Welcome to AddressOf.com Sign in | Join | Help

VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

No wonder people give us VB guys a hard time... we even cause problems among ourselves.  What's it this time?  Well, I just don't get this whole keep VB6 thing.

Let's look at a couple of things, shall we?

VB6 was released in 1998.  Pretty much a run of the mill upgrade to VB5 which as released 1996.  That's nine (count them, 9) years since there was a major revision to the so-called VB.Classic or VB.COM as some people are starting to call it! 

OK, so let's rewind that time machine 9 years prior to VB5.  What version of BASIC was available in 1987?  1987 gave us 3 different versions of QuickBASIC (yes, I said 3 different versions, 2.01, 3.00 and 4.00) and Microsoft BASIC 6.0.  1987 was also the year that ANSI issues the Standard BASIC specification (specification X3.113-1987).  Windows hadn't even reached 3.0 and VB was nowhere in sight.  QB4.5 came out a few years later and contained some very significant changes... enough that I really think it should have been QB5, but that's just my opinion and, besides, it's not like they are going to change it now ;-)

Why am I bringing this up?  Well, for a couple of reasons.  The first being that, in technology, the only constant is that things continue to change.  The move from DOS to Windows (ala VB, in 1991) was even more difficult than the move from VB6 to VB.NET could ever be.  *EVERYTHING* had to be redone... sure, some code snippets that did some specific logic could carry forward, but for the most part it was a total rewrite.  It was a platform shift.  DOS to Windows.  Moving from DOS BASIC to Windows, you had to learn completely new concepts and a whole new laundry list of things to worry about.  No more worrying about DGROUP, instead had to wrap you mind around this concept of event oriented programming.  All you 3rd-party libraries were obsolete, but there was this new thing called the Win16 api that you could dig into.  There was also this thing called VBX.

So, the age of VB started in 1991 and lasted until the release of VB6 in 1998.  Six versions in 7 years moving through the age of 16-bit Windows to 32-bit Windows and even starting to venture into the world of the Web.  A few significant changes occurred along the way that caused difficulty in migrating existing applications.  The move from 16-bit to 32-bit being one of the most significant.  VB4 shipped with two distinct versions of the IDE... one for 16-bit development which still allowed you to use VBX components... the other was a 32-bit IDE that used this new thing called ActiveX (COM).  All your old VBX components were obsolete and did not get carried forward.  However, the 3rd-party product vendors did a pretty good job providing compatible components (although, in many cases, not 100% compatible).  There was also an upgrade wizard, but since Microsoft didn't change the existing elements of language in VB3 to VB4, most of the existing code would migrate forward.  However, just because the applications would compile and run, that didn't really make them VB4 applications.  VB4 also introduced class based programming, the beginnings of BASIC's move to true object oriented development.  There were a lot of criticisms by others because VB wasn't “truly” object oriented, but that didn't stop people moving forward with learning all about Classes and Properties with their Let's, Set's, Get's and the whole Set objSomeVariable = Nothing programming practice.

Now we are where we are at today... 3 years after the release of VB.NET, people are still complaining about the move forward.  It is another platform shift, different things to consider and new programming practices to absorb.  VB now is truly object oriented and on equal footing with *ALL* the other languages targeting this new platform.  A few existing VB developers have jumped ship to C#, which is fine... considering that C# has a lot in common with VB, I don't think it's too far of a leap.  And if they a really want to practice pinkie finger gymnastics, more power to them ;-)  However, what is interesting is the fanaticism some people have in regards to staying with VB6.  It's over 7 years old guys...

As for the difficulty to migrate to VB.NET from VB6; it's not really that difficult.  I've migrated nearly every application to VB.NET shortly after release.  Did I need to?  Probably not, though I felt it was a good way to jump in and get my hands dirty and it was something that I thought would be necessary at some point in the future, so why delay in the inevitable.  Did I do this because Microsoft said they were going to end support for VB6 and the fear that my existing VB6 applications wouldn't run on Longhorn?  Those thoughts never entered into my mind.  VB.NET just made sense.  It's the logical step forward for BASIC.  Is it perfect, by no means is it that, but it IS a step in the right direction.  Hell, I've been waiting for bit shift operations in any version of Microsoft BASIC since the days of QB4, VB.NET 2003 finally introduced them into the language (somewhat useless since there's no support for unsigned types, but that's being remedied in VB 2005).  Interoperating with Win32 has been seriously improved with VB.NET.  Writing visual components in VB.NET is so simple, trying to compare it with VB6 is just plain impossible.

VB 2005 will be correcting a few of the deficiencies that I see in VB on the .NET platform, but that doesn't mean I'm ready to say I'm satisfied with it.  As a long time user of BASIC, I don't think I'll ever reach that point... OK, maybe when I retire... wait... I'm never going to retire.

So, what is spawning all of this dribble?  Well, the whole petition to get Microsoft to bring a COM based VB into VS.next and to continue supporting it.

They say they are afraid that their VB6 applications are going to stop working with future versions of Windows.  This isn't going to happen and is just a scare tactic to get people to listen to their plea.  I can show you several applications that I wrote back in 1991 that still run today under Windows XP SP2... these are DOS applications written in a version of BASIC that has fallen WAY off the radar of Microsoft.  VB 1.0 applications still run today... not that you would want to run them, but the fact remains, they do still run today.  The number of deployed applications developed using VB6 is large enough that Microsoft will continue to do their compatibility testing to ensure they still run in the future.  This is no different than what they've already been doing.

As for a COM based version of VB... COM is DEAD... (OK, not dead, but why do you want to continue torturing yourself with DLL hell?)  It's time to move on.

Not having a natively compiled version of VB?  OK, this one I would kind of like as a wish item... at least come up with a better way to protect my IP... included in the box... not something I have to go to a 3rd-party vendor for.  However, because there is a 3rd-party product I can use to help protect my investment, I'm OK with it since the other benefits significantly outweigh the downsides.

