VB6 easier than VB.NET?

[Mitchell S. Honnert]

In some recent posts, I've seen people who seem to be waxing nostalgic with
respect to the "ease of use" of Visual Basic 6. I can't quite put my finger
on it, but they seem to be implying that VB6 was simpler to use than VB.NET,
that it was somehow easier to write programs in VB6 than in VB.NET. I have
to admit I'm astonished by this attitude. I can't see any rationality to
the idea that, on the whole, VB6 is easier than VB.NET.

I *can* see where someone who is entrenched in the VB6 language would find
the switch to VB.NET daunting. (VB.NET is, after all, a major departure
from VB6.) But what I can't see is someone making the judgment, from an
objective standpoint, that VB6 is easier than VB.NET. In other words, just
because *you* happen to be so much more familiar with the collective set of
eccentricities, peculiarities, and inconsistencies that is known as Visual
Basic 6 that you can write applications faster in VB6 than VB.NET, it
doesn't mean that VB6 is easier.

I've heard it argued that a drawback to .NET's full support of object
oriented programming is that it makes coding more difficult. "I just want
to get in there and write some code; I don't want to have to worry about all
of that OO crap." Perhaps the principle holds true for the "Hello World"
type of application, but for any non-trivial application, I just don't see
how the well-ordered, clean, and consistent implementation of OO principles
in the .NET framework couldn't be seen as an easier environment in which to
develop.

I guess I'm looking at it from the perspective of teaching someone who is
completely new to programming how to be a programmer. In this case, which
would be easier, VB6 or VB.NET? There's not doubt in my mind that VB.NET
would be easier. In my opinion, in a relatively short period of time, I
could teach someone the principles of object oriented programming and the
basic layout of the .NET Framework. But if I applied this same amount of
time to teaching someone VB6 from scratch, I'd get so bogged down in telling
them about all of the quirks, workarounds, and exceptions-to-the-rule that
I'd run out of time before I could even get through the basics. (I wouldn't
even want to call this type of knowledge transfer "teaching". )

The point is that even though there might be an initially steeper learning
curve to get past the principles of object oriented programming, once you
have the "OO epiphany" and truly grok the principles, the rest is smooth
sailing. But with VB6, you may get up and running a bit faster, but your
daily process of coding is so taken up by finding workarounds to a seemingly
endless series of quirky behaviors or things that just don't operate how you
think they would, that the overall development time is actually much longer.

So, are there people out there that really think VB6 is easier than VB.NET?
Why? Do you think it depends on the size of the project? Are there other
factors? Help me understand because I just don't get this attitude.

- Mitchell S. Honnert

[Michael C#]

Re: VB6 easier than VB.NET?

In some respects VB6 was simpler than .NET, but .NET has a lot more
functionality in it that you many times had to kludge your way through with
VB6.

VB.NET's support for OO programming, when coming from a VB6 background, does
provide a learning curve to non-OO programmers... and a lot of VB
programmers were really in their comfort zone with 6. But the switch to OO
programming is well worth it, and most people probably discover that .NET
provides a lot of great new functionality and improvements once you stop
trying to do things the VB6 way...

"Mitchell S. Honnert" <news@honnert~R ~E~M~O~V~E~.com > wrote in message
news:OAoSx1LMFH A.2748@TK2MSFTN GP09.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> In some recent posts, I've seen people who seem to be waxing nostalgic
> with respect to the "ease of use" of Visual Basic 6. I can't quite put my
> finger on it, but they seem to be implying that VB6 was simpler to use
> than VB.NET, that it was somehow easier to write programs in VB6 than in
> VB.NET. I have to admit I'm astonished by this attitude. I can't see any
> rationality to the idea that, on the whole, VB6 is easier than VB.NET.
>
> I *can* see where someone who is entrenched in the VB6 language would find
> the switch to VB.NET daunting. (VB.NET is, after all, a major departure
> from VB6.) But what I can't see is someone making the judgment, from an
> objective standpoint, that VB6 is easier than VB.NET. In other words,
> just because *you* happen to be so much more familiar with the collective
> set of eccentricities, peculiarities, and inconsistencies that is known as
> Visual Basic 6 that you can write applications faster in VB6 than VB.NET,
> it doesn't mean that VB6 is easier.
>
> I've heard it argued that a drawback to .NET's full support of object
> oriented programming is that it makes coding more difficult. "I just want
> to get in there and write some code; I don't want to have to worry about
> all of that OO crap." Perhaps the principle holds true for the "Hello
> World" type of application, but for any non-trivial application, I just
> don't see how the well-ordered, clean, and consistent implementation of OO
> principles in the .NET framework couldn't be seen as an easier environment
> in which to develop.
>
> I guess I'm looking at it from the perspective of teaching someone who is
> completely new to programming how to be a programmer. In this case, which
> would be easier, VB6 or VB.NET? There's not doubt in my mind that VB.NET
> would be easier. In my opinion, in a relatively short period of time, I
> could teach someone the principles of object oriented programming and the
> basic layout of the .NET Framework. But if I applied this same amount of
> time to teaching someone VB6 from scratch, I'd get so bogged down in
> telling them about all of the quirks, workarounds, and
> exceptions-to-the-rule that I'd run out of time before I could even get
> through the basics. (I wouldn't even want to call this type of knowledge
> transfer "teaching". )
>
> The point is that even though there might be an initially steeper learning
> curve to get past the principles of object oriented programming, once you
> have the "OO epiphany" and truly grok the principles, the rest is smooth
> sailing. But with VB6, you may get up and running a bit faster, but your
> daily process of coding is so taken up by finding workarounds to a
> seemingly endless series of quirky behaviors or things that just don't
> operate how you think they would, that the overall development time is
> actually much longer.
>
> So, are there people out there that really think VB6 is easier than
> VB.NET? Why? Do you think it depends on the size of the project? Are
> there other factors? Help me understand because I just don't get this
> attitude.
>
> - Mitchell S. Honnert
>
>[/color]

[Mitchell S. Honnert]

Re: VB6 easier than VB.NET?

> a lot of VB programmers were really in their comfort zone with 6.
You've hit on one of main points of my thoughts on this topic. I
hypothesize that the people who think that VB6 is easier than VB.NET are
those who were/are "in the VB6 zone". They had become accustomed to all of
the workarounds necessary to get anything done in VB6, so they mistakenly
believe that VB6 is easier because it's easier for *them*. The thing is, I
wouldn't want to be thought of as a good programmer because I know the
mystical tricks to get my language of choice to do the things it's supposed
to do out of the box. I don't want to be a voodoo programmer. I'd much
rather spend that time learning more about the language. Even if it means
some additional up-front work.

- Mitchell S. Honnert


"Michael C#" <xyz@yomomma.co m> wrote in message
news:egKJQ$LMFH A.580@TK2MSFTNG P15.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> In some respects VB6 was simpler than .NET, but .NET has a lot more
> functionality in it that you many times had to kludge your way through
> with VB6.
>
> VB.NET's support for OO programming, when coming from a VB6 background,
> does provide a learning curve to non-OO programmers... and a lot of VB
> programmers were really in their comfort zone with 6. But the switch to
> OO programming is well worth it, and most people probably discover that
> .NET provides a lot of great new functionality and improvements once you
> stop trying to do things the VB6 way...
>
> "Mitchell S. Honnert" <news@honnert~R ~E~M~O~V~E~.com > wrote in message
> news:OAoSx1LMFH A.2748@TK2MSFTN GP09.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> In some recent posts, I've seen people who seem to be waxing nostalgic
>> with respect to the "ease of use" of Visual Basic 6. I can't quite put
>> my finger on it, but they seem to be implying that VB6 was simpler to use
>> than VB.NET, that it was somehow easier to write programs in VB6 than in
>> VB.NET. I have to admit I'm astonished by this attitude. I can't see
>> any rationality to the idea that, on the whole, VB6 is easier than
>> VB.NET.
>>
>> I *can* see where someone who is entrenched in the VB6 language would
>> find the switch to VB.NET daunting. (VB.NET is, after all, a major
>> departure from VB6.) But what I can't see is someone making the
>> judgment, from an objective standpoint, that VB6 is easier than VB.NET.
>> In other words, just because *you* happen to be so much more familiar
>> with the collective set of eccentricities, peculiarities, and
>> inconsistencies that is known as Visual Basic 6 that you can write
>> applications faster in VB6 than VB.NET, it doesn't mean that VB6 is
>> easier.
>>
>> I've heard it argued that a drawback to .NET's full support of object
>> oriented programming is that it makes coding more difficult. "I just
>> want to get in there and write some code; I don't want to have to worry
>> about all of that OO crap." Perhaps the principle holds true for the
>> "Hello World" type of application, but for any non-trivial application, I
>> just don't see how the well-ordered, clean, and consistent implementation
>> of OO principles in the .NET framework couldn't be seen as an easier
>> environment in which to develop.
>>
>> I guess I'm looking at it from the perspective of teaching someone who is
>> completely new to programming how to be a programmer. In this case,
>> which would be easier, VB6 or VB.NET? There's not doubt in my mind that
>> VB.NET would be easier. In my opinion, in a relatively short period of
>> time, I could teach someone the principles of object oriented programming
>> and the basic layout of the .NET Framework. But if I applied this same
>> amount of time to teaching someone VB6 from scratch, I'd get so bogged
>> down in telling them about all of the quirks, workarounds, and
>> exceptions-to-the-rule that I'd run out of time before I could even get
>> through the basics. (I wouldn't even want to call this type of knowledge
>> transfer "teaching". )
>>
>> The point is that even though there might be an initially steeper
>> learning curve to get past the principles of object oriented programming,
>> once you have the "OO epiphany" and truly grok the principles, the rest
>> is smooth sailing. But with VB6, you may get up and running a bit
>> faster, but your daily process of coding is so taken up by finding
>> workarounds to a seemingly endless series of quirky behaviors or things
>> that just don't operate how you think they would, that the overall
>> development time is actually much longer.
>>
>> So, are there people out there that really think VB6 is easier than
>> VB.NET? Why? Do you think it depends on the size of the project? Are
>> there other factors? Help me understand because I just don't get this
>> attitude.
>>
>> - Mitchell S. Honnert
>>
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

