are line after line of spaghetti code

Every time I see the same invalid argument why vb.NET is better than vb6. OO isn't something magical that turns bad programming into great software. Any programmer producing spaghetti code in VB6 will create even a bigger mess with full OO.

Also VB6 is OO (or better said component orientated), it just doesn't support inheritance. So instead VB6 programmers need to learn about composition, which is the better practice most of the time anyway.

The main problem with VB6 wasn't spaghetti code, but the DLL hell, especially in combination with ADO.

Quote

Core:And so far, it is not restricted to the latest OS. .NET applications run on various versions of Windows, including the good old Windows 2000. Later versions run it too, of course.

Yes, older frameworks still work, but wasn't the point to switch to .NET because of the newest language features?

The main problem with .NET is that the language + framework is tied to specific Windows. You cannot use the latest features without dropping support for older platforms. And language should be platform independent. Some OS specific libraries I can understand, but there is no reason (other than vendor lock-in) why you couldn't have VB.2008 features on Win98. The whole point of having a CLR was to be platform independent.

Quote

PsychoCoder:VB6 is a dinosaur in the programming world, and needs to be phased out. Up and coming programmers need to go a head and make the jump to .NET

Languages much older than VB6, like C/C++ or Java are among most used languages. That we have this discussion 7 years after the first .NET release should be a hint there is something wrong.

Maybe you are happy developing .NET, there are plenty others who aren't. If you look at code submissions at planet source code you will see twice as much VB6 submissions compared to all .NET languages combined.

One of the most important reasons why people can't/won't switch is because of their old code. There is little to gain in rewriting code when it already is running fine. And if that means that people will have to stay using older Windows versions, than that is what will happen.

Another reason why not everyone is jumping on the .NET bandwagon is because all those new features added also made the language less readable. VB always was meant to be simple, for advanced software there is C++, or for the very stubborn the undocumented functions and win32 api calls.

I will not say VB6 is perfect, it isn't. But it still can do things impossible to do with .NET. In the next 5 years more people will abandon VB6, but many if not most won't go over to VB.NET. Personally I believe that Javascript is becoming the new VB6. And .NET's use will mostly be limited to the few corporations not doing backend programming in Java, or to the occasional desktop programmer not familliar with Delphi.

[PsychoCoder]

Billgoates, on 14 Jul, 2009 - 08:43 AM, said:

I will not say VB6 is perfect, it isn't. But it still can do things impossible to do with .NET.

What can be done in VB6 that you cannot accomplish (and more efficiently) in VB.NET. This should be good

[Core]

Quote

Languages much older than VB6, like C/C++ or Java are among most used languages.

Those languages evolve and change. Today, nobody is using the same Java that was used in its early ages - JDK and the platform itself changed a lot. Same applies to C++. Just look at C++0x. Same applies to VB6 - VB.NET is a part of the language evolution.

Quote

But it still can do things impossible to do with .NET.

Same as PsychoCoder, I would like to see what can be done in VB6 without the possibility of doing the same task in VB.NET.

[Macka]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but .NET doesn't compile to Native code does it? it runs through some form of interpreter, in a similar fashion to Java code, right?

If that's true, then it's enough to put me off using .NET for serious applications; when VB6 becomes obsolete I'll probably move to C++.

Does VB.NET allow inline ASM? VB6 doesn't, obviously, but I'd rather go to a language that does and a language that gives me more control over the memory, ruling out Java