To say the MVP's are revolting against Microsoft... let me say for the record... I'M NOT ONE OF THEM!  And because I don't work for Microsoft like Paul Vick or a developer of a 3rd-party product targeting both platforms as Dan Appleman does... So I could say whatever comes to mind... well, the problem is that I just don't know how to respond without using words that would just be plain insulting... and I think I'll try to avoid doing that ;-)

As it turns out, Scott Swigart has a few choice words to say and Scott Hanselman, unlike myself, is at a complete loss for words.  (For the record, I was at that stage, but I had a few days to think about it.)

AND... here is your chance to counter their madness... consider this post an anti-petition... so comment away!

[note] I hesitated to add a link to the petition, but I decided it would be more appropriate for you to go there, read it yourself and formulate you own opinion. ;-)

[note] And, Yes, I have been programming that long ;-)

[update] Found a couple more people with something to say on the subject: Duncan MacKenzie, David Totzke, Frans Bouma

 

Published Friday, March 11, 2005 3:44 AM by CorySmith
Filed under:

Comments

# re: VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

Friday, March 11, 2005 4:26 AM by vbNullString
I'm 100% anti-petition. Wrote that in Japanese here.

I loved VB6, but now that I went into OOP paradigm and received the great benefit of OOP, I can't go back, especially love polymorphism. Just can't live without it. If you have programmed in VB .NET in at least a month, why would you want to go back? I just don't get it. I've been doing VB .NET since .NET Framework 1.0 Beta 1. Never wanna go back to VB6.

# re: VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

Friday, March 11, 2005 4:49 AM by Jack William Bell
As I posted on another forum about this: I’ve been calling VB the 'COBOL of the nineties' for a while now. If these guys get their way I will be right on yet another level; and twenty years from now some poor schmuck is going to be maintaining a badly written inventory control program with all the business logic hidden in click events.

We don't want that do we? Death to VB say I! Take the damn thing off life support.

# re: VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

Friday, March 11, 2005 7:25 AM by Eric Mutta
When change is the only constant, petitions like that are nothing more than business as usual.

For my current personal project, VB.NET is a miracle compared to VB6 and that's what I use when I'm not trying to earn money and pay my taxes.

When at work however, I typically have to delve back into VB6 (specifically VBA in Access) and the *most* painful difference is the code editor. I find myself sitting there waiting for it to auto-indent that line of code I just typed and it just sits there looking back at me blank (can you say RSI? :).

If my MS were to ever consider releasing a new version of VB6, enhancing *just* the editor would be enough for me.

However, I'm not really looking back to VB6. With VB 2005 coming out, you'd either have to hold a gun to my head or be the one who signs my pay cheque to get me to use VB6 instead.

# re: VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

Friday, March 11, 2005 7:28 AM by Eric Mutta
Er, remove the "my" in the line on the second last paragraph "If my MS were to ever consider...". I'm not that in love with MS to call them "my MS", ;-)

# The Visual Basic Petition is "madness" according to one MVP

Friday, March 11, 2005 7:56 AM by tfosorciM.org
Not all MVPs view the Visual Basic Classic Petition to Microsoft positively. In fact, not all Visual Basic MVPs (MVP award!!!) support the petition - Cory Smith refers to the petition as "madness" in his blog, VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or...

# re: VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

Friday, March 11, 2005 1:34 PM by Frans Bouma
Fully agreed.

FB, C# MVP

# re: VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

Friday, March 11, 2005 1:48 PM by Don Bradner
All of the publicly distributed programs I wrote in VB3 were completely unrunnable in XP, and remain so with SP1 and SP2. Problem is in a VBX from a vendor long since gone. While they are trickling down, I still get support complaints from users just now moving to XP, who prefer the light-weight VB3 version over the current heavier VB6 version. Don't tell me that future versions of Windows aren't going to break my VB6 apps - your crystal ball isn't that clear.

# Let VB Die, Long Live Visual Fred!

Friday, March 11, 2005 1:58 PM by Michael Russell
I've been a VB dude since VB 2.0. While I loved the language, I occasionally felt limited by what it could not do without major "tweakage." My copies of "Pure Visual Basic" and "Hardcore Visual Basic" are dogeared beyond recognition.

I was working at Microsoft when Beta 1 of Visual Studio .NET was first released. I installed it, and I ported over a source-code analysis tool that I had written in VB6. My first thoughts were that VB.NET was never going to replace my beloved VB6. The performance wasn't there, and some of the language constructs just seemed odd.

However, I kept working with VB.NET. I filed bugs against the Framework as I found them, but I kept hitting my head against the wall as my old VB6 coding habits were in direct opposition to how VB.NET wanted me to code.

Then, one day, I had an epiphany. The transition from VB6 to VB.NET requires a mental shift, the same mental shift that moving from DOS coding to Windows coding required.

I decided to try to learn VB.NET as its own language; not as a syntax-changed VB6, but as a revolution in how Windows programs were to be developed.

I used by old source code analysis program as my test bed. I learned how to properly handle Strings in a quick, efficient manner. I relished in how easy it was make custom controls. Calling into DLL's was significantly easier because I didn't have to make the mental shift from int to Long, short to Integer, etc. By the time VB.NET was released, my VB.NET version of the analysis program was running at triple the speed of the old version.

Now with Visual Basic 2005 getting unsigned types and operator overloading, I have all that I could possible want out of Visual Basic. I've got a first-class language on a first-class platform.

Paradigm shifts are difficult to handle. Not everyone was able to handle the shift from DOS to Win16. Not everyone was able to handle the shift from Win16 to Win32. You're hearing the dying wheezes of those who can't (or won't) handle the shift from Win32 to WinFX.

Evolution is difficult to watch, but those who cannot adapt to change become extinct. It is the way of the world.

# re: VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

Friday, March 11, 2005 2:02 PM by Cory Smith
Don,

First things first... that VBX component was most likely written in C++ taking advantage of features available to the existing platform (I say features, most likely it was taking advantage of the hardware access available that has been removed with a more secure - read more stable - version of Windows). My statement was that your code, written in any version of VB would still work on current (and most likely) future versions of Windows. I would bet that if you were to remove that rogue VBX file and compile that VB3 application it would run on Windows XP SP2. Now I'm not saying that's a trivial task, but you can't expect Microsoft to support what another company wrote... what we can EXPECT is they support what they wrote. I mean, come on, have you never heard of WOW (Windows On Windows)? If you haven't, that's the mechanism that allows Windows 3.1 applications to continue to work. I don't know if it's still part of Windows or not (I have no reason to try it), or how well it work (again, I have no reason to try it).

