Why did Microsoft Ruin Visual Basic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Truble
  • Start date Start date
T

Truble

Visual Studio .NET is not more efficient to write than
VB6. I can write a VB6 App at least twice as fast as
in .NET. Why did Microsoft ruin the syntax advantage of
VB6 in .NET?
 
I disagree. I have been using VB since the first beta was released more than
12 years ago and I love the changes and the fact that it is now a true
object oriented language. I also program in Java, C++ and Delphi, and I
always wished that VB had the object oriented features that the other
languages did, and now it does!

I do most of my programming in C# now and it is a great language. In most
programs C# and VB.NET perform about the same, but I have some application
where C# clearly performs better. It is a matter of chosing the right
tool/language for the right project...
 
I disagree too, VB is not ruined. If you now how to use the new features
(e.g. OO), you can write faster and produce better code in VB.NET.
 
Sorry Mate, I don't agree. There's a lot of stuff that you can do in VB.net
with a single line of code that would take you a long time to achieve in VB6
(e.g. Inheritance)

I'll admit, it's a bit trickier to handle forms and stuff because there's no
default instances anymore (there's nothing to stop you creating a shared
default instance though), but for the most part VB.net is a lot more
powerful, if a bit daunting because of the size of the framework.

I don't think you should look at it from the point of view that Microsoft
have ruined VB. In my humble opinion VB.net is *not* the next version of
VB6 - its a totally new language which just happens to share some syntax
with VB6.

Thanks for your thoughts though.

Trev.
 
Truble said:
Visual Studio .NET is not more efficient to write than
VB6. I can write a VB6 App at least twice as fast as
in .NET. Why did Microsoft ruin the syntax advantage of
VB6 in .NET?
Click to expand...

You being able to write a VB6 app twice as fast as you can write the
equivalent in VB.NET doesn't mean that VB.NET isn't as efficient - it
may well just mean that you're more proficient in VB6.
 
Why use .NET when you're not forced to. Personally speaking I wish MS had
not bothered converting VB into VB.NET :)
 
It's obvious that you haven't explored VB.NET enough yet to see the
tremendous improvements to the language. Yes, it is true that you may have
to write more code than in the past, but you have so much more control over
applications and classes that this is well worth it.
 
Well, that's really the thing...MS didn't "convert" anything:

VB.NET is not VB 7, it's a whole new programming language that shares some
of the coding constructs that VB 6 had.
ASP.NET is not "Classic ASP", the similarity in their names is about the
only thing they have in common.
VS.NET is not VS 7.0. While having some of the features of VS 6, VS.NET is
vastly improved and allows for a consitent approach to application
development.
 
Actually VB.Net IS VB7 check your install directory.

We all know that version numbers for major applications are nothing but a
marketing tool.

They could have called it ".Net Studio Version 1.0", but then they would
risk loosing the "Brand Name" of "Visual Studio"

The fact that it's called VB7 is trivial. Earlier versions of VB pretty much
had the same underpinnngs(ignoring the change from 16bit to 32bit). VB.Net
is a different product than VB6.
 
And I can write a VB.NET or C# app twice as fast as I can in VB6. Why?
Other than the fact that they are both much more productive and the IDE
Rules? Well, because I haven't used VB6 in 2 years and I use C# and VB.NET
every day.

You can't make that statement fairly unless you know .NET thoroughly and if
you did, you wouldn't make that claim.
 
Can you show me some of your multi-threaded VB6 code? I remember it being a
nightmare. It's a breeze in VB.NET.

What about Windows Services? Can you show me some of those that you wrote?
I seem to remember having to run to C++ for those.

What about Intellisense, attirbutes, Deployment (I don't remember Regsrvr32
being a whole lot of fun)?....

I think you need to use VB.NET some more before you make such wild claims.
 
Unless you live in a communist country, you aren't forced to do anything,
let alone code in a specifc langauge.

VB.NET and C# are vastly superior to VB6 that's is silly to even argue
about. Only a VB6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 Programmer scared to learn something new
could make that claim!
 
Amen to that!
Jon Skeet said:
You being able to write a VB6 app twice as fast as you can write the
equivalent in VB.NET doesn't mean that VB.NET isn't as efficient - it
may well just mean that you're more proficient in VB6.
Click to expand...
 
C# and VB.NET are virtually identical if Option Strict is on. Is your
VB.NET app compiled with Option Strict? Everythign I've read said the
differences aren't worth citing, but I'd be interested in finding out if
there are cases where they aren't? What type of app is it?
 
There is even somthing better than this wizard: Setup Projects! Just add a
new Setup project to your solution, and you can get the same result as the
Package and Deployment wizard (only better :-).

--
Greetz,
Jan
__________________________________
Read my weblog: http://weblogs.asp.net/jan
Scoooty said:
I think that it is great - but I wish the package and deployment wizard
Click to expand...
was there.
 
Yeah, the excellent P&DW.
With so big drawbacks that it can be used on simple projects only.

--
Miha Markic - RightHand .NET consulting & development
miha at rthand com

Scoooty said:
I think that it is great - but I wish the package and deployment wizard
Click to expand...
was there.
 
Wait till homeland security kicks in ...

William Ryan said:
Unless you live in a communist country, you aren't forced to do anything,
let alone code in a specifc langauge.
Click to expand...
 
Truble said:
Visual Studio .NET is not more efficient to write than
VB6. I can write a VB6 App at least twice as fast as
in .NET. Why did Microsoft ruin the syntax advantage of
VB6 in .NET?
Click to expand...

Because you're proficient in VB6, and not in VB.NET?
Am I sensing a little resistance to change here?
Bad place to be in the technology business. :-)
 
Back
Top