VB6 easier than VB.NET?

[Cor Ligthert]

Richard

Stephany,

Your post makes you seem like a shithead.

I thought that there was at least some education needed to make a program.

Probably you can do it with drag and drop in VB6 probably and now you have
problems?

In my opinion is a good advice for you to try as Herfried told more or less
in this thread MS-Office (the name of that part is MS-Access). Although that
can maybe complex as well for you when you start using the more and more
advanced features.

Just my thought,

Cor

 

[Cor Ligthert]

Stephany,

The more detached style I tried in past.

Now I see that the comments on that personally, however more a qualification
from the persons who are answering in that style.

However this is in my opinion not proven true,

A case in point is the rise of 'Cro Magnon' as the dominant species which
became modern humans and the demise of 'Neandethal' man. The Neanderthal's
were, for what ever reason, unable to change and consequently the species
did not survive.

AFAIK did they disapeared in a time that there was no fysical reason to
change. The same AFAIK is that it is not even impossible that they are mixed
up with the Cro Magnon.

The reason why they disappeared is AFAIK one of the big misteries.

(Maybe was it because Microsoft has stopped the support for them or made the
step to become from a Neanderthaller a Cro Magnon very easy)



Cor

 

[Cor Ligthert]

Mitchell (and others),

What I find surprising in this thread is that every professional in this
business should be used to this behavior from the users of his product. They
are afraid for every new or improved part that makes working easier;
however, they are not used too. There is fear for it and that is primarily
direct reflected in telling that it is not good.

There are more reasons for that, one of the most known is this one.

The user has made around his tools a special environment. In addition,
because that he becomes superior in his environment gives that him
authority. This superiority he looses with the new tool or is at least very
afraid to loose that.

This is a human aspect reflected as well in the messages from Sthephany.

I find it strange that the ones in this thread (now it becomes them) react
like that.

Just my thought,

Cor

 

[Richard Myers]

However this is in my opinion not proven true,

AFAIK did they disapeared in a time that there was no fysical reason to
change. The same AFAIK is that it is not even impossible that they are mixed
up with the Cro Magnon.

The reason why they disappeared is AFAIK one of the big misteries.

(Maybe was it because Microsoft has stopped the support for them or made the
step to become from a Neanderthaller a Cro Magnon very easy)



Cor

Cor,

It always amuses me that you are one of first to attempt to reprimand
others when you consider them being OT ...and yet when you yourself feel
like going OT or find something of interest in someone elses OT comments,
you immediately side step/bypass the standards you profess to support. The
fact that english is not your native tongue is no excuse for your
hypocrisy.

Richard

 

[Richard Myers]

Richard
I thought that there was at least some education needed to make a program.

Probably you can do it with drag and drop in VB6 probably and now you have
problems?

In my opinion is a good advice for you to try as Herfried told more or less
in this thread MS-Office (the name of that part is MS-Access). Although that
can maybe complex as well for you when you start using the more and more
advanced features.

Just my thought,

Cor

Cor... are you drunk?

 

[Cor Ligthert]

Richard,

It always amuses me that you are one of first to attempt to reprimand
others when you consider them being OT ...

Proof

Cor

 

[Cor Ligthert]

Richard,

By the way, the only message OT in my opinion in this thread is yours.

Stephany,

Your post makes you seem like a shithead.

Richard

The message from Stephany is in my opinion very much On thread.

Cor

 

[Richard Myers]

Well given the gibberish you're prone to post Cor, that hardly surprises
me.
Someone asks a question about VB6 ease of use vrs VB.NET and Stephanie
responds

Yep thats really on topic. Its just dribble for dribbles sake.

 

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

Unless you want to modify your previous list of three standpoints, these
people can only fall into the first category: people with large
investments in VB6.

It's doubtful that every individual or company has invested so largely in
VB6 that moving on to .NET is cost-prohibitive. Of those that are too
cost-prohibitive to "retool" their inventories of VB6 code, what's
stopping them from moving toward .NET for future development? It would
seem they already have - for the most part - the OO skills, so the
complexities of using Inheritance shouldn't be an issue to them...

For real application developers the move to .NET for new projects is not
such a big problem. However, to be able to do that, there must be a
seamless way to use existing VB6 code by the new .NET projects without a
rewrite. In addition to that, existing code still must be maintained for
years to satisfy the needs of the customers. On the other hand there is the
group of what I call "office developers", secretaries etc. who don't have
in-depth programming skills, and use VBA/VB simply for writing loops and
procedures. For them, OO increses complexity because it detracts from the
"simple" problem they want to solve.