[David]

Re: VB6 easier than VB.NET?

On 2005-03-24, Mitchell S. Honnert <news@honnert~R ~E~M~O~V~E~.com > wrote:[color=blue]
> In some recent posts, I've seen people who seem to be waxing nostalgic with
> respect to the "ease of use" of Visual Basic 6. I can't quite put my finger
> on it, but they seem to be implying that VB6 was simpler to use than VB.NET,
> that it was somehow easier to write programs in VB6 than in VB.NET. I have
> to admit I'm astonished by this attitude. I can't see any rationality to
> the idea that, on the whole, VB6 is easier than VB.NET.[/color]

I don't want to generalize about what others have said, because there's
a very wide range of opinions on this subject, but I'd say VB6 was
definitely easier to learn, especially for beginners and
non-programmers.
[color=blue]
> I've heard it argued that a drawback to .NET's full support of object
> oriented programming is that it makes coding more difficult. "I just want
> to get in there and write some code; I don't want to have to worry about all
> of that OO crap." Perhaps the principle holds true for the "Hello World"
> type of application, but for any non-trivial application, I just don't see
> how the well-ordered, clean, and consistent implementation of OO principles
> in the .NET framework couldn't be seen as an easier environment in which to
> develop.[/color]

"Non-trivial" is a relative term. There's lots of small apps out there
that seem trivial to me, but are treated like the Holy Grail in small
offices. And these are very valuable productivity-enhancing
applications, usually written by somebody who picked up a little VB.
There's really no reasonable consultant market for things like this: I
could write the app in less than a day if I knew what to write, but it
would take me six weeks to learn the business process that needs to be
automated.

VB was perfect for these kinds of things, because it could be very
forgiving of a certain lack of understanding. Consider something basic,
the difference between a class and an instance of a class. People could
write very useful apps without understanding this because VB blurred the
distinction where forms were concerned. You could drag buttons onto a
form, write little event handlers, maybe even do some DB work without
ever really grasping the big picture.

That's much tougher in .NET. VB.Net still hides complexity a little,
but the idea of class and instances and scope and visibility and stuff
like that pops up pretty quickly.
[color=blue]
> I guess I'm looking at it from the perspective of teaching someone who is
> completely new to programming how to be a programmer. In this case, which
> would be easier, VB6 or VB.NET? There's not doubt in my mind that VB.NET
> would be easier. In my opinion, in a relatively short period of time, I
> could teach someone the principles of object oriented programming and the
> basic layout of the .NET Framework. But if I applied this same amount of
> time to teaching someone VB6 from scratch, I'd get so bogged down in telling
> them about all of the quirks, workarounds, and exceptions-to-the-rule that
> I'd run out of time before I could even get through the basics. (I wouldn't
> even want to call this type of knowledge transfer "teaching". )[/color]

On the flipside, let's say you did write this one-day application I
mentioned above. You wrote it in six hours and now you have two hours
to hand it over to the "technical" person in the office for ongoing
support (because they can't afford to call you back for new features).
This person has maybe done a few Word macros, can do fairly advanced
spreadsheet functions in Excel, etc.

What's easier to explain, the code behind a VB6 form, or a full-fledged
OOP app in .Net? I think the VB6 app would be much easier to explain
in a limited time.

[Stephany Young]

Re: VB6 easier than VB.NET?

"Comfort Zone"

In this whole recent, (dare I call it one), 'debate', this is the phrase
that has been missing.

As a species (homo sapien), we are comfortable with what we know. The
inverse is also true - we are NOT comfortable with what we DON'T know. This
truism has been proved again and again throughout the course of history.
Because of this, change tends to resisted, (especially in the early stages),
until such time as there is a widespread understanding of the 'technology'
behind the change. Once such change becomes generally accepted, there are
still some who resist further. In the end, those who 'change' prosper and
those who resist, don't. This is the nature of the evolution of the species
and the evolution of technology.

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.

In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, we saw a movement, known as the
Luddites, who bitterly resisted industrialisati on of the weaving industry.
Not only were they vociferous in their opposition, they went as far as
vandalising and destroying the 'modern' weaving machines that were being
developed at the time. Can you really imagine where we would be without the
range of textiles that we take for granted in our everyday life if they had
succeeded? The word 'luddite' has since entered our language to mean someone
who unreasonably resists change. If I remember some middle 19th century
history correctly a Western Union 'boss' was attributed as saying "I can't
see any practical use for it, now or in the future" when refering to
Alexander Graham Bell's new invention (the telephone).

More recently we have also seen a trend towards a way of thinking that
kmakes the rights of the individual sacrosant. Don't get me wrong here, the
rights of the indivuadual are important! I do, however, find this trend
disturbing because the rights of the individual are being attributed a
higher importance than the good of the whole. My view is that being able to
enjoy indivdual rights brings obligations that the individual owes to
society as a whole. The latin phrase 'quid pro quo' translated as 'something
for something' springs to mind as being appropriate here.

During this debate I have seen a lot of hand-wringing, roughly paraphrased
and reading between the lines as "How dare Microsoft take a business
decision that, in my view, puts the longevity of my personal library of VB6
code at risk" and "How dare Microsoft NOT provide (for free) a mechanism
that will automatically convert my personal library of esoteric VB6
procedures into perfect VB.NET code". To those for whom the cap fits - all I
can say is "Get off your backsides and join the real world."

I believe that the late John F. Kennedy put it quite succinctly when he said
"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what can you do for your
country." (Apologies for any misquote.) In this case I doon't think he would
have minded a small bit of plagarism:

Ask not what your industry can do for you, ask what can you do for your
industry.