# re: VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

Friday, March 11, 2005 5:07 PM by Don Bradner
If I were to remove that VBX, I would not have a program. No replacements available. Similarly, if the OCX the VB6 version uses is broken by another version of Windows those applications will not be salvageable. If a com-based version of VB had been kept going I have little doubt there would be several OCXs to choose from. Now there are already none available that would replace the one I use, and the vendor has also expired. When Microsoft makes a sea-change, a lot of boats get swamped.

I'm not moving to .Net, and I won't stop coding and using that OCX. It means that the first version of the OS that breaks them will be the point where my business stops upgrading Windows. Period. I'm old enough that I expect to be able to continue buying hardware that XP will run on for the rest of my lifetime.

Essentially that will be the end of MS sales to me and my business, along with all the sales of VS they already aren't getting from me.

I even stopped subscribing to MSDN. I was with it from the beginning of the beta (remember that they had to offer good deals on getting a CD Drive?), but time essentially stopped for the VB6 developer with the October, 2001 library.

Yeah, I'm an old coot who isn't interested in changing my native dialect of BASIC. There's a lot like me, and we've been written off, plain and simple.

# re: VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

Friday, March 11, 2005 6:19 PM by Cory Smith
You don't have to move to .NET... it's not like anyone is putting a gun to your head and saying, move or die. OK, so maybe that statement is not 100% true. However, there's nothing to stop people from writing applications today using QuickBASIC. Why are they not writing applications in QB? Because you can't leverage the platform. At some point, your going to want to leverage some part of a future platform and you'll be out of luck. That's the nature of the beast and you have a couple of choices. Don't leverage those new features or switch to a language that can (if not for the whole application, at least for that part of the application). Take an example from the VB6 playbook... if you wanted to leverage something int he platform that VB6 was unable to do, you used Visual C++ to write a COM based library. Well, you know what, there's nothing stopping you from using VB.NET to do the same thing. At least it's in the same language. Sure, this would me an increase in the size of your application installation size due to having to distribute the framework, but the benefits of what you get out of it far exceed the inconvenience.

As I pointed out, COM is not dead and will be around for a VERY long time. VB6 is not dead... it will be around for a long time as well. It just that there's not going to be any improvement to it... that's WHAT VB 2005 IS!

It just sounds like you've completely given up and that's unfortunate. The new version of VB is an amazing product... I would find it hard to believe that you would dismiss it so easily if you actually worked with it.

You say that you aren't interested in changing your native dialect of BASIC... it seems pretty narrow minded thinking to say that VB6 is the only dialect of BASIC that's worth anything. Have you ever heard of PowerBASIC, REALBasic? Or what about the meriad of BASIC implementations for Unix/Linux?

It also sounds like you've experienced this sort of change before. What makes this time any different than the last?

# re: VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

Friday, March 11, 2005 9:15 PM by David Totzke
Thanks for the link love there Cory. I was going to whip up a little online anti-petition and then thought "why bother"? This post will suffice and I doubt the lunatic fringe that is petitioning for the return of VB6 are going to get anywhere anyways.

They are calling VB.NET "VFred" for some unknown reason that only the twisted mind of Karl P. can fathom. And in return I think we should start calling VB6 "VDead". Hey, it even rhymes. Migrate from VDead to VFred.

Ciao,
dave

# re: VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

Saturday, March 12, 2005 12:51 AM by Don Bradner
In order to understand, you have to really be the sort that "thinks in BASIC"

My only formal programming education was Fortran, but I've been using and thinking in BASIC since 1978.

When Windows 3.0 came out, I worked with a number of products to program for it, including C, and had made Pascal for Windows my default when VB1 was released. I was immediately at home with the language, which truly was BASIC. That remained true through VB6. Sure, I had porting issues from VB3 to VB4, but the language was still BASIC. Generally I've been able to do just about anything with VB6, except get some speed where I needed in-line assembler; for that stuff I wrote in Delphi (still using that same referenced OCX).

When VB.Net was released I spent quite a bit of time with it. I spent a week on the MS campus in an intensive course. I developed a handful of internal apps still in use because I have no need to port them away from VB.Net. Never, though, did I ever get the feeling that I was programming in my language. Everything was always an interpretation process in my brain, and whenever I needed to be productive quickly (which is often) I always dropped back to VB6.

Eventually, yes I gave it up. Why beat myself about the head and ears?

I've been making the blog rounds these days, and most of what I see is the typical elitist anti-BASIC stuff that used to come from C++ guys and now comes from the C# crowd. All about the terrible code written by us BASIC folks. As if there was no bad code in a .Net language! Give me a break; it's not the language, it's the coder.

My business runs on Windows, from Point-of-sale to Sql Server backends. So far I've not found a real BASIC other than VB, including PowerBASIC and REALBasic that will do what I need in terms of all of the sorts of things I do. Doesn't mean I'll stop looking.

# re: VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

Saturday, March 12, 2005 7:03 PM by Richard Tallent
Cory: Here, here. VB.NET may be a poor name (my vote was for B#), but you've hit the nail on the head: VB.NET is not an upgraded VB6 any more than VB6 was an upgraded QuickBASIC or QuickBASIC was an upgraded Coco II BASIC or even BASICA. Each is a revolutionary change in the language brought on by progress in the field. If you are a programmer and can't take the heat of moving platforms, it's time to retire up to management, and any complaints about incompatibility are usually due to sloppy programming to begin with. VB6 is dead, long live VB.NET! More:

http://www.tallent.us/blog/PermaLink.aspx?guid=c85e185d-65cd-4ad1-994d-1d61f07cd907

# re: VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

Thursday, March 17, 2005 5:45 PM by Cory Smith
Ah... the Coco... such memories!

