.NOT My Views

  • Thread starter Thread starter VB6 User
  • Start date Start date
Hi,
Some of us do. What's wrong with Win32?
Underneath your .Net classes, somewhere, is
an equivalent to Win32 level.

i remember when I was in college using very old versions of c++, some
changes could be made by just directly accessing (writing to) the memory.
Than operating systems introduced proper apis, and now we couldnt do things
through direct memory access and there was an api for everything. Now there
is .net. I think its there system and they can dictate us how to use it.
off the bat, because dial-up users are not going to
download 25 MB runtimes and 12MB specialty
programs. Then I lose another 25% because many

but people all over the world are installing service packs for windows 2000
and windows xp for security reasons which already contain the runtimes.
For one good explanation of why .Net doesn't fit well
on the Desktop see Mark Russinovich's article:
http://www.sysinternals.com/blog/2005/04/coming-net-world-im-scared.html

I have seen the Mono project and the applications that are being made on it.
They never compaint on how slow the windows forms are or what features it
lacks so that it becomes absolutely rediculous to make any serious
appliction in windows forms. They are doing everything. Novell now uses
there own made .net (mono). I'm not talking about speed but the greate
obbject-oriented framework and executiong engine .net offers that make any
kind of application development (web or desk) extremely rad and easy. There
are project on sourceforge of desk apps made in windows forms and also made
in short time.
My own situation: I taught myself VB, starting
out leaning heavily on OCXs and gradually
learned better, leaner coding. I write "shareware".
What do I get if I move to .Net? First I lose
about half of my potential customer base right

what u said about the OCX. When you move to .net, you get absolutely amazing
component based framework. Seriously there is no comparison with COM. Arnt
you happy that every one can learn to write there own components with out
learning how the heck IUnknown and IDispatch works. VB6 did make the
components writing easy but still the power of c++ on com could beat the
crap out of vb (i hope i used the english here correctly!!!!!!). Now in .net
its not that about you write components inC# or vb.net, its just the same
for every language.
address the common complaints, such as the issue
of easily decompiled code and poor speed, the

well thats there, althought u do get some benefit from obfuscators (these
obfuscator vendors r making a lot of money it seems) but I do get your point
here.
using .Net keep hanging around here like religious
converts (or maybe MS plants) doing a .Net sales
pitch. I wish that people would try to just think for

nothing like that, (i'm not even an mvp!). For me, .net is just amazing.

Ab.
http://joehacker.blogspot.com


mayayana said:
oh ok, now its clear. I thought everyone from vb6 wanted to stick to win32.

Some of us do. What's wrong with Win32?
Underneath your .Net classes, somewhere, is
an equivalent to Win32 level.
Is it not possible in vb.net to write desktop applications like vb6?

Not very. It strikes me that this point just doesn't
seem to come up in the minds of most .Net users.
If it were not for Microsoft's strategy and tactics then
it would not even occur to anyone to discuss VB vs.
.Net. They're not for the same thing. This whole argument
is happening out of context.


For one good explanation of why .Net doesn't fit well
on the Desktop see Mark Russinovich's article:
http://www.sysinternals.com/blog/2005/04/coming-net-world-im-scared.html
]

My own situation: I taught myself VB, starting
out leaning heavily on OCXs and gradually
learned better, leaner coding. I write "shareware".
I don't make a lot of money at it but I enjoy coding
and I like making something that's useful to others.
My main program is an HTML and script editor
that's quick, light, free of dependencies (other
than the VB6 runtime) and has an installer of
about 800 KB. To my mind it's progress to cut
out the OCX middleman where that's feasible.
VB6 gives me the ability to do that, while still providing
easy methods where and when I want them.

What do I get if I move to .Net? First I lose
about half of my potential customer base right
off the bat, because dial-up users are not going to
download 25 MB runtimes and 12MB specialty
programs. Then I lose another 25% because many
people won't deal with the added complexity of
needing to download and install a runtime. I also lose
any ability to write for Windows 95. So now I've
got maybe 20% of my possible base left.

Beyond that, I'm
getting back into the bloat and inefficiency of objects
that are twice- or thrice-removed from the API. Why
would I want to do that? I like using the API. I like
using Windows. I don't want to be led gradually to some
sort of future X-Box/Vista crap hybrid that won't let me
access the system directly.