"Michael C#" <xyz@yomomma.co m> wrote in message
news:egKJQ$LMFH A.580@TK2MSFTNG P15.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> In some respects VB6 was simpler than .NET, but .NET has a lot more
> functionality in it that you many times had to kludge your way through
> with VB6.
>
> VB.NET's support for OO programming, when coming from a VB6 background,
> does provide a learning curve to non-OO programmers... and a lot of VB
> programmers were really in their comfort zone with 6. But the switch to
> OO programming is well worth it, and most people probably discover that
> .NET provides a lot of great new functionality and improvements once you
> stop trying to do things the VB6 way...
>
> "Mitchell S. Honnert" <news@honnert~R ~E~M~O~V~E~.com > wrote in message
> news:OAoSx1LMFH A.2748@TK2MSFTN GP09.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> In some recent posts, I've seen people who seem to be waxing nostalgic
>> with respect to the "ease of use" of Visual Basic 6. I can't quite put
>> my finger on it, but they seem to be implying that VB6 was simpler to use
>> than VB.NET, that it was somehow easier to write programs in VB6 than in
>> VB.NET. I have to admit I'm astonished by this attitude. I can't see
>> any rationality to the idea that, on the whole, VB6 is easier than
>> VB.NET.
>>
>> I *can* see where someone who is entrenched in the VB6 language would
>> find the switch to VB.NET daunting. (VB.NET is, after all, a major
>> departure from VB6.) But what I can't see is someone making the
>> judgment, from an objective standpoint, that VB6 is easier than VB.NET.
>> In other words, just because *you* happen to be so much more familiar
>> with the collective set of eccentricities, peculiarities, and
>> inconsistencies that is known as Visual Basic 6 that you can write
>> applications faster in VB6 than VB.NET, it doesn't mean that VB6 is
>> easier.
>>
>> I've heard it argued that a drawback to .NET's full support of object
>> oriented programming is that it makes coding more difficult. "I just
>> want to get in there and write some code; I don't want to have to worry
>> about all of that OO crap." Perhaps the principle holds true for the
>> "Hello World" type of application, but for any non-trivial application, I
>> just don't see how the well-ordered, clean, and consistent implementation
>> of OO principles in the .NET framework couldn't be seen as an easier
>> environment in which to develop.
>>
>> I guess I'm looking at it from the perspective of teaching someone who is
>> completely new to programming how to be a programmer. In this case,
>> which would be easier, VB6 or VB.NET? There's not doubt in my mind that
>> VB.NET would be easier. In my opinion, in a relatively short period of
>> time, I could teach someone the principles of object oriented programming
>> and the basic layout of the .NET Framework. But if I applied this same
>> amount of time to teaching someone VB6 from scratch, I'd get so bogged
>> down in telling them about all of the quirks, workarounds, and
>> exceptions-to-the-rule that I'd run out of time before I could even get
>> through the basics. (I wouldn't even want to call this type of knowledge
>> transfer "teaching". )
>>
>> The point is that even though there might be an initially steeper
>> learning curve to get past the principles of object oriented programming,
>> once you have the "OO epiphany" and truly grok the principles, the rest
>> is smooth sailing. But with VB6, you may get up and running a bit
>> faster, but your daily process of coding is so taken up by finding
>> workarounds to a seemingly endless series of quirky behaviors or things
>> that just don't operate how you think they would, that the overall
>> development time is actually much longer.
>>
>> So, are there people out there that really think VB6 is easier than
>> VB.NET? Why? Do you think it depends on the size of the project? Are
>> there other factors? Help me understand because I just don't get this
>> attitude.
>>
>> - Mitchell S. Honnert
>>
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

[Charles Law]

Re: VB6 easier than VB.NET?

I'm just dipping in here because this thread caught my attention.

It sounds like David and I have had some similar experiences. I have seen
these "trivial" applications in small offices, and some in big offices, and
I have to say that they worry me. I quite agree with the idea that someone
who considers themselves a professional programmer might write such a
program in less than a day, but that it would take six weeks to understand
the business processes involved. I have been in that situation.

However, just understanding the business process is not enough. The trivial
programs I have seen, written in small and big offices, don't follow even
the simplest of programming principles. The best thing for all concerned
would be if the program were to crash, and then it would be clear that it
had failed. In reality though, the program churns out numbers that, after
some rudimentary testing appear to be correct, and thereafter are taken as
gospel.

The use to which these numbers are put may be low risk, but frequently they
are not. Often a program written by the chap in the corner office starts
life as a spreadsheet, or a database in Access, but before long the whole
company depends on this trivial program, and its function grows out of all
proportion to its original intended purpose. Such programs are not
controlled or documented, and even the person who wrote it has little clue
what it does six months later.

This is where I believe that VB.NET is an improvement over VB6. It requires
that someone using it understand that bit more about the language and how to
program with it, but once they do, it hopefully helps them to structure
their work a bit better.

It is true that a bad programmer can write rubbish in any language, and
ultimately that will be the same for VB.NET. Perhaps what I am saying is
that we should be wary of people who dabble in programming; a little
knowledge is a dangerous thing. We all like a bit of DIY (well, I don't, but
I gather it is quite popular), but there should be limits to which we should
go. If we all fitted our own gas central heating, there would be an
explosion every day in our neighbourhood.

Charles


"David" <dfoster@woofix .local.dom> wrote in message
news:slrnd45u5a .8tq.dfoster@wo ofix.local.dom. ..[color=blue]
> On 2005-03-24, Mitchell S. Honnert <news@honnert~R ~E~M~O~V~E~.com > wrote:[color=green]
>> In some recent posts, I've seen people who seem to be waxing nostalgic
>> with
>> respect to the "ease of use" of Visual Basic 6. I can't quite put my
>> finger
>> on it, but they seem to be implying that VB6 was simpler to use than
>> VB.NET,
>> that it was somehow easier to write programs in VB6 than in VB.NET. I
>> have
>> to admit I'm astonished by this attitude. I can't see any rationality to
>> the idea that, on the whole, VB6 is easier than VB.NET.[/color]
>
> I don't want to generalize about what others have said, because there's
> a very wide range of opinions on this subject, but I'd say VB6 was
> definitely easier to learn, especially for beginners and
> non-programmers.
>[color=green]
>> I've heard it argued that a drawback to .NET's full support of object
>> oriented programming is that it makes coding more difficult. "I just
>> want
>> to get in there and write some code; I don't want to have to worry about
>> all
>> of that OO crap." Perhaps the principle holds true for the "Hello World"
>> type of application, but for any non-trivial application, I just don't
>> see
>> how the well-ordered, clean, and consistent implementation of OO
>> principles
>> in the .NET framework couldn't be seen as an easier environment in which
>> to
>> develop.[/color]
>
> "Non-trivial" is a relative term. There's lots of small apps out there
> that seem trivial to me, but are treated like the Holy Grail in small
> offices. And these are very valuable productivity-enhancing
> applications, usually written by somebody who picked up a little VB.
> There's really no reasonable consultant market for things like this: I
> could write the app in less than a day if I knew what to write, but it
> would take me six weeks to learn the business process that needs to be
> automated.
>
> VB was perfect for these kinds of things, because it could be very
> forgiving of a certain lack of understanding. Consider something basic,
> the difference between a class and an instance of a class. People could
> write very useful apps without understanding this because VB blurred the
> distinction where forms were concerned. You could drag buttons onto a
> form, write little event handlers, maybe even do some DB work without
> ever really grasping the big picture.
>
> That's much tougher in .NET. VB.Net still hides complexity a little,
> but the idea of class and instances and scope and visibility and stuff
> like that pops up pretty quickly.
>[color=green]
>> I guess I'm looking at it from the perspective of teaching someone who is
>> completely new to programming how to be a programmer. In this case,
>> which
>> would be easier, VB6 or VB.NET? There's not doubt in my mind that VB.NET
>> would be easier. In my opinion, in a relatively short period of time, I
>> could teach someone the principles of object oriented programming and the
>> basic layout of the .NET Framework. But if I applied this same amount of
>> time to teaching someone VB6 from scratch, I'd get so bogged down in
>> telling
>> them about all of the quirks, workarounds, and exceptions-to-the-rule
>> that
>> I'd run out of time before I could even get through the basics. (I
>> wouldn't
>> even want to call this type of knowledge transfer "teaching". )[/color]
>
> On the flipside, let's say you did write this one-day application I
> mentioned above. You wrote it in six hours and now you have two hours
> to hand it over to the "technical" person in the office for ongoing
> support (because they can't afford to call you back for new features).
> This person has maybe done a few Word macros, can do fairly advanced
> spreadsheet functions in Excel, etc.
>
> What's easier to explain, the code behind a VB6 form, or a full-fledged
> OOP app in .Net? I think the VB6 app would be much easier to explain
> in a limited time.
>
>
>[/color]

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

Re: VB6 easier than VB.NET?

Mitchell,

"Mitchell S. Honnert" <news@honnert~R ~E~M~O~V~E~.com > schrieb:[color=blue]
> In some recent posts, I've seen people who seem to be waxing nostalgic
> with respect to the "ease of use" of Visual Basic 6. I can't quite put my
> finger on it, but they seem to be implying that VB6 was simpler to use
> than VB.NET, that it was somehow easier to write programs in VB6 than in
> VB.NET. I have to admit I'm astonished by this attitude. I can't see any
> rationality to the idea that, on the whole, VB6 is easier than VB.NET.[/color]

I don't think it's that important that a programming language is easy to
learn. It's impossible to learn to get /used to/ a programming language.
Experience cannot be replaced by reading a book. However, a language can be
more easy than an other in certain cases. In other words, using language X
might be more appropriate (easier) than using language Y to solve a problem.

It's impossible to create a "general purpose" programming language that can
be used to solve every problem in the easiest possible way. Programming
languages are typically optimized for certain tasks. So are OO languages
and frameworks. However, OO is not the answer to all programming tasks;
there are cases where an object-based language (VB6) is more appropriate
than a full OO language.