# re: VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

Friday, March 25, 2005 7:19 AM by Joacim Andersson
I don't fully agree with the author here. Even though VB6 will soon be 7 years old (is actually still closer to 6 then 7) at the time for the release MS had released one (more or less) stable version of the Win32 platform, namely NT4. IIS matured and SQL7 was soon released. People started to use Windows as their backend for real. MS then replaced the old macro languages in their Office suite with VB and introduced VBScript. ASP was born and you could use VB everywhere! VB was and still is the worlds most used developing platform. Billion lines of VB code exists in real-life applications used by millions of people every day. Comparing that with QuickBASIC is a joke.

Now don't get me wrong I love VB.Net and do all new development using the .Net platform but most of the time I don't do new development. Most of my time I maintain code written yesterday. Translating a VB6 app to VB.Net is NOT an easy task and in some of my applications I would probably save time by rewriting them from scratch instead of even trying to port them. Now the petition, as I understand it, wants MS to take responsibility for their old customers that have invested into all those billions of lines of code, and what is wrong with a VB version for unmanaged code?

# re: VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

Friday, March 25, 2005 1:16 PM by Cory Smith
"what is wrong with a VB version for unmanaged code?"

Umm... it's called VB6. If you don't want to bring the code forward, you don't have to. There are several options that allow you to keep that code in VB6. One is to use CCW in VB.NET for new features and call that from existing VB6 code. Another is to take your business logic in VB6, wrap it in a COM object and utilize it from VB.NET. If you really wanted to get creative, you could take your entire form in VB6, place it inside a composite user control to create a visual component, add some events to allow cross communications and slap this COM object onto a VB.NET form and move forward that way. COM isn't disappearing. The VB6 runtime isn't going away.

The petition is purely a scare tactic and trying to get Microsoft to do continued development on VB6. If the petition was just a cry to continue support for VB6, that would be different. And if it were, it'd be pointless since, to my understanding, VB6 will be supported till about 2008 (yes, for a cost, but still supported) and the runtime will be supported for, well, that date isn't even in site yet (but about the same time that Longhorn is no longer supported or beyond).

VB6 is done, it does what it does and that's it. Now it's up to you to decided how to move forward.

# re: VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 4:51 AM by Hamed
Hi *.* :)

After reading all above posts, I would like to ask you (.Net professionals) a question! As I know VB6 in compare with VC and Delphi is slower but fast enough for my applications. After releasing VS.NET 2001 (or maybe 2002), I've tried that. I saw that the IDE is much more slower than VB6. Also applications were too much slow on a Celeron 1.7 and 256 MB of Ram.

Is there any improvements in VS.NET 2005 speed so I can switch to .NET or not!

Thanks for your kindness and waiting for your replies,

# re: VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

Thursday, March 31, 2005 9:07 AM by Ahhhh
The VB petitioners have a point. Microsoft likes to jack people for money. Call it marketing. They have been doing it for years. They got bitch-slapped for it in an anti-trust lawsuit. Remember? I am surprised this does not bother anyone. By hardballing a .NET paradign shift that doesn't not live up to the hype, this has caused many people to entertain a decision- whether to jump ship. This is not the first time Microsoft has done this, but it gets old. Just think of all that money in sales from new versions of OSs, MS Office, SQL Server, development tools, and the like. If the pardign shift was not fabricated, there would not be these sales. Surely you can see this?

How many versions of the Microsoft Windows have any of you gone through over the years? 4? 5? Pretty radical. Do any of the UNIX flavors "evolve" that much? If all you developers started with C++ and UNIX, you could still be using the same skillset today. That is what- 15+ years? Talk about a wise investment of your time! The Microsoft "way" with all this constant re-learning and re-tooling every couple years has got to be the dumbest. The TCO (Total COst of Ownership) is in the stratesphere! Don't believe Microsoft propaganda- or the propaganda from the think-tanks that get MS funding. Do the math yourself! When you conside all this rebuying, re-learning, migrating, and other, then assign a dollar figure to it, it should become obvious that as a Microsoft "loyal" customer, your wallet has been thefted!

# re: VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 9:45 PM by Bruce Atkinson
As nice as .NET is, no matter what language you are using, it doesn't replace the niche that Visual Basic 1.0-6.0 did.

The infrastructure required to support .NET is insane. How many copies of the .NET framework is too many? I believe the answer is two. I currently have 3 on my workstation. In 5 years how many will I have? Company wide how many do we have ? Zero. It will be a while before I can deploy .NET. I think I prefer dll hell over framework hell.

I believe in 5 years I will still be working in VB 6.0, VBA, and VBScript, along with VB .NET. I'm in VB hell.

# re: VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

Thursday, April 14, 2005 9:57 AM by ndumiso
Do you know where I can download free vb 6 and vb.net editors

# re: VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 5:10 PM by SiGiD
- The issue here, plainly, is that MS continues to release and then summarily discard technologies, which thus obsoletes the time and effort (read: CO$T) of learning the MS toolbox anew every few(er) years.
- I have been programming since DOS V2.0 so I am personally familiar with all the products mentioned above. And each time MS comes out with a new one, it is always "the best" (which is then summarily discarded a few years later as woefully lacking, incompetent, no future path, bad foundation, etc etc ad nauseam).
- Face facts: MS has never developed ANY technology which has lasted more than 7 years. Period. The publicly available product lifecycle for all MS products is geared for complete replacement every 5 years (or maybe a bit more). The MS Money Machine rolls on, right over the backs of programmers everywhere...

# re: VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

Wednesday, June 8, 2005 9:00 PM by Jules
DAO V ADO and now ADO.net
Did anyone ever test what version was the fastest?
I did...
DAO= 1,500,000 Rec in seconds...
ADO= 50,000 Rec then crash...
Ado.net = 500,000 and slow...
If it was a car race who do you think should win?

Not only that.. its a constant rewrite of the object modal that do the exact same thing...

I want speed for my app's...

# re: VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

Wednesday, July 6, 2005 7:33 PM by Eric
This is an interesting discussion. I stumbled across it looking for something else, but I read the whole thing anyway.

Does anybody really think Microsoft cares about you and your businesses? Give me a break. You (programmers) are simply a pawn in their game. They have always controlled the programmers. They dangle a point and click BASIC and soon everybody needs Windows.

