speed issues

[Bill McCarthy]

No I'm not.

Actually you are.

You are trolling the VB6 group and you are upsetting a lot of people.

I suggest you stop attacking folks in there too Mike. Everytime a dotnet
newby posts to the VB6 group by mistake you attack. Yesterday's outbursts
by you were particularly un-warranted. If you don't like people responding
to your attacks, I suggest you stop attacking people in the first place.

You've now also made your intent here publicly known, so folks know to add
you to their blocked sender list.

 

[Mathias Wührmann]

Hi Mike,

I'm trying to decide whether or not I need to move to a different
development tool and I'm told that VB6 code, when well written, can
be ten times faster than vb.net, but that if its badly written it can
be ten times slower. Is that correct?

Misleading, because badly written VB6 code can also be 10 times slower
that well written ;-)

There may be exceptions, but I would say even not so very well written
VB.NET code executes faster than well written VB6 code in nearly every
case. Plus it's easier to do things well in VB.NET. I'll clarify that in
the next paragraph...

I'm quite competent at writing code myself and so most of my code
will be quite well written, and I don't want to move to vb.net if
well written VB6 code is ten times faster. Have I been told the
truth? Or do I need to look into this further?

I have also migrated myself from brain 6.0 to brain.net. I found that
many things, especially performance critical parts of my old VB6
applications, where quite easier to achieve in .NET - because many of
them were already available as classes in the .NET Framework instead of
forcing me to find "speedy workarounds" using API functions.

One example is string concatenation. You can do var1 & var2 in VB6 as
well as in .NET, I didn't measure it, but I feel even here .NET is faster.

If you want to really speed it up in VB6, you'd have to use API /
another "third-party" class, called "FastString class" in this case
(Google for it). If you want to speed it up in .NET, you simply use the
builtin StringBuilder class. Usage of both feels quite the same - but
the difference is, that it's instantly available in .NET and you can be
quite sure Microsoft made a robust implementation, giving you well
defined errors instead of crashes if something goes wrong.

PS: You won't have to learn VB.NET. If you decide to ".NET", you'll
mainly have to learn all those Framework classes and their
possibilities, because they are the same in *every* .NET language. The
differences are merely just the syntax like all those case sensitivity
and semicolons in C#...yuck! ;-)


Best regards,

Mathias Wuehrmann

 

[Cor Ligthert[MVP]]

Mike,

This is turning my words around and you did not read what others (by
instance Michel) wrote, on what I had not anything to add.

"Bad" written code in VB.Net can be 10 times slower then "good" written code
in VB6
And Bad written code in VB6 can be 10 times slower then "good" written in
VB.Net

However, VB6 does not give you all the tools and optimizing VB.Net gives you
and therefore you are not able to make a program in VB6 that is as effective
as in VB.Net (as it is more than a simple console application)

However 10*10 will not be remarable quicker in VB.Net than in VB6 as they
both support that.

And other point is that you are able to build more solid solutions with VB
for Net because it is based on OOP principles and VB6 is not like that.

Cor

 

[Cor Ligthert[MVP]]

Mike

Probably my misunderstanding of the by you used English

"When well done it can be about 10 times quicker"
"When bad done it can be about 10 times slower."

In my English "can be" is something different than "is".

However in your language it seems to be the same.

If "is" = the same in your language as "can be" then my message is
misleading.

I thought that I have often used it in England however maybe there are
differences in it.

Cor

 

[Andrew Morton]

In my English "can be" is something different than "is".

You are correct.

Andrew

 

[Armin Zingler]

Is that correct?

There is no general answer. This is correct.


Armin

 

[rowe_newsgroups]

If you read what I said, was that I expect VB.NET
and Vb6 to be the same. You're trying to put words
in my mouth I never said.

No I'm not. I suggested that the statement made by Cor Ligthert on 22 April
was at best intentionally misleading and at worst deliberately inflammatory
when he said about vb.net code [comparing it to VB6 code]:

"When well done it can be about 10 times quicker"
"When bad done it can be about 10 times slower."

Ligthert was deliberately trying to suggest that a well coded vb.net program
would run ten times faster than a similar VB6 program, which is definitely
NOT the case. Both programs would in fact run at approximately the same
speed, with perhaps the odd difference here and there and Ligthert's
statement was a deliberate attempt to pretend that vb.net is faster than
VB6, which it is NOT. Any programming language can run ten times slower than
any other programming langauge if the code is badly written, whatever those
languages are, so that statement conveys no useful information at all. But
the statement that well done vb.net can be about ten times quicker than VB6
is clearly intended to persuade people that a well done vb.net program is
ten times quicker than a well done VB6 program (otherwise the comparision
has no validity at all). Therefore Ligthert was deliberately trying to be
provovative and was effectively telling lies.You told me that his statement
was /not/ misleading, when in fact it very clearly was, as is evidenced by
the fact that other people here on this vb.net group have since told me that
virtually the exact same statement, but with VB6 and vb.net reversed, was
deliberately misleading and was probably written by someone with "an axe to
grind".