(And all of these reasons not to move to .Net don't even
address the common complaints, such as the issue
of easily decompiled code and poor speed, the
problem of continual changes that require new, giant
runtimes, and the question of how .Net will weather
the changes of Avalon, WinFX, etc. The thing is already
in its third rendition and now MS has plans for more
big changes with Vista.)

To my mind it borders on bizarre that so many people
using .Net keep hanging around here like religious
converts (or maybe MS plants) doing a .Net sales
pitch. I wish that people would try to just think for
themselves a bit, do what's best for their own case,
and not worry so much about what everyone else
is up to.

To anyone who says that the Desktop is old
hat and that I should be thinking about web-based
software: Maybe you're right, maybe you're not. Either
way, I have no intention of following such a path using
Microsoft software.
 
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 11:31:48 -0400, "Rick Rothstein [MVP - Visual Basic]"

¤ > ¤ But if I bundle the code I posted up into a Function like this
¤ > ¤
¤ > ¤ Public Function ReadAllText(FileName As String) As String
¤ > ¤ Dim FileNum As Long
¤ > ¤ Dim Contents As String
¤ > ¤ FileNum = FreeFile
¤ > ¤ Open FileName For Binary As #FileNum
¤ > ¤ ReadAllText = Space(LOF(FileNum))
¤ > ¤ Get #FileNum, , ReadAllText
¤ > ¤ Close #FileNum
¤ > ¤ End Function
¤ > ¤
¤ > ¤ and place it in a BAS Module along with all my other file
¤ > ¤ manipulation Functions and Subs, then all I have to do is add
¤ that
¤ > ¤ Module to any projects needing file input and reduce the call
¤ to
¤ > ¤ this...
¤ > ¤
¤ > ¤ Content = ReadAllText("c:\temp\test.txt")
¤ > ¤
¤ > ¤ That really isn't such a burdensome thing to do.
¤ > ¤
¤ > ¤ Rick
¤ >
¤ > No, just totally unnecessary in comparison. ;-)
¤ >
¤ > Now just repeat that for every instance where one or two lines
¤ of code in VB.NET would suffice and
¤ > you'll find out how much time you've wasted.
¤
¤ I look at this differently.. How much time am I going to have to
¤ waste finding out all of these equivalent lines of code to replace
¤ the function library I have already built up over the last 8+
¤ years of VB5/6 programming (all of which work fine and all of
¤ which probably need to be replaced)? And, of course, this doesn't
¤ include having to learn the new VB.NET language on top of that
¤ (something I didn't have to do when moving from VB3 to VB4, VB4 to
¤ VB5 nor VB5 to VB6).

Well you're switching gears a bit and changing the subject. It wasn't about how much effort it would
take to port your code but about an equivalent representation that was available in VB.NET.

At least that was in line with your previous response concerning your BAS module suggestion.

In any event, your assertion that all of your code would probably need to be replaced is once again
false, that is, unless all of your code makes exclusive use of language elements that are obsolete
in VB.NET.


Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
 
So RR's point is clear. Compare 1 line of .net to 7 lines of vb6 code.
Oh God I always hated the "open ... for binary as #" hehehehe. What kind of
a syntax is it? .Net to the rescue.

Ab.
 
and place it in a BAS Module along with all my other file
manipulation Functions and Subs, then all I have to do is add that
Module to any projects needing file input and reduce the call to
this...

Content = ReadAllText("c:\temp\test.txt")

That really isn't such a burdensome thing to do.

but how much of the functionality are you going to surround with function
calls and classes? And its you who is doing that, how are you going to make
this utility code available to all the vb6 devs? .Net that makes it
available for everyone.

Ab.
 
Well, the way I see it is thus: I would rather have my handy dandy class
files and bas files which I know work (and yes, I will give you that .NET
can do it in one lines, once all the new syntax has been learned, understood
and remembered)...BUT, when I compile my project and create my setup files
which include the VB runtimes...the download for the end user is still much
smaller than shipping out some .NET nightmare. The problem is this, and has
been mentioned: The .NET runtime is massive. In my 10+ years of dealing
with end users and their fickle systems, it was always to my advantage to
include the VB runtimes in my setup files, because when VB six was first
introduced, DLL Hell plauged my life with "OLE files out of date" messages.
I could not depend on my end users to have the current VB runtimes on their
computer...and I certianly could not depend on them always haveing the
latest SP's or Windows updates installed. And when I say I've dealt with
tens of thousands of people over the last ten years, I am not exaggerating.
I managed to curb the problem by always shipping the VB runtimes in my
setups with the versions instlled with VS6 and some competent version
checking in my setups. Problems mostly solved.