IMHO, it boils down to the "VB6 mindstate". They are comfortable
programming VB6, and don't feel the need to upgrade their skill sets.

That's true for office developers who I wouldn't consider to be real
developers mostly. However, OO is not the right tool for them.

An opposing viewpoint - the VB6 programmers with little or no OO
experience - might be the minority, but these people are the ones who are
going to get hit the hardest. And I do know some of these types,
including your VBA developers. They seem to make the most noise about not
wanting to change.

Imagine you are a carpenter and use a little handsaw. This tool is
opmtimized for the work you do, so there is absolutely no need for a change
of the tool. One day the handsaw doesn't work any more and the manufacturer
of the saw wants to sell you a huge power saw and doesn't sell handsaws any
more because power saws are, in his eyes, an improvement. Would you learn
how to use the power saw if it doesn't fit your needs as exactly as the
handsaw did, or would you consider to buy a new handsaw from another
manufacturer instead? Would you buy a tool that is dysfunctional because
you cannot use it to do your work? I think it's absolutely clear that those
people don't want to change.

Now, on the topic of support for VB6 - as opposed to "not wanting to port
code to .NET" or "not wanting to learn the new technology" - I have
different feelings. I think that VB6 should continue to be supported by
MS, as there are a lot of businesses and individuals who are still running
VB6 code. I feel that VB6 will eventually phase itself out, just like
other older technologies like WFW... But I don't think it will be
dictated merely by Microsoft's force of will, but rather by the forces of
the market.

That's exactly what I think.

 

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

Cor,

The user has made around his tools a special environment. In addition,
because that he becomes superior in his environment gives that him
authority. This superiority he looses with the new tool or is at least
very afraid to loose that.

I don't think that this is true for most VB6 users, at least not for them
using VB6 in a professional manner. Many of them already know OO techniques
from C++, Java, or learned OO when learning VB.NET and C#. However, their
OO knowledge doesn't give them the time and money to convert an application
without bringing it further.

Many "VB shops" have VB code bases started in BASIC, which cannot be used
any more because of fundamental, breaking changes in the language (for
example, the change of array bounds breaks tons of code -- this code needs
to be completely redesigned in order to work in VB.NET or C#). I am just
curious why most people think that VB6 developers are only familiar with
VB6, and I am sure this is a misperception.

The whole issue is more economical than ideological. Treating it as an
ideological issue distracts from the core issues.

 

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

Richard,

Well given the gibberish you're prone to post Cor, that hardly surprises
me.

Note that not everybody in this group is a native English speaker. I
encourage you to take care of that ...

 

[Cor Ligthert]

Herfried,

Note that not everybody in this group is a native English speaker. I
encourage you to take care of that ...

I am very much able to read what Stephany wrote, and as you know, is that
something I very much agree with ,as I have written it with other words in
the same way as she did, in the other thread directly on statements of you.

I miss in this thread your very much-used link to rules of conduct. I think
that that was more on his place message to Richard.

Alternatively, is it a kind of selective use of that; When the messages fits
your idea's it is not against the rules of conduct. Richard abused both
Stephanie and me in a horrible way, what did me decide not to answer on that
anymore.

Cor

 

[Cor Ligthert]

Hefried,

Note that not everybody in this group is a native English speaker. I
encourage you to take care of that ...

--

Before you don't understand my message, with this you agree with Richard
that my messages are gibberish.

Although you are not a native English speaker have I no doubt that you
understand what is written by Richard.

In my opinion is this writing of you than very much in conflict with the
rules of conduct.

Cor

 

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

Cor,

I am very much able to read what Stephany wrote, and as you know, is that
something I very much agree with ,as I have written it with other words in
the same way as she did, in the other thread directly on statements of
you.

Well, I didn't want to doubt that you understand what Stephany wrote and I
understand what you want to say, but I for me it's sometimes hard to
understand what you write.

I miss in this thread your very much-used link to rules of conduct. I
think that that was more on his place message to Richard.

Alternatively, is it a kind of selective use of that; When the messages
fits your idea's it is not against the rules of conduct. Richard abused
both Stephanie and me in a horrible way, what did me decide not to answer
on that anymore.

I typically post the rules of conduct link when insulting text is directed
to me . You can do the same when you are abused.

 

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

Cor,

Before you don't understand my message, with this you agree with Richard
that my messages are gibberish.

Although you are not a native English speaker have I no doubt that you
understand what is written by Richard.

I assume that Richard didn't take enough time to understand what you wrote,
that's why I made him aware that some people don't make mistakes because
they are drunk or idiots, but instead because they are non-native speakers.