.NET is the point, not the basic language or you. They are forcing everybody to use .NET, plain and simple. Forget about whether or not it makes sense for the billions of lines of code, they just want people to buy another couple billion COPIES OF WINDOWS, or PC's that can support the framerwork that come with COPIES OF WINDOWS.

Geez, it's really simple...

# re: VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 5:38 PM by SiGiD
- Not sure what I can add since my 5/31 post...have spent the time since then learning C# (can you say "spaghetti code"??? Try stepping thru a real-world OOP program code in the .NET IDE and see if you can figure it out - best of luck to you, too) and the whole .NOT framework.
- I have to say that I cannot force myself to believe that Microsoft actually intends .NET to be a true programming platform. All versions to date (including the so-buggy-the-beta-testers-fear-it version 2) have been "unreliable", to say the least.
- If .NET is really the future of programming, why are there no commercial apps that run on it - not even Microsoft makes any (maybe they really DO know better!)...

# re: VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 6:38 PM by Anthony
YOU SAID:
"As for the difficulty to migrate to VB.NET from VB6; it's not really that difficult."

Hmm. If that were the case (which in my companies case, and I think millions of others, it isn't), I doubt there would be such an uproar. If Microsoft can fix this (98%? 99% migratable), most of us "whiners" would probably shut up.


YOU SAID:
"They say they are afraid that their VB6 applications are going to stop working with future versions of Windows. This isn't going to happen and is just a scare tactic to get people to listen to their plea."

I agree - I dont see how Microsoft would stop support. However, what concerns me is that I don't see any commitment from Microsoft on this -- if I did, I for one would certainly feel more comfortable with the situation. As it stands know, there is enormous uncertainty, and its difficult enough to run a software business, let alone have to wonder whether some future OS will support code you have written in VB6. Microsoft - if this is true, why not release an official support statement (if there is one, can someone point me to it?) I am sure it will calm us VB6 users ...


One other note
Do companies actually develop commercial apps ("shrink-wrap apps") in .NET? It doesn't seem plausable to me.




# re: VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 6:49 PM by SiGiD
- The article below, although written in 2001, sums up the resentment us "old time VB programmers" have:
http://brucem.mystarband.net/vbnet.htm

# re: VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

Monday, September 26, 2005 12:51 AM by Sean
First of all, VB is barely a programming langauge. Only in .NET did it come close to catching up with C++ in terms of ability. It's still not there, though. But now VB compiles into p-code (C# does, too...they now run on the CLR), leaving you feeling like you might as well write a whole program in Perl. It's about time Microsoft gave up on that language, it's only making real programmers soft minded and lazy. I'm just waiting for the day when they get rid of VB.NET. Also, just look at what VB.NET is, you're creating a COM object that is a program. Simply, all that I-this, I-that is COM stuff...so COM is not dead, only hidden. Only the mind of a hard-core VB "programmer" is dead. cha, cha, cha, OLE!

And as for the OOP paradigm in VB...Like Microsoft says, VB uses polymorphism through COM objects. i.e., it's not real polymorphism, but if I squint my eyes hard enough it looks like Polymorphism.

# re: VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 8:42 PM by Anthony
YOU SAID: "First of all, VB is barely a programming langauge."

I just love this logic. It was certainly a real enough language for more programmers than any other language in history (real or not).

Having to worry about memory management (which "real" languages like C++ force you to do) is MUCH MORE ANTI-PRODUCTIVE than not having "true" OOP (VB6 has OOP Sort-of -- its ALMOST fully OOP). OOP is nice, but most people (whether they admit it or not) are more productive with "almost" OOP and no memory management worries (unless of course you are writing games, where speed is essential).

Seems the "managed code" in the .NET framework is all driven on this theory (no memory management worries) -- which is what makes it so productive (and why VB6 is so productive).

Given todays programming tools available, I can't find a better alternative (any suggestions welcome) than VB6 to writing commercial-distributed applications.

Use .NET? Too many downsides for us:
1> We dont want people decompiling our source code (is .NET useful outside of Corporate USA?)
2> it seems more sluggish than VB6
3> and the 22mB framework is disappointing (how about a friggin linker to only include required code -- this has been available since what, 1960?!)
4> What happens if Microsoft cuts the cord again, sticking us with .NET code that doesnt work with ".NEW" in 10 years? What they did with VB6 makes us nervous.
Sidenote: I wouldn't hesitate to use ASP.NET though, since it is awesome! .NET is really a nice server-side language!

Use C++/MFC? Sure, we can do that, at 4 to 6 times the development cycle - not practical for a small company that needs to produce rapid results in a highly competitive market (great for device drivers and such I assume). Plus, MFC is COM -- if we are going to stick with COM, we will just stay with VB6 (we do write some C++ but not visual GUIs).

Delphi? Not sure on this one yet -- any feedback is appreciated.

What the heck are companies using today to produce commercial applications for resale on Windows?

Thanks -

# re: VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

Sunday, October 2, 2005 9:32 PM by Tom
First of all, I think I know where Sean is coming from and I agree with him.

You asked what commercial applications were written in C++. My opinion is that all serious applications are written in C/C++.

Note that was a period at the end of that last sentence. Microsoft has only one in-house language and it is C++. Every piece of code that comes out of Microsoft is written in C++, and that includes -- hold onto your seat -- VB.

You said MFC is COM. What planet are you from? MFC is a library of classes. COM is much more than a library; it is a structured approach to creating language/platform-independent objects.

And now, how about the speed of the program and the speed of programming? Just this last week, because of constraints of the system, I had to write two very similar programs: one in VB and one in C++. There was no appreciable difference in programming time, but the C++ program is a speeding bullet of a program and the VB one is a dog. I don't know who you know that is programming in C++ at a quarter to a sixth the rate of a VB programmer, but I'd fire the guy.

The only language clunkier than VB was COBOL and they both share a common core philosophy and source: let's make up a language for non-programmers. If you see VB so wide-spread in offices around the country, it is for the same reason that COBOL was so ubiquitous in the same environment. It was a way for novices to pretend they were programming and get their local tasks done. The problem is that it is too easy for non-professionals to get a lot of really bad code out there, and any time that you claim is gained in development is lost to maintenance and eventually re-writing it in a robust language.