Now, taking all that into consideration with .NET, I would have to include
the .NET runtimes in my setup packages, which would create 20+ MB files for
the end user to download. Otherwise if I assumed the end users already had
the .NET runtimes installed, I would be spending ever waking hour with
support tickets over an installation process that should manage itself.

So, between having to learn a new lanaguage for all intents and purposes,
and then ensuring the end users have all the proper runtimes by including
those massive .NET runtime files...and not even mentioning how sluggish and
slow .NET compiled programs run in general...it just not worth it. M$ did
me a great disservice by throwing away VB classic along with everything I've
worked so hard for over the last ten years including code and protocols and
giving me .NET in return. And for what reason? Because they think it's
better? Again, I would rather have my BAS files with code I know works than
the so called convenience of only needing to type one line in .NET. It's
not a trade off I am willing to make, citing everything I've just explained.

If you want another analogy, consider the programs I've developed with my
marriage to VB 6 my "children". Now M$ has suggested I divorce from VB6 to
enter into another marriage with .NET. Good marriages take time and work
and don't always work out for the better. I don't want a new marriage, I am
happy with the one I am in...and I certainly don't appreciate being told my
"children" are obsolete, along with my "wife" because they think the new
marriage would be better for me. What made my marriage to VB 6 won't work
for .NET. Plain and simple.

So, there it is. ;-)

- Kev
 
Well, I admit to not knowing .NET as well as I know VB/COM, but let me
propose this anyway: Why throw away COM and VB6 as we know it for .NET?
The argument seems to be that the .NET runtimes are more powerful than the
VB 6 runtimes...but all in all the runtimes are just wrapping functions to
make out lives easier. So why then couldn't MS improve upon the VB COM
runtimes to do what .NET does now? Why was it necessary to dump VB and
create an entirely new lanaguge and stamp the VB name on it? I've heard the
"less DLL Hell" excuse, but I don't see that, between .NET 1.0, 1.1, 2.0,
etc. MS didn't solve DLL Hell with .NET, it merely recreated it using a
different framework.

It seems to me (and if I am wrong, please tell mw why) that a VB 7 with an
improved MSVBVM7.DLL to add the so called niceties of .NET instead. Those
looking for more power could have gotten it, and those of us who don't want
to throw away our legacy code would by happy (more or less?).

..NET seems to reply on a lot of faith that developers are willing to learn a
new langauge, put up with bloated outputs and runtimes and also assumes that
our average Joe end user has the system requirements to handle such a beast.
You'd be surprised how many people are still on Win 9x which is one reason
alone I have not gone completely UNICODE in my usage of APIs. MS can say
they don't support Win 95, and soon 98, but a mass amount of people still
use them regardless and don't seem apt to change. They are comfortable with
what they have because it works for them and their simpler needs.
Developers, especially those in my field need to cater to their end users to
stay in business, and that means continued support for older operating
system, and system that don't have the requirements needs for .NET created
programs. So for me, it would not be to my advantage to move .NET. I would
lose customers, I would lsoe sales, and then I would have to work for
someone else again, which is not somethig I want to do right yet.

MS put a lot of us in that boat, and I think I can safelt say that many of
us don't want to invest into .NET because if MS screw us a second
time...then Delphi may start looking a lot more appealing. If I have to
learn a new langauge, it will be for keeps, and I don't trust MS enough to
make that kind of commitment based on the way they hosed us VB 6 developers.

So, there it is. ;-)

- Kev
 
Kevin Provance said:
If you want another analogy, consider the programs I've developed with my
marriage to VB 6 my "children". Now M$ has suggested I divorce from VB6
to enter into another marriage with .NET. Good marriages take time and
work and don't always work out for the better. I don't want a new
marriage, I am happy with the one I am in...and I certainly don't
appreciate being told my "children" are obsolete, along with my "wife"
because they think the new marriage would be better for me. What made my
marriage to VB 6 won't work for .NET. Plain and simple.