While VB6 was suitable for small companies, business applications, office
applications, etc., VB.NET has been designed as an application for
enterprise development. .NET (VB.NET/C#) are not suitable tools in many
situations:

<URL:http://www.dicks-blog.com/archives/2005/03/09/support-classic-vb/#comment-9262>:

---
We’re not a programming shop, but use Excel as a programming tool to get our
jobs done: taking away VBA and replacing it with .NET is sort of like taking
away a construction worker’s hammer and replacing it with a pneumatically
driven nuclear-powered piledriver. That all we want to do is write
relatively small snippets of code and a few loops to handle daily problems
means that for us VBA is a nicely weighted and balanced hammer: from what I’ve
seen (correct me if I’m wrong!), .NET is vast overkill for the relatively
small, yet fiercely complex tasks we need it for. And we gotta learn how to
do everything all over again.
---

(I think the sample above elaborates the main issue of the VB6/VBA -> .NET
migration very well.)
[color=blue]
> I *can* see where someone who is entrenched in the VB6 language would find
> the switch to VB.NET daunting. (VB.NET is, after all, a major departure
> from VB6.) But what I can't see is someone making the judgment, from an
> objective standpoint, that VB6 is easier than VB.NET. In other words,
> just because *you* happen to be so much more familiar with the collective
> set of eccentricities, peculiarities, and inconsistencies that is known as
> Visual Basic 6 that you can write applications faster in VB6 than VB.NET,
> it doesn't mean that VB6 is easier.[/color]

I am familiar with the .NET technology, VB.NET, C# and other .NET-enabled
languages, but this doesn't imply that I think that using .NET (VB.NET, C#)
is most suitable in all cases. VB(A) enables people who are not programmers
to write code, for example, people working in an office using Microsoft
Office products (Excel, Word, ...). For these cases, full OO simply doesn't
make much sense, moreover it increases the complexity without adding a
benefit.
[color=blue]
> I've heard it argued that a drawback to .NET's full support of object
> oriented programming is that it makes coding more difficult. "I just want
> to get in there and write some code; I don't want to have to worry about
> all of that OO crap."[/color]

This argument must be analyzed from three standpoints:

* People owning a large VB6 codebase that cannot be migrated
to .NET without a rewrite (which doesn't bring any benefit).

* People who don't need OO at all, for example, office developers
(VBA).

* The programmer who is simply too lazy to learn OO, but using
OO would significantly increase his productivity. (rarely the case)
[color=blue]
> Perhaps the principle holds true for the "Hello World" type of
> application, but for any non-trivial application, I just don't see how the
> well-ordered, clean, and consistent implementation of OO principles in the
> .NET framework couldn't be seen as an easier environment in which to
> develop.[/color]

There are cases where OO (PIE) doesn't make much sense. For example, when
writing VBA code, reusability is often not important. Inheritance isn't a
required feature too to copy some data from one sheet to another.
[color=blue]
> I guess I'm looking at it from the perspective of teaching someone who is
> completely new to programming how to be a programmer. In this case, which
> would be easier, VB6 or VB.NET? There's not doubt in my mind that VB.NET
> would be easier.[/color]

Starting with OO when teaching programming is IMO one of the worst things
one can do. I'd start with simple "lists of commands", then explore
procedures, procedural programming, object based programming, and finish
with OOP. Even when writing OO programs, OO doesn't replace procedural
programming, modular programming and object based techniques. They are part
of it.
[color=blue]
> In my opinion, in a relatively short period of time, I could teach
> someone the principles of object oriented programming and the basic layout
> of the .NET Framework.[/color]

Many people who claim to be familiar with .NET or Java are lacking
fundamental programming techniques like formulating a problem in the form of
an (procedural) algorithm. They don't know anything about runtime analysis
of algorithms or writing secure code, which are both crucial for writing
high-quality code. Although these people can design class hierarchies, the
quality of method implementations is *poor*!
[color=blue]
> But if I applied this same amount of time to teaching someone VB6 from
> scratch, I'd get so bogged down in telling them about all of the quirks,
> workarounds, and exceptions-to-the-rule that[/color]

Samples?

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

Re: VB6 easier than VB.NET?

Mitchell,

"Mitchell S. Honnert" <news@honnert~R ~E~M~O~V~E~.com > schrieb:[color=blue][color=green]
>> a lot of VB programmers were really in their comfort zone with 6.[/color]
>
> You've hit on one of main points of my thoughts on this topic. I
> hypothesize that the people who think that VB6 is easier than VB.NET are
> those who were/are "in the VB6 zone". They had become accustomed to all
> of the workarounds necessary to get anything done in VB6, so they
> mistakenly believe that VB6 is easier because it's easier for *them*.[/color]

I have to disagree. It's not easier for them because they know workarounds
to do things the language was not designed for, but because the tool its set
of features is more appropriate for the work they are doing. Take a look at
Office automation code -- most of this code doesn't use any "hacks", it
simply uses the Office object model to get certain things done.

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>

[Richard Myers]

Re: VB6 easier than VB.NET?

Stephany,

Your post makes you seem like a shithead.

Richard

"Stephany Young" <noone@localhos t> wrote in message
news:OnKNzqMMFH A.3512@TK2MSFTN GP15.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> "Comfort Zone"
>
> In this whole recent, (dare I call it one), 'debate', this is the phrase
> that has been missing.
>
> As a species (homo sapien), we are comfortable with what we know. The
> inverse is also true - we are NOT comfortable with what we DON'T know.[/color]
This[color=blue]
> truism has been proved again and again throughout the course of history.
> Because of this, change tends to resisted, (especially in the early[/color]
stages),[color=blue]
> until such time as there is a widespread understanding of the[/color]
'technology'[color=blue]
> behind the change. Once such change becomes generally accepted, there are
> still some who resist further. In the end, those who 'change' prosper and
> those who resist, don't. This is the nature of the evolution of the[/color]
species[color=blue]
> and the evolution of technology.
>
> 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[/color]
Neanderthal's[color=blue]
> were, for what ever reason, unable to change and consequently the species
> did not survive.
>
> In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, we saw a movement, known as[/color]
the[color=blue]
> Luddites, who bitterly resisted industrialisati on of the weaving[/color]
industry.[color=blue]
> Not only were they vociferous in their opposition, they went as far as
> vandalising and destroying the 'modern' weaving machines that were being
> developed at the time. Can you really imagine where we would be without[/color]
the[color=blue]
> range of textiles that we take for granted in our everyday life if they[/color]
had[color=blue]
> succeeded? The word 'luddite' has since entered our language to mean[/color]
someone[color=blue]
> who unreasonably resists change. If I remember some middle 19th century
> history correctly a Western Union 'boss' was attributed as saying "I[/color]
can't[color=blue]
> see any practical use for it, now or in the future" when refering to
> Alexander Graham Bell's new invention (the telephone).
>
> More recently we have also seen a trend towards a way of thinking that
> kmakes the rights of the individual sacrosant. Don't get me wrong here,[/color]
the[color=blue]
> rights of the indivuadual are important! I do, however, find this trend
> disturbing because the rights of the individual are being attributed a
> higher importance than the good of the whole. My view is that being able[/color]
to[color=blue]
> enjoy indivdual rights brings obligations that the individual owes to
> society as a whole. The latin phrase 'quid pro quo' translated as[/color]
'something[color=blue]
> for something' springs to mind as being appropriate here.
>
> During this debate I have seen a lot of hand-wringing, roughly[/color]
paraphrased[color=blue]
> and reading between the lines as "How dare Microsoft take a business
> decision that, in my view, puts the longevity of my personal library of[/color]
VB6[color=blue]
> code at risk" and "How dare Microsoft NOT provide (for free) a mechanism
> that will automatically convert my personal library of esoteric VB6
> procedures into perfect VB.NET code". To those for whom the cap fits -[/color]
all I[color=blue]
> can say is "Get off your backsides and join the real world."
>
> I believe that the late John F. Kennedy put it quite succinctly when he[/color]
said[color=blue]
> "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what can you do for your
> country." (Apologies for any misquote.) In this case I doon't think he[/color]
would[color=blue]
> have minded a small bit of plagarism:
>
> Ask not what your industry can do for you, ask what can you do for your
> industry.
>
>
> "Michael C#" <xyz@yomomma.co m> wrote in message
> news:egKJQ$LMFH A.580@TK2MSFTNG P15.phx.gbl...[color=green]
> > In some respects VB6 was simpler than .NET, but .NET has a lot more
> > functionality in it that you many times had to kludge your way through
> > with VB6.
> >
> > VB.NET's support for OO programming, when coming from a VB6 background,
> > does provide a learning curve to non-OO programmers... and a lot of VB
> > programmers were really in their comfort zone with 6. But the switch[/color][/color]
to[color=blue][color=green]
> > OO programming is well worth it, and most people probably discover[/color][/color]
that[color=blue][color=green]
> > .NET provides a lot of great new functionality and improvements once[/color][/color]
you[color=blue][color=green]
> > stop trying to do things the VB6 way...
> >
> > "Mitchell S. Honnert" <news@honnert~R ~E~M~O~V~E~.com > wrote in message
> > news:OAoSx1LMFH A.2748@TK2MSFTN GP09.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
> >> In some recent posts, I've seen people who seem to be waxing nostalgic
> >> with respect to the "ease of use" of Visual Basic 6. I can't quite[/color][/color][/color]
put[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> my finger on it, but they seem to be implying that VB6 was simpler to[/color][/color][/color]
use[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> than VB.NET, that it was somehow easier to write programs in VB6 than[/color][/color][/color]
in[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> VB.NET. I have to admit I'm astonished by this attitude. I can't see
> >> any rationality to the idea that, on the whole, VB6 is easier than
> >> VB.NET.
> >>
> >> I *can* see where someone who is entrenched in the VB6 language would
> >> find the switch to VB.NET daunting. (VB.NET is, after all, a major
> >> departure from VB6.) But what I can't see is someone making the
> >> judgment, from an objective standpoint, that VB6 is easier than[/color][/color][/color]
VB.NET.[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> In other words, just because *you* happen to be so much more familiar
> >> with the collective set of eccentricities, peculiarities, and
> >> inconsistencies that is known as Visual Basic 6 that you can write
> >> applications faster in VB6 than VB.NET, it doesn't mean that VB6 is
> >> easier.
> >>
> >> I've heard it argued that a drawback to .NET's full support of object
> >> oriented programming is that it makes coding more difficult. "I just
> >> want to get in there and write some code; I don't want to have to[/color][/color][/color]
worry[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> about all of that OO crap." Perhaps the principle holds true for the
> >> "Hello World" type of application, but for any non-trivial[/color][/color][/color]
application, I[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> just don't see how the well-ordered, clean, and consistent[/color][/color][/color]
implementation[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> of OO principles in the .NET framework couldn't be seen as an easier
> >> environment in which to develop.
> >>
> >> I guess I'm looking at it from the perspective of teaching someone who[/color][/color][/color]
is[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> completely new to programming how to be a programmer. In this case,
> >> which would be easier, VB6 or VB.NET? There's not doubt in my mind[/color][/color][/color]
that[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> VB.NET would be easier. In my opinion, in a relatively short period[/color][/color][/color]
of[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> time, I could teach someone the principles of object oriented[/color][/color][/color]
programming[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> and the basic layout of the .NET Framework. But if I applied this[/color][/color][/color]
same[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> amount of time to teaching someone VB6 from scratch, I'd get so bogged
> >> down in telling them about all of the quirks, workarounds, and
> >> exceptions-to-the-rule that I'd run out of time before I could even[/color][/color][/color]
get[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> through the basics. (I wouldn't even want to call this type of[/color][/color][/color]
knowledge[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> transfer "teaching". )
> >>
> >> The point is that even though there might be an initially steeper
> >> learning curve to get past the principles of object oriented[/color][/color][/color]
programming,[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> once you have the "OO epiphany" and truly grok the principles, the[/color][/color][/color]
rest[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> is smooth sailing. But with VB6, you may get up and running a bit
> >> faster, but your daily process of coding is so taken up by finding
> >> workarounds to a seemingly endless series of quirky behaviors or[/color][/color][/color]
things[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> that just don't operate how you think they would, that the overall
> >> development time is actually much longer.
> >>
> >> So, are there people out there that really think VB6 is easier than
> >> VB.NET? Why? Do you think it depends on the size of the project? Are
> >> there other factors? Help me understand because I just don't get this
> >> attitude.
> >>
> >> - Mitchell S. Honnert
> >>
> >>[/color]
> >
> >[/color]
>
>[/color]