You did later make a statement that in your view both programs would run at
about the same speed, but you made that statement simply because you were
attempting to defend your failure to condemn Ligthert's deliberately
inflammatory statement while at the same time you spend half of your life
spamming and trolling the VB6 newsgroup and jumping on anybody who makes
even the slightest remark about vb.net.

You are trolling the VB6 group and you are upsetting a lot of people. I
suggest that if you prefer vb.net that you stay in the vb.net group and that
you stop deliberately spamming and trolling the VB6 group. Stay away from
your trolling of the VB6 group and we will not follow you here! You are a
spammer and a troll.

Mike

This was the statement I was waiting for - the end to your long setup
for trolling.

What I find most interesting is how you don't bring up the issue in
the thread that Cor's possible misleading statement was in. Yes, you
said "Rubbish!" but then shortly after you start this thread, purely
for trolling.

If you want to start a serious discussion of the speed difference than
do it, but don't try to be misleading yourself and troll others into a
reputation bashing.

Thanks,

Seth Rowe [MVP]

 

[Mike Williams]

I suggest you stop attacking folks in there too Mike.

I'm not attacking anybody. I'm just telling them the truth. VB6 is NOT
vb.net and in general any responses written in VB6 code will NOT run in
vb.net, and I then ask them to post their vb.net questions to a dotnet
group. Sounds okay to me. I came here merely to ask you to stop spamming and
trolling the VB6 group, in the hope that you might listen to me here because
so far you have failed to listen to the dozens of people on the VB6 group
who have asked you to stop trolling it. You are a troll, McCarthy, and you
are annoying a lot of people on the VB6 group. Please desist.

Mike

 

[Mike Williams]

In my English "can be" is something different than "is".

Yes, of course. The phrase "can be" is different from "is", but your
statement was clearly intended to confuse people and ti imply something that
is not true. The following statement is true, so why didn't you make it? If
you want the truth then tell all the truth:

Well written VB6 code can be about 10 times quicker than vb.net

Mike

 

[Mike Williams]

What I find most interesting is how you don't bring up
the issue in the thread that Cor's possible misleading
statement was in. Yes, you said "Rubbish!" but then
shortly after you start this thread, purely for trolling.

No. I started this thread to discover why McCarthy refuses to condemn
inflammatory remarks in this group when he spends half his life spamming and
trolling the VB6 group and condemning almost everybody he comes across.
Also, I wan ted to ask McCarthy on his "home ground" to stop trolling the
VB6 group, because lots of people on the VB6 group have asked him to stop
trolling it there and so far he has not taken any notice of them.

If you want to start a serious discussion of the
speed difference than do it

I'm more interested in truth than in speed, and in finding out why McCarthy
refuses to condemn people in this group for doing exactly the same kind of
things that he condemns them for in the VB6 group. He is a troll, and he has
been trolling the VB6 group for many, many months.

Mike

 

[Bill McCarthy]

I'm not attacking anybody.

Nonsense. You attacked Earl just the other day, someone who clearly said
they hadn't programmed in 12 years, and **BANG**, Mike Williams attacks him.

I'm just telling them the truth.

No you add lost of anti-dotnet and anti Microsoft rhetoric, or as you seem
fond of writing Micro$oft [sic]

and I then ask them to post their vb.net questions to a dotnet group.
Sounds okay to me.

Well that's strange becuase a LOT fo folks have told you your behaviour is
flaming.

I came here merely to ask you to stop spamming and trolling the VB6 group,

No you didn't. You came here to troll and to make a dishonest
representation of what someone else had said, deliberately mis-quoting them.

You are a troll, McCarthy, and you are annoying a lot of people on the VB6
group. Please desist.

Again Mike, all you are doing is trolling here and name calling, yet again.
If you have problems with my responses to your attacks on dotnet or people
in the Vb6 groups, again I suggest you stop attacking. Likewise I suggest
if you don't want this to continue even more, you stop trolling in here.

Good day to you Mr Williams.

 

[Bill McCarthy]

Yes, of course. The phrase "can be" is different from "is", but your
statement was clearly intended to confuse people and ti imply something
that is not true. The following statement is true, so why didn't you make
it? If you want the truth then tell all the truth:

Well written VB6 code can be about 10 times quicker than vb.net

Mike Williams, this has been answered by numerous people here already. Your
clearly just trolling. Please desist.

 

[Mike Williams]

On average yes - I would say that is a misleading statement.
There may be some corner cases where this statement maybe
true, but overall - it's false.

Good. That is my own opinion as well. Thank you for confirming it. And, of
course, the following ststement is /also/ misleading and is /also/ false:

"well written vb.net code can be ten times faster than VB6"

But that is the stament made by someone here in this vb.net group and Bill
McCarthy, who spends half his life trolling the VB6 group and condemning
almost everybody in it, refuses to condemn that statement. So, as well as
being a troll who has been trolling the VB6 group for months, McCarthy is
also duplicit and dishonest. Thank you.