So, there it is. ;-)

- Kev

Especially considering that feeling in the back of your head that it's just
going to happen again when the next crew takes over at MS <g>

OT, your "children are obsolete" statement reminded me of the movie Soldier
(Kurt Russell...
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0790740443/103-7242165-6257459?v=glance&n=130&v=glance).
He was one of the "old soldiers", assumed dead after a fight with one of the
new guys and dumped on a remote planet with other "waste".. when the new
guys came in, the commander says "your soldiers are obsolete", the remaining
older guys were told "only soldiers get guns... heck, you don't even have to
salute anymore"... Guess they were wrong eh? Kurt Russell, whooped'um real
good <g> Maybe good old Kurt should be a VB6 spokesman eh? ;-) (you'd have
to have seen the movie to know what I'm talking about)
 
OT, your "children are obsolete" statement reminded me of the
movie Soldier
(Kurt Russell...
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0790740443/103-7242165-6257459?v=glance&n=130&v=glance).
He was one of the "old soldiers", assumed dead after a fight with one of the
new guys and dumped on a remote planet with other "waste".. when the new
guys came in, the commander says "your soldiers are obsolete", the remaining
older guys were told "only soldiers get guns... heck, you don't even have to
salute anymore"... Guess they were wrong eh? Kurt Russell, whooped'um real
good <g> Maybe good old Kurt should be a VB6 spokesman eh? ;-) (you'd have
to have seen the movie to know what I'm talking about)

I saw the movie, I liked the movie and I like your analogy (my
interpretation of which is... Just because those in charge think
they know what is going on doesn't mean they actually do<g>).

Rick
 
1) don't have many customers
Or maybe (3) we do but we just handle them better than your company did.
The world is full of options why restrict the possibilites to just those 2.

I get the feeling that you don't read the posts you are responding to. Who
is going to pay for the down time while we do the conversion. Any offers?

Its called cost benefit Gary whereby the benefit of the upgrade outweighs
the cost of the upgrade. An "investment" if you will. Another way to look at
it is opportunity cost. Who pays for it? You do. If you cant justify the
cost then you "dont" upgrade. If there is no ROI then you dont invest. Its
quite simple.
Have you any idea of the amount of work that it would take to create all of
the interop DLLs for a large program?

Again with this all or nothing argument. I assume you have some kind of
structure to your exisiting code base. You examine this for opportunities
where dotNet has some projected value. You then replace this segment of your
code base. Your overly dramatic assertion about having to close the
doors/get everyone to retrain and rebuild is childish. If thats the
predicament you find yourself in then blame your architect(s) not Microsoft.

As for the new development/these products your customers are clamouring for
/ you would use dotNet and interOp where neccessary. Your forms
issue/controls arrays wouldn't then be a problem because your not converting
anything but adding value from scratch.

If your company's on the bones of its arse and unable to reinvest in itself
then thats a difficult situation but how does that get to be Microsofts
fault? The writing has been on the wall for a very long time. If your
company didn;t read it and now find yourself stuck in a quagmire of legacy
code then thats just poor business planning.

RR
 
Um, I think Roger Rabbit should be called Roger Troll - not sure he
can be serious.

Why because i happen to disagree with you? Your assertion of trollmanship is
just plain silly and somewhat uninformed. I would suggest the op is more of
a troll than i. Placing an anti dotnet message into a dotNet forum. Or
perhaps yourself for that matter looking at the dribble that constitutes the
rest of your message.
The person appears to be a "techie" computing student with no business
skills.
No-one who worked at a successfull ISV would be using .NET, especially
Beta software.

First of all its only beta for another 4 weeks. Secondly i'd like you to
point out where i said we were had it in production?
We have however investigated it along with another of other things such as
generics/partial classes/etc etc.

Maybe thats the problem with many of the VB6ers posting here. They simply
didn't do their homework back in 98/99. And they still haven;t done it
since. Now they are stuck with yesterdays technology. While the rest of us
are looking at tomorrows technology today.

One part of being a successful ISV is looking at whats over the horizon and
making a game plan before that day arrives. BETA software is not only an
opportunity for Microsoft to get some market reaction to its products but
also for its customers (ISVs) included to plan how and when they intend to
use that next release.

If you dont understand this simple yet endless cycle then perhaps its you
who needs to go back to classroom.
ISV implies downloading commerical type apps.