Microsoft never really liked VB. It was a means to an end and that end is in sight. That is why VB is dropping from the radar. VB.NET will be around for a while and that, too, will disappear. You can remember that you heard that here.

.Net's great advantage is that it hides all the common and non-application-centric code in the framework, leaving the programmer to handle the application-centric code. But it is also designed to be platform independent. The direction Microsoft sees is a world without any flavor of VB in it. It will have C++ for the hard core functionality and C# for the applications. I know of several systems where the functionality is 100% C++ DLLs and VB is used for GUI access to the DLLs. I don't see why anyone should balk at picking up C#; it's basically easy, VB-like coding using C-like syntax. It will make you quicker and more facile at flipping back and forth between C# and C++ as the needs arise.

If you want to program in a language that will be around for a while the only choice is C/C++. I would not worry about it going away until the day that Microsoft stops using it to make each and every one of its own products.

# re: VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

Sunday, October 2, 2005 10:22 PM by Cory Smith
I can't resist following up on Tom's comments...

1. I've been made privy to some internal numbers about the usage of VB, VB.NET and C#... (while I was at the MVP International Summit 2005 event) I can't repeat them or even state in any way how the numbers relate to each other, but what I can say is that you don't know what the hell you are talking about. In this regard you are 100% clueless.

2. As for Microsoft not caring about VB you are dead wrong and I think you'll see this at the Visual Studio 2005 launch events and continue to see this as the world of .NET and Visual Studio continue to evolve.

3. With VB8, VB really is kicking some serious ass and, frankly, in my humble opinion, is the *BEST* development language targeting the Microsoft .NET Framework this time around. I also think this trend will continue into the release coming in the years ahead.

4. If VB is being so ignored, why has Mono made commitments to VB? This just shows that those who have a clue in the industry know that it can't be ignored and to be taken seriously as a "competitor" to .NET they have no choice but to take VB seriously.

5. As for Microsoft not using VB... this is just false. VB is used heavily for in-house applications and, for the first time in history, is being used in shipping code outside of Microsoft. With the release of Visual Studio 2005, we will see the majority of C# developers utilizing VB code and some of this stupid stigma will start to be lifted. Speaking with MVP's from around the world; many of them have admitted they would want to leverage some of the features of My from their C# projects. Guess what... that functionality is written in VB. The entire VB runtime portion of the .NET Framework is self-hosted (aka, written in itself).

6. With what's coming in the next releases of VB; just take a look at what's happening in LinQ, XLinQ and other dynamic language features that have been announced during the PDC05 event. VB is going to really come into it's own over the next few years and VB8 (2005) is a serious start to that happening.

7. Without VB, C# would be nothing. The VB team has time and time again come to the designer rescue in helping to make sure that the development experience (non-language specific) is the best that it can be. The database designers are just one small example of such taking place and C# gets the benefits of the VB developers experience as a bonus.

I'm not expecting to change your opinion... These statements are meant to inform others of some "facts" so they can make informed decisions instead of listening to your dribble. Try getting your facts straight before trying to influence others...

# re: VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

Monday, October 3, 2005 12:31 AM by Tom
Cory,

I think someone's getting a little emotional. I find it rather funny that in your "dribble" you proved everything I said.

1. Do you think I was speaking from a vacuum? I was quoting inside sources. I am a regular on the campus, and it sounds like you are basking in the borrowed light of summits and events.

2. I don't think you have the first clue about language design and development. It is a fact that VB.NET is poorly structured to fight in the .NET arena. It is quite the "red-headed step-child" of the languages. They have made the initial implementation to establish a path for VB people into the world of .NET. They do not intend to carry it along indefinitely. Sure, it will be around a while. Look at how long Windows 9x has been around way past when Microsoft wanted everyone to have moved over to the NT platforms. I wasn't saying that it wasn't going to be around way longer than Microsoft would have wanted, but they have handed VB its hat and it's standing awkwardly at the door not wanting to leave the party.

A few years ago when there was some talk that Microsoft might have to break up, the first decision was that they were going to keep C++ in the fold and VB was up for grabs. It was a no-brainer, if you know what's going on inside of Microsoft and what they have planned.

3. & 4. I also heard at MS "events" that J++ was something they were committed to. I was shown code that proved what kind of "ass kicking" it did. Hmmm. In the end, though, you admitted that what you said here was just your opinion.

5. I didn't say that MS didn't use VB, but it's used for just those simple problems that it's used for in the world -- more casual office tasks. Besides, some people like challenges, like building houses of cards and seeing how big they can make them before they fall under their own weight.

Besides, *IF* Microsoft actually is shipping shrink wrapped VB code outside of Redmond, you just admitted that it's "the first time in history"! But then, again, you didn’t name the products.

I have not an idea what you are talking about C# people "utilizing VB code".

That self-hosting of VB is for a very specific purpose. It's not because VB is so hot, but the very opposite reason. It was done because VB was such a pain to bring into .Net in the first place. It was a convenience to have it talk to itself in its runtime and not try to force the longer-living framework to change because of VB constraints. Besides, it still stands that VB is written in C++ as is .Net.

6. This entry is redundant and already covered above.

7. I don't know if you've heard, but Microsoft is a company. Even though one might sometimes swear that they don't, they do actually share experiences and lessons learned amongst themselves. Enough said.

8. One other point, though. VB has been a test bed almost more than a product for Microsoft. It has been where they have tested how COM would work – how you can make COM objects give a certain amount of “intelligence” to a computer product. Personally, I find it rather annoying to have a computer trying to second-guess me all the time while I am working; but that’s just me and that’s just one way that they have been using COM inside of VB. It has often looked like a rather avant garde language simply because of that. Microsoft has used a lot of the lessons learned in VB over the years in establish a base for .Net.

VB has had a niche in life. I am always ready to give VB its due. The crux of what I am saying is that VB is realistically pretty much at the end of its tether. They know where they want to go and they will configure that future anew and not with patches sewn onto VB. In a brief word, VB was perhaps too much of a test bed. It’s got too much baggage. To live on, it will take a lot of re-programming. C/C++ are very pure languages and they can shape the future in ways that VB can’t. You know, it’s really kind of funny how fifteen years ago I heard COBOL programmers talking exactly like you are -- full of talk of “dedication” and “new releases” and all. As for me, my money’s on the mammal to survive -- every time.