 

[Cor Ligthert]

Herfried,

Well, I didn't want to doubt that you understand what Stephany wrote and I
understand what you want to say, but I for me it's sometimes hard to
understand what you write.

I did almost write nothing to Richard. He did not understand the message
from Stephany, which is for me very clear. That he than tells that he does
not understand my messages tells more about his ability with the English
language than about my. Whereby I don't write that I am a perfect English
writer. Although I make the writing errors, I make in English, in almost
every language (including Dutch) in mail messages.

In addition, I know that they sometimes are unreadable; therefore, you see
sometimes when it is in my opinion to many corrections. When I see that I
have done typos or whatever which are in my opinion still understandable, I
let it go.

However telling with that, as you do now with this message agreeing with
Richard, that all my messages are gibberish (Kauderwelsch) is a little bit
going too far in my opinion.

Cor

 

[Guest]

Look at one specific application, serial I/O.

In VB6 there was the MSComm control that handled the OnComm events.
In VB.Net, there is nothing built in. You can shoe-horn the MSComm
control in; or more recently you could use some of the posted
solutions, but none of the posted solutions are as easy to use as the
MSComm control, in my opinion. Most of the posted solutions that I
have seen only do polling, ...no event generation, which greatly
limits the responsiveness. I've resorted to mixed VB.NET and C
programming for my solution. If I were to write a class, I'd do it in
C++, not VB.NET.

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 17:04:23 -0500, "Mitchell S. Honnert"

 

[Keith Seeley]

Hi Stephany,

The same type of situation occured early last century when companies were
dragged kicking and screaming from using horse-drawn transport to motorised
transport. Regardless of the rights, wrongs or indifferences of it, it
happened. Those that embraced motorised transport tended to propsper and
those that didn't saw their profits dwindle until they did. Did the world
stop turning? No!

Pespective. Companies shouldn't have to care about the technology, only the
results that are produced.
Motorized transport produced better results than horse drawn carriages and
as such replaced the older technology. Will VB.net produce better RESULTS
for the customer? AFAIK VB.net changes the METHOD to produce software, not
the results PRODUCED by the software. And that METHOD requires a greater
skill set than classic VB. 1+1= 2 and in any language.

The main point I was trying to make is that classic VB was (sorry, is) a
tool that creates solutions rapidly (RAD), and a degree in computer
programming was not required. Thus it allowed people to produce RESULTS for
their company quickly and inexpensively (sorry again, cost effectively) even
if the METHOD (the actual code) used wasn't optimal. Classic VB
accomplished this by hiding much of the underlying technical details from
the programmer. VB.net may fit this bill (not from what I've seen yet), but
it appears that the product requires a lot MORE knowledge of what goes on
under the hood than classic VB. And as I stated previously, this isn't
necessarily a bad thing but what it does is take the tool away from casual
programmers ("bad" programmers according to some).

In your penultimate paragraph you allude to 'VB Classic' being phased out.
I'm interested as to what inside information you have that the rest of us
aren't privy to. We are all aware that mainstream for VB6 ceases as at the
the end of this month but I have not seen any information about VB6 being
phased out any earlier than planned. The whole point is that VB6 is NOT
being taken away, anyone who uses it today will still be able to use it next
month, and that nobody is being FORCED to change. Those that want to change
can and those that don't, (having been made aware of the situation and
therefore making their decision on an infomed basis), can continue on as
they do now.

Perspective. MS chose to stop development of an excellent tool for casual
programmers that allowed them to "cost effectively" produce results for
their employer. The replacement tool requires more in-depth knowledge of
"real" programming and I suspect it will not be as accessible as classic VB.
The result is that more companies will have to hire professional developers
to do their work, which is an expenditure that previously didn't exist.
VB.net will mean more $$$ to small businesses who DO want to keep up with
current technology. In this respect, companies WILL be FORCED to spend more
money to keep up with the "latest and greatest", even though the RESULTS
produced will be no different than before.

Perspective. It's about the RESULTS for the CUSTOMER, not about the details
of being a professional programmer. I realize it's tough for the
participants of this group to understand, but there are many people who do
NOT program for a living yet do so anyway to achive results for their
employers. It's these people and their companies who are losing big time -
their tool is being phased out and they will have to hire someone to do the
work for them. Good for you folks, bad for them.