ISV alone does not by definition imply downloading anything nor for that
matter does it imply a commercial customer base. Try define:ISV @ Google.

If your going to play silly little games then at least get your facts
straight.

RR
 
Placing an anti dotnet message into a dotNet forum.

Ohhhh! I see the problem (at least for some of us)... I never
noticed this was cross-posted to a .NET and a non-.NET newsgroup.
Most of the opposition you are getting are from those of us in the
non-.NET newsgroup; I presume the strong FOR position responses is
coming from those of you in the .NET group.

Rick
 
Rick Rothstein said:
I saw the movie, I liked the movie and I like your analogy (my
interpretation of which is... Just because those in charge think
they know what is going on doesn't mean they actually do<g>).

Rick

Yep.... That sums it up nicely.<g>
 
Ken -

I did see the movie, and you're spot on. Sci-Fi is by far my favourite
genre. <g>

- Kev
 
Oy. I didn't catch that either. I'll be sure to disinclude that group for
any future rantings. <g>

- Kev
 
Roger said:
My kind? Get a grip Karl.

Yeah, y'know, guys who can't attach their name to their views. ;-)
It was a rhetorical question not meant to illicit a "how-to" response
but rather to demonstrate how simple developing in a .Net environment
has become..."out of the box".

And mine was a tongue in cheek response, meant to demonstrate how silly such rhetoric
is.

Objects simply are not the end-all/be-all you seem to believe. But hey, why take it
from me?

"At Microsoft, our goal is to make computers more useful and accessible to a
broader range of people. That’s why we’re concerned that object-oriented programming,
“OOP”, has turned into an industry buzzword. The truth is, OOP is secondary to the
ultimate goal of improving user productivity."
-- Tom Button,
http://www.fawcette.com/archives/premier/mgznarch/vbpj/1992/mayjun92/guest.pdf

I've been using virtually the same file i/o code structure for 30 years. Nothing
about your sample even *begins* to approach something I'd personally term "simple".
Rhetorically speaking. <g>

Later... Karl
 
So in a nutshell your resistant to change and just want things to be the way
they were.

That's fine. But its not realistic. I expect to turn my skillset over every
5 years. That's the world we live in. Maybe last century you could get away
with the same skillset for 20 plus years but that's not the case anymore.

I don't want a new marriage, I am
happy with the one I am in...and I certainly don't appreciate being told my
"children" are obsolete, along with my "wife" because they think the new
marriage would be better for me.

Well taking the emotive language out it I'm sure your actual wife and kids
are lovely...your programmatic wife and kids however are outdated and they
are obsolete. Monogamy in a technical sense is an outdated concept.

To survive in 21st Century development requires that you be a serial
polygamist. Its requires that you be a veritable Casanova of the
technological spectrum, that you bed many and wed none. While whispering
sweet nothings in the ear of your current Bo you are constantly looking over
her shoulder for what's coming through the door. You need to stay virile and
have a hunger and a passion for new conquests.

At the end of the day you don't slump on the couch with a bag of Cheetos but
rather see this as the moment where the real work begins as you delve into a
study of the fine art of tantric seduction.

The longer this thread runs the more obvious it becomes that the dontNetter
crowd have are professionally jealous of us dotNetters. As we dotNetters
forge energetically on ahead, going where no VB developer has gone before,
you dontNetters are stuck on some lonely hill on a cold dark night staring
up at the stars with your short, nearsighted telescopes in your hands.

You dontNetters sound like you fell for your code base and now 10-15 years
later you're all frustrated that she's grown fat and ugly and no longer puts
the way she used too. Meanwhile us dotNetters are gallivanting about the
Universe in our sleek new space ship, discovering all manner of strange and
interesting alien lifeforms and gently putting them to work for us as we
deliver one stellar performance after another..... at warp speed i might
add.

The fact is the technological chicks really dig us dotNetters and our flashy
Intergalactic ways and you dontNetters are more than just a little scornful
about being trapped raking out the muck from your earth bound trenches. Your
all something akin to the poor people who desperately try to convince
themselves that while the rich might be wealthy they aren't happy. Well the
truth is for all the dontNetters out there and their moaning and griping
about their archaic platform, the fact remains that us dotNetters are the
future. And the future is bright.

RR
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads


Back
Top