[Core]

Quote

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?

.NET code is compiled to MSIL, then it is compiled by the JIT to native code depending on the version of the runtime and target platform. The situations is quite similar with VB6 - it also needs the system-specific set of runtime libraries to run.

Quote

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

VB.NET does not allow you to use inline ASM.

[Billgoates]

Core, on 14 Jul, 2009 - 12:40 PM, said:

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.

Java was the wrong example, but C++ and certainly C are unchanged. C++0 is one of the proposals for a new and improved C, but it's a different language, thus it's future is uncertain.

Vb6 should be better at doing anything to do with ActiveX and Ole Automation. Compiling VB6 project as ActiveX Exe so script languages can communicate with it, or embed and extend, is done with 1 click. Or include Ms Scripting Object + a few lines of code to add a macro language to an application.

Later versions of .net improved the debugger, but for what I know is the edit/continue functionality limited compared to VB6

WinApi32 calls are easier done from VB6.

But what made me decide not to use .net is much simpler. In VB6 you can set a Maskpicture + MaskColor to a UserControl that actually works. In .net you could emulate it through code in the paint event, but that was slower and didn't show any controls between the usercontrol and the form's background.

Quote

Does VB.NET allow inline ASM? VB6 doesn't, obviously

Tricking the VB linker, it's possible to embed assembler and C. http://www.freewebs....vb/tvb.html#tvb

[PsychoCoder]

Billgoates, on 15 Jul, 2009 - 04:22 AM, said:

Vb6 should be better at doing anything to do with ActiveX and Ole Automation.

Come on and join us in the 21st century, who still uses ActiveX for anything? I know I haven't had a need for writing any kind of ActiveX since the late 90's

Billgoates, on 15 Jul, 2009 - 04:22 AM, said:

Compiling VB6 project as ActiveX Exe so script languages can communicate with it

That's super simple in VB.NET, so try something else

Billgoates, on 15 Jul, 2009 - 04:22 AM, said:

Later versions of .net improved the debugger, but for what I know is the edit/continue functionality limited compared to VB6

Debugging is a thousand times easier with VB.NET than it was in VB6, with .Net You can actually edit the code while debugging, with VB6 you have to stop it then make your changes then run it again.

Billgoates, on 15 Jul, 2009 - 04:22 AM, said:

WinApi32 calls are easier done from VB6.

Are you being serious?! I can tell you've done nothing with anything .Net or you would have not typed anything that you typed in those quotes. VB.NET is a thousand times the language VB6 ever was (and will never be)

[Billgoates]

PsychoCoder, on 15 Jul, 2009 - 12:29 PM, said:

Are you being serious?! I can tell you've done nothing with anything .Net or you would have not typed anything that you typed in those quotes. VB.NET is a thousand times the language VB6 ever was (and will never be)

No, I don't program in .net. You cleverly avoided my last example, the one that made me decide not to use .net, otherwise you wouldn't have written that. I only used the first .net, back in 2002 and dropped it after a month of research. So for the other points I made, I used the internet, to see what has changed. And the internet is not agreeing with you.

In reply to your other reactions:
No, VB6 doesn't need a restart for code changes, unlike the first versions of .net. That changed later, but according to the internet, it's still limited.

Personally I think Com, ActiveX and Ole Automation was one of the best things Microsoft ever build into Windows. From your reaction I get the feeling you don't really know what it is or can do.


So in short, you are happy with .net, good for you. I will never use it, and I don't think I am the only one.

This post has been edited by Billgoates: 15 July 2009 - 02:45 PM

[PsychoCoder]

Well considering that I (probably) started programming before you were even in high school I think I have a firm grasp of what ActiveX, Com and OLE Automation is, and what it can do so that's a moot point. When I programmed in VB6 and ran the application to test it I would (and still do since I still actually have it installed) would have to stop it from running before I could change any code, and I dont have to do that in VB.NET (Though I use C# far more than I do the latter).

In Visual Studio 2005 I can click "Run" and when it hits a breakpoint I can change code and continue with the running, cant do that with Visual Studio 6. With VB.NET I can create a DLL for my ASP.NET application, change it and refresh the reference without having to stop IIS, re-register the DLL file (as you do with VB6) and restart IIS (and in some cases you have to actually reboot the server when working with VB6), I just dont have to do that with .Net.