9. If I were to walk in the front door at Microsoft, I probably would have been told exactly what you were told. My sources have nothing to do with PR, cheerleading and sales. My sources are in the back rooms. I trust my sources. They sit in the meetings where the futures of their company and their products are discussed.

I stand by my facts.

# re: VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

Monday, October 3, 2005 5:32 AM by Sean
Woah! I didn't mean to start something here!

Yes, I think VB is barely a programming language. If it doesn't compile directly into bona-fide instructions, then I don't consider it a legit programming language. I would prefer to call them scripting languages, because something else is _always_ needed to run them. When you compile a VB program, you're really saying "Hey you C/C++ guy, go and do this for me." And it's that simple. So, yeah, I'm a bit of a purist in that sense. But also keep in mind that VB is considered a high level language, whereas C/C++ is considered a low level language, and of couse Assembler is as low as it gets...which is one step below C/C++.

MFC is COM? Since when did the Microsoft Foundation Classes = the Component Object Model. I've never heard that one before. MFC has gone out of its way to NOT be COM (e.g. property pages, that's the tab control for the VB only guys). Really, that's akin saying all Dlls are COM objects. Or better yet, for logical example: If you have a class then you have an object. You're given an object, is it a necessairly a class? No. COM requires things like the IUnknown interface, MFC does not have or require that unless you're writing a COM object with MFC. Another thing to remember is that COM objects have GUIDs, MFC programs don't, necessairly.

As far as the discontention between Tom and Cory (and maybe more people), my Microsoft cronies say the same thing as Tom's. VB is on it's death bed, and it's only a matter of time before it joins the ranks of COBOL. i.e. VB is a dead language that people still have to learn to keep up programs that others should have written in something that could handle it in stride in the first place.

Lest we all should remember that the Y2K scare was a product of COBOL philosophies. Now we have VB datetime objects where the resolution decreases with every passing day, now we'll have a Y3K bug...

I'm going to start something now, because perspective seems to be lost:
You can think of VB this way: The real programmers (not necessairly C/C++ people) were sick of being bothered by the half-wit wanna-be-programmers always having code that didn't do what they wanted it to. So, the real programmers created a rubber room with a sun painted on the ceiling for the half-wits to play in. Now the real programmers just pat the half-wits on the head and say, "go play now, Timmy." And the half-wit says, "Hey, I can see the sun!" The only problem is, some good programmers have joined the VB bandwagon. Well, in short, VB has no memory management, no pointers. It's a safe room, and really, where better to do testing?

It's not called Visual BASIC for nothing. That's why IBM chose the name BASIC, it implies simple, easy. VB is a derivative of BASIC, which was never meant to be a real commercially used language. So sign the anti-petition? Hell, yes. And I'll sign any petition that will aide in getting rid of VB as viable language choice. The only use for VB is VBA for people like Analysts, Accountants, Secretaries, et cetera who need to do the same menial tasks over and over again in Excel.

Like Tom said: VB is a means to an end.

# re: VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

Monday, October 3, 2005 12:42 PM by Cory Smith

# re: VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

Monday, October 3, 2005 1:18 PM by Anthony
"You said MFC is COM. What planet are you from? MFC is a library of classes."

Perhaps I should rephrase. Instead of saying "MFC is COM", I should have written "Using MFC for GUI is similar to writing VB6 COM GUIs". The context I was referring to is "COM" programming (WIN32API) versus ".NET" programming (WINFORMS). In other words, if we are to remain programming in the "COM" world, versus programming against the ".NET" framework. My point was, if we were to stay in the COM world, we would stick with VB6 (moving to C++ is a lateral move in that regard). Sorry to shake up all the purists - was not my intention.

Sounds like your advice is, Tom, to go with C++. Sounds reasonable based on facts avaialable -- however, will MFC work against the upcoming WinFX API, or is that exclusive to "managed" code (and will we therefore have to access it via .NET framework). Moving to .NET, to us, is like (once again) commiting to a "microsoft" technology that may go away in 10 years, to only have to re-write code again (so much for the reusable code theory).

Thanks for all the feedback!


# re: VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

Thursday, October 6, 2005 12:44 PM by SiGiD
...lots of food for thought in all these posts. FWIW, I have taken an outsiders look at VB8 and the proposals for VB9 functionality, and find it hard to believe that Microsoft is going thru all this planning to abandon a successful product.
However, as a "old-timer" with VB, I can also remember when Microsoft found it expedient (from a marketing and profit point of view) to abandon older DOS BASIC products, since they did not fit in with the MS plan for the future of PC's. VB was then touted as the "wave of the future", to replace what we had to give up - and there was no other option. Visual Basic for Windows was to DOS BASIC what VB.NET is to Visual Basic - i.e., similar in name only, but requiring an entirely different programming model and skill set.
And, very interestingly, while much posting is done about language changes, I think we should all be paying a LOT more attention to the whole concept of "managed" vs "unmanaged" code and its role in helping MS "lock down" the desktop (similar to the MAC OS, maybe?). Whatever, it certainly cements MS stranglehold on the PC desktop of tomorrow...

# re: VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

Saturday, November 5, 2005 3:24 PM by Dimitris
I'm a vb6 programmer and all I have to say is that I wish I never learned vb to begin with. I love the language and the programming environment and COM as well. I refuse to join the .NOT bandwagon and am waiting to see where this is going to end up. Seems to me that studying C++ is my next move along with other open source technologies. I've spent a lot of time learning to program in vb6, received my MCSD, etc.. and now I've been told this is all useless. I don't like the idea of having technology change for corporate interests. VB was to me and still is 'academic' and that should have been preserved and expanded upon. On thing I can say is that Microsoft ought to take seriously open source, because I am not going to jump to C# or vb.net but instead looking at non-microsoft alternatives where my skills can last during this lifetime I'm on earth.