[Michael C#]

Re: VB6 easier than VB.NET?


"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hirf-spam-me-here@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:u7wEgmNMFH A.3420@tk2msftn gp13.phx.gbl...
[color=blue]
> We’re not a programming shop, but use Excel as a programming tool to get
> our
> jobs done: taking away VBA and replacing it with .NET is sort of like
> taking
> away a construction worker’s hammer and replacing it with a pneumatically
> driven nuclear-powered piledriver. That all we want to do is write
> relatively small snippets of code and a few loops to handle daily problems
> means that for us VBA is a nicely weighted and balanced hammer: from what
> I’ve
> seen (correct me if I’m wrong!), .NET is vast overkill for the relatively
> small, yet fiercely complex tasks we need it for. And we gotta learn how
> to
> do everything all over again.
> ---
>
> (I think the sample above elaborates the main issue of the VB6/VBA -> .NET
> migration very well.)[/color]

To me, VBA should be separated from VB6 in this particular context. When I
think VBA, I think of a scripting language for MS Office product
automation - something to get small tasks done in your spreadsheet without
going all out and writing a complete external application. When I think
VB6, I think of the full-fledged application development tool, external to
the MS Office Suite. I can't think of many things that can be done in VB6
that can't be done in VB.NET - to me it's just a matter of getting out of
the VB6 mind-state.
[color=blue]
> * People owning a large VB6 codebase that cannot be migrated
> to .NET without a rewrite (which doesn't bring any benefit).[/color]

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, but
this should not be used as a rallying cry for continued investment in
antiquated technologies, and ignorance of modern technologies. Fortunately
businesses are a lot better at adapting to, planning for, and scheduling
change than individuals; and in a Capitalist economy, business tends to
dictate the skills that individuals begin to adopt.
[color=blue]
> There are cases where OO (PIE) doesn't make much sense. For example, when
> writing VBA code, reusability is often not important. Inheritance isn't a
> required feature too to copy some data from one sheet to another.[/color]

OTOH, not all OO projects require that the user design their classes with
reusability by other programs in mind (though it might be a big bonus to
plan for and implement this if possible, since you can save yourself a lot
of time and trouble on future projects). 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.

The key to me is that VB6 programmers moving to .NET need to first get out
of the VB6 mindset. And those that refuse to learn the new technology, and
change with the business world, will end up missing out on a lot of business
opportunities.

Just my 2 cents.

[Michael C#]

Re: VB6 easier than VB.NET?

Richard,

Your post erases all doubt.

"Richard Myers" <fake@address.c om> wrote in message
news:%237mIaKOM FHA.1096@tk2msf tngp13.phx.gbl. ..[color=blue]
> Stephany,
>
> Your post makes you seem like a sh!thead.
>
> Richard
>[/color]

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

Re: VB6 easier than VB.NET?

"Michael C#" <xyz@abcdef.com > schrieb:[color=blue]
> The key to me is that VB6 programmers moving to .NET need to first get out
> of the VB6 mindset. And those that refuse to learn the new technology,
> and change with the business world, will end up missing out on a lot of
> business opportunities.[/color]

Most VB6 programmers (and I know a lot of them) are familiar with OO and use
OO techniques in other programming languages (C++, VB.NET, C#, etc.). There
are very few (except what I call "office developers") who are not familiar
with these techniques. So, skills and learning are not the problem.
"Getting out of the VB6 mindset" is just an easy answer that doesn't apply
in reality. It is based on symptoms, not the reasons.

<URL:http://www.joelonsoftw are.com/items/2005/03/14.html>

"If you spend the money to upgrade to VB.NET, well, you just spent a lot of
money to stand still. And companies don't like to spend a lot of money to
stand still, so while you're spending the money, it probably makes sense to
consider the alternatives that you can port to that won't put you at the
mercy of a single vendor and won't be as likely to change arbitrarily in the
future. So as soon as people with large code bases start hearing that
they're going to have to work to port their apps from VB to VB.NET with
WinForms, and then they start hearing that WinForms isn't really the future,
the future is really this Avalon thing nobody has yet, they start wondering
whether it isn't time to find another development platform."

Revolutionary change instead of evolutionary adaption (rewrite instead of
reuse) has a negative impact on overall productivity and slows down adoption
of new technology. Stability of both languages and technology have a
crucial role in software development.

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>

[Stephany Young]

Re: VB6 easier than VB.NET?

I rest my case.