You can stay in the 90's all you want, but you're language of choice is a dinosaur and soon those who made the switch will take your job and leave you out in the cold, especially since I haven't seen an advertisement for a VB6 programmer in quite a number of years

[dmcarthur]

I started using basic in 1976 on a Radio Shack TRS-80 Model One computer and taught myself the language from books.

I went on to MBASC-80 on CP/M computers then QuickBasic Pro on IBM machines. I switched over to Windows in the early '90s and progressed through VB3, VB4, VB5 and finally VB6. That's over 30 years of BASIC learning and programming experience.

I have written apps that control a complete pharmacy chain interacting with dozens of databases and a complete library of Real Estate apps that are still in use all over the country. I have another major app that deals with government forms and is used by state and county governments all over the country.

I considered going to VB.Net but why write off over 30 years of proficiency in a language that makes plenty of money for me and does everything I need? VB.Net is NOT the BASIC language. It's an altogether new language that really has no roots in BASIC.

I have just about decided to move to REALBASIC because it is a well supported continuation of the BASIC language. I am not about to jump into another Microsoft language just to have them decide they haven't sold enough copies of it five years down the line and dump it for some other new whiz bang excuse for a programming language.

I don't want some gooey interface between me and the computer. I'm smart enough to program using code concepts instead of cutesy Windows plug ins that keep newbies from having to learn the real workings of programming.

I have a silent laugh when I hear someone who has never built a powerful project using thought-out code but rather dragging controls from a toolbox onto a window, tell me how bad BASIC is. I'll still be making money off of my BASIC programming skills when they have graduated up to a job at U-Haul or Home Depot.

The Old Coder

[AdamSpeight2008]

I've seen a few (as I'm looking for work) and a lot of the job descriptions, are "we in the process ot / planned to migrating are product to the .net platform.

What's important about .net isn't the language you program in, but the CLR (Common Language Runtime) & DLR (Dynamic Language Runtime which runs your program. Part of the application could be coded in vb.net another C#, another F#, or any other .net language.

I agree that the early versions of .net were a bit of pain to use, but I can't wait for the official release of .net 4.0 (that's the CLR & DLR version numbers).

MEF (Managed Extensibility Framework) - Makes making your application easy to be plug-able and compose-able simple.
C# & vb.net (because these are the 2 most used) language capabilities merging , which means that whether one can do so can the other.
Improvments to Generic Types
Assign the contents to container type at initailisation (eg Dim MyList As New List(Of Integer) From {1,2,3,4,5})
Using Composable Events with LINQ (If not the release, the next service pack after)

[AdamSpeight2008]

dmcarthur, on 15 Jul, 2009 - 10:16 PM, said:

I have a silent laugh when I hear someone who has never built a powerful project using thought-out code but rather dragging controls from a toolbox onto a window, tell me how bad BASIC is. I'll still be making money off of my BASIC programming skills when they have graduated up to a job at U-Haul or Home Depot.

The Old Coder

So you want every potential future programmer to start at writing everything (including The User Interface) in Assembly at a commond prompt. (To me too steep a learning curve).

The Drag & Drop feature is great for R.A.D. since most programming commissions are at Least 1 Database and a User Interface (likely graphical) veneer over the top of them.

But this is a double-edged sword as learners get fixated on how the program looks rather than how to do the task.

One language that could bridge the gap is SmallBasic. (Wrote by a guy who works at Microsoft in his spare time) He (+ other at Microsoft) wants it to be included when you install Windows.)
Learners then learn the basics of programming, since it based on a subset of .net, when they're ready they can step up to the Full .net languages like vb.net.


Edit: Double posting DOH!

This post has been edited by AdamSpeight2008: 15 July 2009 - 04:49 PM

[Billgoates]

PsychoCoder, on 15 Jul, 2009 - 02:26 PM, said:

Well considering that I (probably) started programming before you were even in high school I think I have a firm grasp of what ActiveX, Com and OLE Automation is, and what it can do so that's a moot point.

I didn't doubt you have been programming the last few years or so, I just said you didn't know what it was based on your reactions. And maybe you didn't do anything with anything related to COM or Automation in the last 10 years or so, but then you have missed out on quite a few things. Your next remark, about how you easily can compile an activex.exe with .net just made me laugh.