# re: VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 11:38 PM by Transistor Tubesistor
Well, why not just program in machine language then. Not even assembly. Get a hex editor and start punchin' your program out. Ada, C++,C VB, Delphi/Pascal, Fortran, COBOL and whatever else are just too easy.

-Bartholomew K. Creosote

---~~~~----
--)|---
-->|--
|----
----->|
|----

C
| /
|/
B-|
|\
| \
E

# re: VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

Sunday, November 27, 2005 2:30 PM by Kwhitefoot
This discussion would be amusing were it not for the large volume of mis-information it contains. In particular no one compiles VB6 to p-code. That is an old and long discredited canard that ought to have been discarded years ago. I program mostly in VB6 not because I wanted to but because it is corporate policy but nonetheless I can see that there are several things that VB6 does better than VB.NET and debugging is one of them, as for auto-indent I simply use the indenter that I ported from Emacs-Lisp so that's not going to sell Visual Studio/VB.NET to me. Without the tight integration between the debugger and incremental compiler I can't see why I need an IDE might just as well use Emacs (I do use Emacs for editing VB6 anyway) if I have to recompile every time I make some trifling fix. And as for the it doesn't support implementation inheritance so therefore it isn't object oriented well that is a trivial thing to fix. Remember that Anders Hejlsberg added OOP to Turbo Pascal by adding just four new key words. The only reason that VB.NET exists is to convince corporate managers that they should buy a Microsoft compiler instead of someone else's on the spurious grounds that their VB6 programs and programmers can be moved painlessly to VB.NET and be instantly more productive.

# re: VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

Tuesday, November 29, 2005 7:52 PM by Jules
Dot.net 2005 still slow...
Built small app in it...
First button click make's the app buggy and sticky then it's ok...until the next control...
Like I want to give out code like that...

# re: VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

Thursday, January 26, 2006 5:08 PM by Tindy
Sean said, "The only use for VB is VBA for people like Analysts, Accountants, Secretaries, et cetera who need to do the same menial tasks over and over again in Excel."

I disagree. I think .NET has a lot to offer those of us on the "Business World" side of computing.

I work in a field where most people are not programmers. They use VBA\VB6 because they know how to use it. APL is very common too but very few know how to use it. The programs these users end up writing start off as small programs but as time progresses, just like any other program, new features are added--things change--and that little utility app has morphed into 500 thousand lines of undocumented, unorganized, unreadable, badly written code. If you ask me, not encouraging the business community to use a platform designed to encourage conformity towards applying OO design patterns is like handing a toddler a gun. Yeah, its fun and shinny but you're liable to blow your foot off. I understand that writing programs in VB.NET is not going to turn lead into gold but it is moving forward. To say that the business world has a free pass not to do so is truly a shame. Unfortunately, it is the current climate.

Hopefully with Office 12 and the VSTO this will change. I see Office being used less as a development platform and more as a reporting tool. The new XML file formats for Office are really exciting for my area in particular (where everything we do is Excel+Access). In terms of implementing formulas and producing financial reports, .NET is most definitely the way to go. There are so many slight variations in every variable the features of OOP are nearly overwhelming when compared to the almost-OOP provided in VB6.

# re: VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

Saturday, February 4, 2006 3:16 AM by Igor
It will be still sometime before .NET will
get to the level of VB 6.
Maybe Orcas will get us there.
But than again maybe Orcas will be .NEW SCREW YOU

# re: VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

Thursday, February 9, 2006 5:21 PM by Malcolm Wenger
Well, here we are at almost the one year mark since "the announcement", and so time for an update:

Duncan, David, Frans, et al: Are YOU using VB.NET (2005, of course)? Or have you all found something better to do with your time than to scale the "learning curve from hell" that is .NET? While absorbing the expenses of rewriting and redebugging all your existing code for what amounts to no increase in functionality whatever?

After all the shouting about all the "great new features" .NET offered, (and how all those who did not like it were neanderthal knuckle-draggers whose lack of intelligence was exceeded only by their fear of anything new) have the folks on the .NET bandwagon come to realize yet that .NET offers *nothing* that a talented programmer could not do before .NET?

Yes, .NET is the finest if you like slow, extremely bloated, inefficient and just plain buggy code. After all those years of effort to develop it, is this the best MS could do? And why, I ask, does MS not write anything that uses .NET? Maybe they already know what the rest of the .NET supporters are finding out the hard way: .NET is not yet (and my not ever be) ready for prime time.

This isn't a development direction. It's a marketing scam, plain and simple.

# re: VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

Monday, February 27, 2006 12:18 AM by tartone
What is the big deal????

Even though my day job does not include programming (I'm a hobbiest - I can say, do, etc.,). I have always touted that you should use the best tool available (pending the approval of your boss - who might be extremely clueless, but this never happens since we are in the real world)to complete your job - if the *.net provides better mechanisms (re: actual inheritence, etc), then just use it.

# re: VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

Friday, March 3, 2006 6:11 PM by RalphieBoy
And just so we all don't miss the point, it would appear that Microsoft has removed the online MSDN documentation for VB6.

Microsoft: "Where do we want you to go today?"

# re: VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

Saturday, March 4, 2006 11:06 AM by tripod
I make over 200K writing applications in VB6.
.Net whats that?

# re: VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

Saturday, March 4, 2006 11:10 AM by Tripod
what are most viruses created with. VB not VB.NET

# re: VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

Monday, March 20, 2006 5:11 PM by SiGiD
More about "Vfred" at the website:

"www" dot "grimes" dot "demon" dot "co" dot "uk" slash "dotnet" slash "vbpetition.htm"

# re: VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

Friday, June 2, 2006 1:38 AM by Anthony
My comments on this subject (from the perspective of a software company):

onenerd.blogspot.com/2006/05/my-perspective-on-visual-basic-6.html

In a word - disappointed.

# re: VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

Sunday, June 4, 2006 3:35 AM by Helmut Fußüden Schpultmier
You saaftware bitheads!
With noses pressed against screen and spindly fingers turbo tapping on clicky keys.

# re: VB.NET vs "VB.Classic" or "VB.COM"

Monday, September 11, 2006 6:48 PM by Kevin Mitnick
Well, well.....
Anonymous comments are disabled