"Richard Myers" <fake@address.c om> wrote in message
news:%237mIaKOM FHA.1096@tk2msf tngp13.phx.gbl. ..[color=blue]
> Stephany,
>
> Your post makes you seem like a shithead.
>
> Richard
>
> "Stephany Young" <noone@localhos t> wrote in message
> news:OnKNzqMMFH A.3512@TK2MSFTN GP15.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> "Comfort Zone"
>>
>> In this whole recent, (dare I call it one), 'debate', this is the phrase
>> that has been missing.
>>
>> As a species (homo sapien), we are comfortable with what we know. The
>> inverse is also true - we are NOT comfortable with what we DON'T know.[/color]
> This[color=green]
>> truism has been proved again and again throughout the course of history.
>> Because of this, change tends to resisted, (especially in the early[/color]
> stages),[color=green]
>> until such time as there is a widespread understanding of the[/color]
> 'technology'[color=green]
>> behind the change. Once such change becomes generally accepted, there are
>> still some who resist further. In the end, those who 'change' prosper and
>> those who resist, don't. This is the nature of the evolution of the[/color]
> species[color=green]
>> and the evolution of technology.
>>
>> 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[/color]
> Neanderthal's[color=green]
>> were, for what ever reason, unable to change and consequently the species
>> did not survive.
>>
>> In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, we saw a movement, known as[/color]
> the[color=green]
>> Luddites, who bitterly resisted industrialisati on of the weaving[/color]
> industry.[color=green]
>> Not only were they vociferous in their opposition, they went as far as
>> vandalising and destroying the 'modern' weaving machines that were being
>> developed at the time. Can you really imagine where we would be without[/color]
> the[color=green]
>> range of textiles that we take for granted in our everyday life if they[/color]
> had[color=green]
>> succeeded? The word 'luddite' has since entered our language to mean[/color]
> someone[color=green]
>> who unreasonably resists change. If I remember some middle 19th century
>> history correctly a Western Union 'boss' was attributed as saying "I[/color]
> can't[color=green]
>> see any practical use for it, now or in the future" when refering to
>> Alexander Graham Bell's new invention (the telephone).
>>
>> More recently we have also seen a trend towards a way of thinking that
>> kmakes the rights of the individual sacrosant. Don't get me wrong here,[/color]
> the[color=green]
>> rights of the indivuadual are important! I do, however, find this trend
>> disturbing because the rights of the individual are being attributed a
>> higher importance than the good of the whole. My view is that being able[/color]
> to[color=green]
>> enjoy indivdual rights brings obligations that the individual owes to
>> society as a whole. The latin phrase 'quid pro quo' translated as[/color]
> 'something[color=green]
>> for something' springs to mind as being appropriate here.
>>
>> During this debate I have seen a lot of hand-wringing, roughly[/color]
> paraphrased[color=green]
>> and reading between the lines as "How dare Microsoft take a business
>> decision that, in my view, puts the longevity of my personal library of[/color]
> VB6[color=green]
>> code at risk" and "How dare Microsoft NOT provide (for free) a mechanism
>> that will automatically convert my personal library of esoteric VB6
>> procedures into perfect VB.NET code". To those for whom the cap fits -[/color]
> all I[color=green]
>> can say is "Get off your backsides and join the real world."
>>
>> I believe that the late John F. Kennedy put it quite succinctly when he[/color]
> said[color=green]
>> "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what can you do for your
>> country." (Apologies for any misquote.) In this case I doon't think he[/color]
> would[color=green]
>> have minded a small bit of plagarism:
>>
>> Ask not what your industry can do for you, ask what can you do for your
>> industry.
>>
>>
>> "Michael C#" <xyz@yomomma.co m> wrote in message
>> news:egKJQ$LMFH A.580@TK2MSFTNG P15.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
>> > In some respects VB6 was simpler than .NET, but .NET has a lot more
>> > functionality in it that you many times had to kludge your way through
>> > with VB6.
>> >
>> > VB.NET's support for OO programming, when coming from a VB6 background,
>> > does provide a learning curve to non-OO programmers... and a lot of VB
>> > programmers were really in their comfort zone with 6. But the switch[/color][/color]
> to[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > OO programming is well worth it, and most people probably discover[/color][/color]
> that[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > .NET provides a lot of great new functionality and improvements once[/color][/color]
> you[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > stop trying to do things the VB6 way...
>> >
>> > "Mitchell S. Honnert" <news@honnert~R ~E~M~O~V~E~.com > wrote in message
>> > news:OAoSx1LMFH A.2748@TK2MSFTN GP09.phx.gbl...
>> >> In some recent posts, I've seen people who seem to be waxing nostalgic
>> >> with respect to the "ease of use" of Visual Basic 6. I can't quite[/color][/color]
> put[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >> my finger on it, but they seem to be implying that VB6 was simpler to[/color][/color]
> use[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >> than VB.NET, that it was somehow easier to write programs in VB6 than[/color][/color]
> in[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >> VB.NET. I have to admit I'm astonished by this attitude. I can't see
>> >> any rationality to the idea that, on the whole, VB6 is easier than
>> >> VB.NET.
>> >>
>> >> I *can* see where someone who is entrenched in the VB6 language would
>> >> find the switch to VB.NET daunting. (VB.NET is, after all, a major
>> >> departure from VB6.) But what I can't see is someone making the
>> >> judgment, from an objective standpoint, that VB6 is easier than[/color][/color]
> VB.NET.[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >> In other words, just because *you* happen to be so much more familiar
>> >> with the collective set of eccentricities, peculiarities, and
>> >> inconsistencies that is known as Visual Basic 6 that you can write
>> >> applications faster in VB6 than VB.NET, it doesn't mean that VB6 is
>> >> easier.
>> >>
>> >> I've heard it argued that a drawback to .NET's full support of object
>> >> oriented programming is that it makes coding more difficult. "I just
>> >> want to get in there and write some code; I don't want to have to[/color][/color]
> worry[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >> about all of that OO crap." Perhaps the principle holds true for the
>> >> "Hello World" type of application, but for any non-trivial[/color][/color]
> application, I[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >> just don't see how the well-ordered, clean, and consistent[/color][/color]
> implementation[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >> of OO principles in the .NET framework couldn't be seen as an easier
>> >> environment in which to develop.
>> >>
>> >> I guess I'm looking at it from the perspective of teaching someone who[/color][/color]
> is[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >> completely new to programming how to be a programmer. In this case,
>> >> which would be easier, VB6 or VB.NET? There's not doubt in my mind[/color][/color]
> that[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >> VB.NET would be easier. In my opinion, in a relatively short period[/color][/color]
> of[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >> time, I could teach someone the principles of object oriented[/color][/color]
> programming[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >> and the basic layout of the .NET Framework. But if I applied this[/color][/color]
> same[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >> amount of time to teaching someone VB6 from scratch, I'd get so bogged
>> >> down in telling them about all of the quirks, workarounds, and
>> >> exceptions-to-the-rule that I'd run out of time before I could even[/color][/color]
> get[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >> through the basics. (I wouldn't even want to call this type of[/color][/color]
> knowledge[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >> transfer "teaching". )
>> >>
>> >> The point is that even though there might be an initially steeper
>> >> learning curve to get past the principles of object oriented[/color][/color]
> programming,[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >> once you have the "OO epiphany" and truly grok the principles, the[/color][/color]
> rest[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >> is smooth sailing. But with VB6, you may get up and running a bit
>> >> faster, but your daily process of coding is so taken up by finding
>> >> workarounds to a seemingly endless series of quirky behaviors or[/color][/color]
> things[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >> that just don't operate how you think they would, that the overall
>> >> development time is actually much longer.
>> >>
>> >> So, are there people out there that really think VB6 is easier than
>> >> VB.NET? Why? Do you think it depends on the size of the project? Are
>> >> there other factors? Help me understand because I just don't get this
>> >> attitude.
>> >>
>> >> - Mitchell S. Honnert
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >[/color]
>>
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

[Keith Seeley]

Re: VB6 easier than VB.NET?

Hi Charles,

Although I agree with your assessment, remember that there is a REAL NEED
for small and medium sized business to get things DONE, inexpensively. The
programs that the so-called "bad" programmers create DO accomplish a task,
even if they aren't up to the standards of "profession al" programmers. The
end RESULTS of these programs allow a company to put their profits back INTO
their business, instead of into a software developer's pocket (or MS for
that matter). Thus the real problem with the demise of VB classic is that a
void is created for the non-professional programmer to inexpensively provide
customized solutions to their unique problems.

Now I know that there will be little sympathy from the readers of this
forum, but let me just remind everyone of the REAL job of a programmer: to
accomplish a task for a customer that will improve their profits and not
just create a drain on revenue. All the neat little technology provided by
the "latest-and-greatest" does nothing for the customer UNLESS the software
can be delivered to them inexpensively and reliably. And if you do not
agree that this is what your job is really about, then I sincerely hope that
your customers don't find out because you will quickly find yourselves out
of work. Following this definition, even "bad" programmers fit the bill.

Many of the people who post that the classic VBer's should just accept that
technology changes and deal with it are missing the whole point. Spending
more money on new technology, when it does nothing for a company's bottom
line, is just plain stupid. Rather, I think it is those people who jump on
the technology band-wagon without a single thought as to the ramifications
who are stupid. From a professional programmers perspective, I can
understand their position. Keeping up with current technology keeps you
employable. It's just that when it comes down to meeting a company's need
(your customer) there had better be valid reasons behind the new technology.