Mike

 

[Mike Williams]

I think it is misleading as well.

Thank you. And so do I. And, of course, the statement "well written vb.net
code can be ten times faster than VB6" is also similarly misleading, which
leaves me wondering why Bill McCarthy, who is a participant in this group
and who has also been trolling the VB6 group for months, refuses to condemn
it and refusing to admit that it is misleading, even though he constantly
condemns people on the VB6 group for saying anything that he believes is
even remotely inaccurate or misleading. Perhaps McCarthy is duplicit and
dishonest, as well as being an annoying troll? Yes, that will be the answer.
Thank you.

Mike

 

[Tom Shelton]

I'm not attacking anybody. I'm just telling them the truth. VB6 is NOT
vb.net and in general any responses written in VB6 code will NOT run in
vb.net,

Not true, Mike. You don't tell them vb6 is not vb.net - you generally
tell them that vb.net is not visual basic. And then launch into a
tirade about how dishonest Microsoft marketing labeled an imposter as
Visual Basic and charges twice as much for Vista in the UK.

This is what I believe people are mostly reacting to. Stop attacking,
and just ignore or redirect and all will be well.

 

[Mike Williams]

There may be exceptions, but I would say even not
so very well written VB.NET code executes faster
than well written VB6 code in nearly every case.

That is a ridiculous statement, and totally incorrect!

Plus it's easier to do things well in VB.NET.

Actually I asked about speed, not ease of use. It was the inflammatory and
deliberately misleading statement made by someone in this group that I asked
your opinion on. But you are of course correct when you say that lots of
things are easier to do in vb.net, because vb.net does a lot more "hand
holding" for you and it provides lots of functions, particularly graphics
functions, natively whereas in those cases you need to write a lot of code
in VB6 to achieve the same effect. If you use the newly provided net
graphics classes for example you can often achieve good results in vb.net
without needing to be a good programmer, whereas in VB6 you need to be a
good programmer to achieve similar results. So, it is sometimes easier, but
is is /not/ faster! Check out the various "challanges" that were thrown into
the ring on the VB6 group by a "netter" some time ago when it was suggested
that it was impossible to write code in VB6 to perform some specific
manipulation of a bitmap on a pixel by pixel basis that was anywhere near as
fast as the code using dotnet's built in fast graphics classes would be. The
result was that VB6 code was written that performed the task almost as fast
as C# code in net. There was no significant difference between VB6 and net's
C#, although of course C# just had the edge. So, the statement that "well
written vb.net code can be 10 times faster than VB6 code" is a totally
misleading statement.

If you want to really speed it up in VB6, you'd have
to use API / another "third-party" class, called
"FastString class" in this case (Google for it). If you
want to speed it up in .NET, you simply use the builtin StringBuilder
class.

Yes, but you're talking about ease of use for certain specific functions. I
would not argue that vb.net provides lots of functions that are easier to
use, and of course many that are harder to use. But that is not the question
I asked. I asked about speed and the fact is that well written vb.net code
is */NOT/* ten times faster than well written VB6 code. In fact in general
it is */NOT/* faster at all, and in many cases it is slower. Obviously it
takes a lot more code in VB6 to produce, for example, the sort of things
that the vb.net graphics functions provide as built in classes, but when
such VB6 code is written it is every bit as fast as the equivalent vb.net
code.

The statement "well written vb.net code can be 10 times faster than VB6
code" is misleading and inflammatory.

Mike

 

[Mike Williams]

However, VB6 does not give you all the tools and
optimizing VB.Net gives you . . .
Correct.

. . . and therefore you are not able to make a
program in VB6 that is as effective as in VB.Net

Rubbish!

Mike

 

[Dick Grier]

10X is a silly generalization.

I have programs that have a "real-time" issue, and those seem to execute
about 30% slower in .NET. I haven't done any real speed tests, but the 30%
estimate seems close. I suspect that you will find other (types of)
programs that execute even more slowly in .NET, while I'm sure there are
programs that could be found to execute more quickly in .NET.

--
Richard Grier, MVP
Hard & Software
Author of Visual Basic Programmer's Guide to Serial Communications, Fourth
Edition,
ISBN 1-890422-28-2 (391 pages, includes CD-ROM). July 2004, Revised March
2006.
See www.hardandsoftware.net for details and contact information.

 

[Dick Grier]

Not just misleading. Just wrong (unless for some special case).

--
Richard Grier, MVP
Hard & Software
Author of Visual Basic Programmer's Guide to Serial Communications, Fourth
Edition,
ISBN 1-890422-28-2 (391 pages, includes CD-ROM). July 2004, Revised March
2006.
See www.hardandsoftware.net for details and contact information.

 

[Bill McCarthy]

Hey Dick,

I have programs that have a "real-time" issue, and those seem to execute
about 30% slower in .NET. I haven't done any real speed tests, but the
30% estimate seems close.

Have you looked at what the issues are ? Is this in drivers you've written,
COM dll's or win32 API etc ?