 

[Mitchell S. Honnert]

To me, VBA should be separated from VB6 in this particular context.
Exactly. In fact, I intentionally omitted any reference to VBA in my
original post. My goal was to get the opinion of professional programmers
on enterprise-level programming tools. Yes, I know that VBA is used in the
enterprise, but I had wanted to focus the responses to more "hard core"
programming. Not to discount the programs written by the "guy in
accounting", but that wasn't my focus.

The people and companies who have invested a lot of $$$ in VB6 development
may have a valid reason to stick with it for backwards compatibility

Exactly! But again, I didn't reference any migration issues because I
personally was looking for a more objective, side-by-side comparison, rather
than the issues of going from one to another. (Which apparently warrants
its own thread!)

In simple projects, the use of inheritance might well be hidden from the
programmer by the Forms designer generated code. To add to your
statement, not all OO programs require the programmer to implement
Polymorphism; but it's there if you need it. Not all simple OO programs
need be complex as people make them out to be.

Exactly!!! I think the discussion about the "VB6 comfort zone" is
appropriate, not to arbitrarily ridicule the programmers who are "stuck in
the past", but to point out how there might be confusion between familiarity
and true ease-of-use. Specifically, I believe that it really *is* easier to
program in VB.NET. Yes, if you want to delve into the complexities of OO,
you will have a steeper learning curve, but you can still to the
drag-and-drop style of programming you could with VB6. It's just that when
you need to go beyond some of the simple stuff, there is an amazingly clear
and coherent architecture waiting for you to discover.

- Mitchell S. Honnert

 

[Keith Seeley]

Hi,

Hi, while i 100% agree with the main point of your argument, that as working
programmers (not hobbyists) we should always keep the "bottom line" first
and foremost in our mind, i disagree completely with your conclusion because
from my experience, coding in .NET is much more efficient than any other
platform ive ever used (granted im not a computer scientist type who has
used a lot of different languages, im pretty much a
COBOL-->VB3/4/5/6-->VB.NET-->C# dork).

I'm certain that .NET is more efficient - if you are a professional
programmer who chooses to understand the intricacies involved. But what
about the "hobbyists"? These people produce results for their employers.
They may not code nice pretty interfaces or customized UI controls, but they
certainly provide the underlying business logic to get things done.

I think this argument falls into the common fallacy that because its the
"latest and greatest", it must be hard to work with and more expensive. I
think there is a good deal of evidence (at least from my own experience and
talking to others who have actually used .NET) that in this case the
opposite is true.

If so, I stand corrected. However, I can only go from my own experiences
and I find VB.net to be a bit too detailed, too complex, for someone who
doesn't care about the details. Classic VB hid a lot of things that I think
VB.net exposes.

How would you react if I told you that with .NET you could produce a better
product in a shorter amount of time with fewer people, and that product
would be easier/cheaper to maintain? Would you believe me or not? If not,
why not?

I'd believe you. Problem is, the person producing those results needs to be
a programmer. They would require knowledge that currently is not required
using classic VB. Remember the old addage "KISS"?

The argument about programmers pushing a fancy new technology to keep
themselves employed seems like an ad-hominem (ferget my Latin pls) attack.
Actually, i see the opposite happening where teams can get smaller or stay
small and get more stuff done quicker.

Sorry if that is how I came across-not my intention.

I disagree with a couple of your assumptions here:
1. VB classic is the most productive tool for small businesses.
2. VB.NET is hard to learn.
Also, your reasoning is contradictory here: youre saying that your old VB
apps will continue to run on future OS's, yet you will be forced into a
costly rewrite of all your apps? If it doesnt make economic sense to
rewrite your existing apps, the solution is simple: don't. That is what
MSFT recommends, and also what it does... you didnt see them rush out a
completely rewritten Office suite built with C# did you? And if an
organization regularly comes to the possibly rational conclusion that
technology upgrades have no economic benefit, then you probably do not need
to worry about them upgrading their OS either. So problem is doubly solved!


Your central assumptions are wrong IMO, because .NET development is cheaper
in the long run, and no one is being forced to do anything that doesnt make
economic sense. the only "forcing" that is going on is caused by natural
competition between businesses who can use technology (both the reality and
the marketing) against their rivals. There are probably many industries
where Windows 3.1 and WordPerfect 5.1 are perfectly "good enough" and
competition between companies within those industries is not affected by
technology. If you find yourself to be a specialist in a field like that,
and youre happy with it, then good for you, i mean it!

Point taken. However, companies have a tool today that allow them to
produce results without the expense of hiring professional programmers.
This tool is no longer being developed, and it's replacement requires a
better knowledge of "real" programming. As such, these companies will be
FORCED to spend $$$ to produce the same RESULTS that classic VB produced.