Now that VB classic is being phased out, the most productive tool a small
business had to increase their bottom line is being taken away. Supposedly
VB.net, in the next release, isn't all that hard to learn and can still be
considered RAD. And maybe it's not. Problem is, with the limited upgrade
path provided to VB.net, MS might as well said "OK, your existing VB classic
apps are obsolete. They will be able to run on future OS's. However, you
can't easily convert all of your old projects to use our newest technology.
This will require a potentially expensive re-write that will not add a
single penny to your profits. As a matter of fact, it will most likely cost
you big time. Oh, and we don't care."

I don't think a single classic VBer will state that VB.net is a step
backward. In fact, I believe just the opposite. Regardless of people's
impressions, the dissension isn't about VB.net. It isn't about being able
to accept change. It's about all the $$$ that will be required to move from
'Neandethal' to 'Cro Magnon' and about all the companies that are being
FORCED to do this without any real help from MS.




"Charles Law" <blank@nowhere. com> wrote in message
news:eEC72INMFH A.1144@TK2MSFTN GP09.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> I'm just dipping in here because this thread caught my attention.
>
> It sounds like David and I have had some similar experiences. I have seen
> these "trivial" applications in small offices, and some in big offices,[/color]
and[color=blue]
> I have to say that they worry me. I quite agree with the idea that someone
> who considers themselves a professional programmer might write such a
> program in less than a day, but that it would take six weeks to understand
> the business processes involved. I have been in that situation.
>
> However, just understanding the business process is not enough. The[/color]
trivial[color=blue]
> programs I have seen, written in small and big offices, don't follow even
> the simplest of programming principles. The best thing for all concerned
> would be if the program were to crash, and then it would be clear that it
> had failed. In reality though, the program churns out numbers that, after
> some rudimentary testing appear to be correct, and thereafter are taken as
> gospel.
>
> The use to which these numbers are put may be low risk, but frequently[/color]
they[color=blue]
> are not. Often a program written by the chap in the corner office starts
> life as a spreadsheet, or a database in Access, but before long the whole
> company depends on this trivial program, and its function grows out of all
> proportion to its original intended purpose. Such programs are not
> controlled or documented, and even the person who wrote it has little clue
> what it does six months later.
>
> This is where I believe that VB.NET is an improvement over VB6. It[/color]
requires[color=blue]
> that someone using it understand that bit more about the language and how[/color]
to[color=blue]
> program with it, but once they do, it hopefully helps them to structure
> their work a bit better.
>
> It is true that a bad programmer can write rubbish in any language, and
> ultimately that will be the same for VB.NET. Perhaps what I am saying is
> that we should be wary of people who dabble in programming; a little
> knowledge is a dangerous thing. We all like a bit of DIY (well, I don't,[/color]
but[color=blue]
> I gather it is quite popular), but there should be limits to which we[/color]
should[color=blue]
> go. If we all fitted our own gas central heating, there would be an
> explosion every day in our neighbourhood.
>
> Charles
>
>
> "David" <dfoster@woofix .local.dom> wrote in message
> news:slrnd45u5a .8tq.dfoster@wo ofix.local.dom. ..[color=green]
> > On 2005-03-24, Mitchell S. Honnert <news@honnert~R ~E~M~O~V~E~.com >[/color][/color]
wrote:[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> In some recent posts, I've seen people who seem to be waxing nostalgic
> >> with
> >> respect to the "ease of use" of Visual Basic 6. I can't quite put my
> >> finger
> >> on it, but they seem to be implying that VB6 was simpler to use than
> >> VB.NET,
> >> that it was somehow easier to write programs in VB6 than in VB.NET. I
> >> have
> >> to admit I'm astonished by this attitude. I can't see any rationality[/color][/color][/color]
to[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> the idea that, on the whole, VB6 is easier than VB.NET.[/color]
> >
> > I don't want to generalize about what others have said, because there's
> > a very wide range of opinions on this subject, but I'd say VB6 was
> > definitely easier to learn, especially for beginners and
> > non-programmers.
> >[color=darkred]
> >> I've heard it argued that a drawback to .NET's full support of object
> >> oriented programming is that it makes coding more difficult. "I just
> >> want
> >> to get in there and write some code; I don't want to have to worry[/color][/color][/color]
about[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> all
> >> of that OO crap." Perhaps the principle holds true for the "Hello[/color][/color][/color]
World"[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> type of application, but for any non-trivial application, I just don't
> >> see
> >> how the well-ordered, clean, and consistent implementation of OO
> >> principles
> >> in the .NET framework couldn't be seen as an easier environment in[/color][/color][/color]
which[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> to
> >> develop.[/color]
> >
> > "Non-trivial" is a relative term. There's lots of small apps out there
> > that seem trivial to me, but are treated like the Holy Grail in small
> > offices. And these are very valuable productivity-enhancing
> > applications, usually written by somebody who picked up a little VB.
> > There's really no reasonable consultant market for things like this: I
> > could write the app in less than a day if I knew what to write, but it
> > would take me six weeks to learn the business process that needs to be
> > automated.
> >
> > VB was perfect for these kinds of things, because it could be very
> > forgiving of a certain lack of understanding. Consider something basic,
> > the difference between a class and an instance of a class. People could
> > write very useful apps without understanding this because VB blurred the
> > distinction where forms were concerned. You could drag buttons onto a
> > form, write little event handlers, maybe even do some DB work without
> > ever really grasping the big picture.
> >
> > That's much tougher in .NET. VB.Net still hides complexity a little,
> > but the idea of class and instances and scope and visibility and stuff
> > like that pops up pretty quickly.
> >[color=darkred]
> >> I guess I'm looking at it from the perspective of teaching someone who[/color][/color][/color]
is[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> completely new to programming how to be a programmer. In this case,
> >> which
> >> would be easier, VB6 or VB.NET? There's not doubt in my mind that[/color][/color][/color]
VB.NET[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> would be easier. In my opinion, in a relatively short period of time,[/color][/color][/color]
I[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> could teach someone the principles of object oriented programming and[/color][/color][/color]
the[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> basic layout of the .NET Framework. But if I applied this same amount[/color][/color][/color]
of[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> time to teaching someone VB6 from scratch, I'd get so bogged down in
> >> telling
> >> them about all of the quirks, workarounds, and exceptions-to-the-rule
> >> that
> >> I'd run out of time before I could even get through the basics. (I
> >> wouldn't
> >> even want to call this type of knowledge transfer "teaching". )[/color]
> >
> > On the flipside, let's say you did write this one-day application I
> > mentioned above. You wrote it in six hours and now you have two hours
> > to hand it over to the "technical" person in the office for ongoing
> > support (because they can't afford to call you back for new features).
> > This person has maybe done a few Word macros, can do fairly advanced
> > spreadsheet functions in Excel, etc.
> >
> > What's easier to explain, the code behind a VB6 form, or a full-fledged
> > OOP app in .Net? I think the VB6 app would be much easier to explain
> > in a limited time.
> >
> >
> >[/color]
>
>[/color]

[Richard Myers]

Re: VB6 easier than VB.NET?

[color=blue]
> I rest my case.[/color]

On what im not sure but.... thank God either way.