Quote

When I programmed in VB6 and ran the application to test it I would (and still do since I still actually have it installed) would have to stop it from running before I could change any code, and I dont have to do that in VB.NET (Though I use C# far more than I do the latter).

In Visual Studio 2005 I can click "Run" and when it hits a breakpoint I can change code and continue with the running, cant do that with Visual Studio 6. With VB.NET I can create a DLL for my ASP.NET application, change it and refresh the reference without having to stop IIS, re-register the DLL file (as you do with VB6) and restart IIS (and in some cases you have to actually reboot the server when working with VB6), I just dont have to do that with .Net.

Everything you describe here what VS2005 can do, VB6 can do. VB probably could do those things since the 80s, that's the whole advantage of being an interpreted language. And it only took MS a mere 5 years to make an interpreter for .net bytecode.

But as I said before, VS2005 has limitations: Edit and Continue is not supported when you start debugging using Attach to Process. Edit and Continue is not supported for mixed-mode, combined managed and native, debugging, SQL debugging, Compact Framework (Smart Device) projects, debugging on Windows 98, or 64-bit debugging.

The part about restarting IIS, has to do with replacing compiled dll's, not with debugging. There is a button in IIS to unload DLL's, so no restart is needed.

Quote

You can stay in the 90's all you want, but you're language of choice is a dinosaur and soon those who made the switch will take your job and leave you out in the cold, especially since I haven't seen an advertisement for a VB6 programmer in quite a number of years

I don't care for advertised VB6 programmer jobs, I don't do drag&drop programming. There are plenty enough other languages to choose from.

But still this discussion is silly, windows client applications are dead, and noone serious will do a website in asp.net.

[AdamSpeight2008]

vb6 can't do inherited interfaces.
vb6 can't do generics

[PsychoCoder]

Billgoates, on 15 Jul, 2009 - 03:21 PM, said:

But still this discussion is silly, windows client applications are dead, and noone serious will do a website in asp.net.

I could probably site and namerous all kinds of "serious" websites done in ASP.NET, would you like me to do that for you?

[Core]

Quote

I don't want some gooey interface between me and the computer. I'm smart enough to program using code concepts instead of cutesy Windows plug ins that keep newbies from having to learn the real workings of programming.

I have a silent laugh when I hear someone who has never built a powerful project using thought-out code but rather dragging controls from a toolbox onto a window, tell me how bad BASIC is. I'll still be making money off of my BASIC programming skills when they have graduated up to a job at U-Haul or Home Depot.

This interface between you and the computer (.NET) was designed to improve the development process - developers now concentrate on developing the business logic of the application rather than its low-level activity. Yes, indeed, sometimes there is the need to write something on your own, but why re-invent the wheel when the possibilities come natively with the platform?

For those years of existence, .NET changed the development process a lot. Developers now create more efficient, scalable and reliable applications using the platform.

Just to mention - the complete easyness of .NET is a myth - you still have to know many of the programming concepts and learn how to use many of the features .NET has to offer. The whole platform is not based only on the WinForms designer.

Visual Basic .NET is not a basic language anymore and the BASIC part left in the name is just something inherited from the previous versions of it.

The software market is changing and the developers are a direct part of it. They should adapt to the market, not wait the market to be adapted to them.

[KYA]

NewEgg is/was done in ASP.net right?

[PsychoCoder]

Yes NewEgg is ASP.NET, so is CodeProject (over 6 million members), TheDailyWTF is ASP.NET. There are tons of really large sites (both forums and e-commerce sites) that are done with ASP.NET. IT's obvious BillyGoates really doesn't know what he's talking about

[Billgoates]

PsychoCoder, on 16 Jul, 2009 - 07:24 PM, said:

Yes NewEgg is ASP.NET, so is CodeProject (over 6 million members), TheDailyWTF is ASP.NET. There are tons of really large sites (both forums and e-commerce sites) that are done with ASP.NET. IT's obvious BillyGoates really doesn't know what he's talking about

I never said there weren't any large asp.net sites, the biggest probably are MSN and MySpace, but I said noone serious would use it.

For example, I don't think Google would have been this big, or even exist, if they had done everything in asp.net. For them every byte or clock cycle counts.