[color=blue]
>
>
> "Richard Myers" <fake@address.c om> wrote in message
> news:%237mIaKOM FHA.1096@tk2msf tngp13.phx.gbl. ..[color=green]
> > Stephany,
> >
> > Your post makes you seem like a shithead.
> >
> > Richard
> >
> > "Stephany Young" <noone@localhos t> wrote in message
> > news:OnKNzqMMFH A.3512@TK2MSFTN GP15.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
> >> "Comfort Zone"
> >>
> >> In this whole recent, (dare I call it one), 'debate', this is the[/color][/color][/color]
phrase[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> that has been missing.
> >>
> >> As a species (homo sapien), we are comfortable with what we know. The
> >> inverse is also true - we are NOT comfortable with what we DON'T know.[/color]
> > This[color=darkred]
> >> truism has been proved again and again throughout the course of[/color][/color][/color]
history.[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> Because of this, change tends to resisted, (especially in the early[/color]
> > stages),[color=darkred]
> >> until such time as there is a widespread understanding of the[/color]
> > 'technology'[color=darkred]
> >> behind the change. Once such change becomes generally accepted, there[/color][/color][/color]
are[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> still some who resist further. In the end, those who 'change' prosper[/color][/color][/color]
and[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> those who resist, don't. This is the nature of the evolution of the[/color]
> > species[color=darkred]
> >> and the evolution of technology.
> >>
> >> A case in point is the rise of 'Cro Magnon' as the dominant species[/color][/color][/color]
which[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> became modern humans and the demise of 'Neandethal' man. The[/color]
> > Neanderthal's[color=darkred]
> >> were, for what ever reason, unable to change and consequently the[/color][/color][/color]
species[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> did not survive.
> >>
> >> In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, we saw a movement, known as[/color]
> > the[color=darkred]
> >> Luddites, who bitterly resisted industrialisati on of the weaving[/color]
> > industry.[color=darkred]
> >> Not only were they vociferous in their opposition, they went as far as
> >> vandalising and destroying the 'modern' weaving machines that were[/color][/color][/color]
being[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> developed at the time. Can you really imagine where we would be[/color][/color][/color]
without[color=blue][color=green]
> > the[color=darkred]
> >> range of textiles that we take for granted in our everyday life if[/color][/color][/color]
they[color=blue][color=green]
> > had[color=darkred]
> >> succeeded? The word 'luddite' has since entered our language to mean[/color]
> > someone[color=darkred]
> >> who unreasonably resists change. If I remember some middle 19th[/color][/color][/color]
century[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> history correctly a Western Union 'boss' was attributed as saying "I[/color]
> > can't[color=darkred]
> >> see any practical use for it, now or in the future" when refering to
> >> Alexander Graham Bell's new invention (the telephone).
> >>
> >> More recently we have also seen a trend towards a way of thinking that
> >> kmakes the rights of the individual sacrosant. Don't get me wrong[/color][/color][/color]
here,[color=blue][color=green]
> > the[color=darkred]
> >> rights of the indivuadual are important! I do, however, find this[/color][/color][/color]
trend[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> disturbing because the rights of the individual are being attributed a
> >> higher importance than the good of the whole. My view is that being[/color][/color][/color]
able[color=blue][color=green]
> > to[color=darkred]
> >> enjoy indivdual rights brings obligations that the individual owes to
> >> society as a whole. The latin phrase 'quid pro quo' translated as[/color]
> > 'something[color=darkred]
> >> for something' springs to mind as being appropriate here.
> >>
> >> During this debate I have seen a lot of hand-wringing, roughly[/color]
> > paraphrased[color=darkred]
> >> and reading between the lines as "How dare Microsoft take a business
> >> decision that, in my view, puts the longevity of my personal library[/color][/color][/color]
of[color=blue][color=green]
> > VB6[color=darkred]
> >> code at risk" and "How dare Microsoft NOT provide (for free) a[/color][/color][/color]
mechanism[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> that will automatically convert my personal library of esoteric VB6
> >> procedures into perfect VB.NET code". To those for whom the cap fits -[/color]
> > all I[color=darkred]
> >> can say is "Get off your backsides and join the real world."
> >>
> >> I believe that the late John F. Kennedy put it quite succinctly when[/color][/color][/color]
he[color=blue][color=green]
> > said[color=darkred]
> >> "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what can you do for[/color][/color][/color]
your[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> country." (Apologies for any misquote.) In this case I doon't think he[/color]
> > would[color=darkred]
> >> have minded a small bit of plagarism:
> >>
> >> Ask not what your industry can do for you, ask what can you do for[/color][/color][/color]
your[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> industry.
> >>
> >>
> >> "Michael C#" <xyz@yomomma.co m> wrote in message
> >> news:egKJQ$LMFH A.580@TK2MSFTNG P15.phx.gbl...
> >> > In some respects VB6 was simpler than .NET, but .NET has a lot more
> >> > functionality in it that you many times had to kludge your way[/color][/color][/color]
through[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> > with VB6.
> >> >
> >> > VB.NET's support for OO programming, when coming from a VB6[/color][/color][/color]
background,[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> > does provide a learning curve to non-OO programmers... and a lot of[/color][/color][/color]
VB[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> > programmers were really in their comfort zone with 6. But the[/color][/color][/color]
switch[color=blue][color=green]
> > to[color=darkred]
> >> > OO programming is well worth it, and most people probably discover[/color]
> > that[color=darkred]
> >> > .NET provides a lot of great new functionality and improvements once[/color]
> > you[color=darkred]
> >> > stop trying to do things the VB6 way...
> >> >
> >> > "Mitchell S. Honnert" <news@honnert~R ~E~M~O~V~E~.com > wrote in[/color][/color][/color]
message[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> > news:OAoSx1LMFH A.2748@TK2MSFTN GP09.phx.gbl...
> >> >> In some recent posts, I've seen people who seem to be waxing[/color][/color][/color]
nostalgic[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> >> with respect to the "ease of use" of Visual Basic 6. I can't quite[/color]
> > put[color=darkred]
> >> >> my finger on it, but they seem to be implying that VB6 was simpler[/color][/color][/color]
to[color=blue][color=green]
> > use[color=darkred]
> >> >> than VB.NET, that it was somehow easier to write programs in VB6[/color][/color][/color]
than[color=blue][color=green]
> > in[color=darkred]
> >> >> VB.NET. I have to admit I'm astonished by this attitude. I can't[/color][/color][/color]
see[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> >> any rationality to the idea that, on the whole, VB6 is easier than
> >> >> VB.NET.
> >> >>
> >> >> I *can* see where someone who is entrenched in the VB6 language[/color][/color][/color]
would[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> >> find the switch to VB.NET daunting. (VB.NET is, after all, a[/color][/color][/color]
major[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> >> departure from VB6.) But what I can't see is someone making the
> >> >> judgment, from an objective standpoint, that VB6 is easier than[/color]
> > VB.NET.[color=darkred]
> >> >> In other words, just because *you* happen to be so much more[/color][/color][/color]
familiar[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> >> with the collective set of eccentricities, peculiarities, and
> >> >> inconsistencies that is known as Visual Basic 6 that you can write
> >> >> applications faster in VB6 than VB.NET, it doesn't mean that VB6 is
> >> >> easier.
> >> >>
> >> >> I've heard it argued that a drawback to .NET's full support of[/color][/color][/color]
object[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> >> oriented programming is that it makes coding more difficult. "I[/color][/color][/color]
just[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> >> want to get in there and write some code; I don't want to have to[/color]
> > worry[color=darkred]
> >> >> about all of that OO crap." Perhaps the principle holds true for[/color][/color][/color]
the[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> >> "Hello World" type of application, but for any non-trivial[/color]
> > application, I[color=darkred]
> >> >> just don't see how the well-ordered, clean, and consistent[/color]
> > implementation[color=darkred]
> >> >> of OO principles in the .NET framework couldn't be seen as an[/color][/color][/color]
easier[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> >> environment in which to develop.
> >> >>
> >> >> I guess I'm looking at it from the perspective of teaching someone[/color][/color][/color]
who[color=blue][color=green]
> > is[color=darkred]
> >> >> completely new to programming how to be a programmer. In this[/color][/color][/color]
case,[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> >> which would be easier, VB6 or VB.NET? There's not doubt in my mind[/color]
> > that[color=darkred]
> >> >> VB.NET would be easier. In my opinion, in a relatively short[/color][/color][/color]
period[color=blue][color=green]
> > of[color=darkred]
> >> >> time, I could teach someone the principles of object oriented[/color]
> > programming[color=darkred]
> >> >> and the basic layout of the .NET Framework. But if I applied this[/color]
> > same[color=darkred]
> >> >> amount of time to teaching someone VB6 from scratch, I'd get so[/color][/color][/color]
bogged[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> >> down in telling them about all of the quirks, workarounds, and
> >> >> exceptions-to-the-rule that I'd run out of time before I could even[/color]
> > get[color=darkred]
> >> >> through the basics. (I wouldn't even want to call this type of[/color]
> > knowledge[color=darkred]
> >> >> transfer "teaching". )
> >> >>
> >> >> The point is that even though there might be an initially steeper
> >> >> learning curve to get past the principles of object oriented[/color]
> > programming,[color=darkred]
> >> >> once you have the "OO epiphany" and truly grok the principles, the[/color]
> > rest[color=darkred]
> >> >> is smooth sailing. But with VB6, you may get up and running a bit
> >> >> faster, but your daily process of coding is so taken up by finding
> >> >> workarounds to a seemingly endless series of quirky behaviors or[/color]
> > things[color=darkred]
> >> >> that just don't operate how you think they would, that the overall
> >> >> development time is actually much longer.
> >> >>
> >> >> So, are there people out there that really think VB6 is easier than
> >> >> VB.NET? Why? Do you think it depends on the size of the project?[/color][/color][/color]
Are[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> >> there other factors? Help me understand because I just don't get[/color][/color][/color]
this[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> >> attitude.
> >> >>
> >> >> - Mitchell S. Honnert
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>[/color]
> >
> >[/color]
>
>[/color]