VB6 easier than VB.NET?

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

Re: VB6 easier than VB.NET?

Richard,

"Richard Myers" <fake@address.c om> schrieb:[color=blue]
> Well given the gibberish you're prone to post Cor, that hardly surprises
> me.[/color]

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

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

[Cor Ligthert]

Re: VB6 easier than VB.NET?

Herfried,[color=blue][color=green]
>> Well given the gibberish you're prone to post Cor, that hardly surprises
>> me.[/color]
>
> Note that not everybody in this group is a native English speaker. I
> encourage you to take care of that :-)...[/color]

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

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

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

Cor

[Cor Ligthert]

Re: VB6 easier than VB.NET?

Hefried,
[color=blue]
> "Richard Myers" <fake@address.c om> schrieb:[color=green]
>> Well given the gibberish you're prone to post Cor, that hardly surprises
>> me.[/color]
>
> Note that not everybody in this group is a native English speaker. I
> encourage you to take care of that :-)...
>
> --[/color]
Before you don't understand my message, with this you agree with Richard
that my messages are gibberish.

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

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

Cor

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

Re: VB6 easier than VB.NET?

Cor,

"Cor Ligthert" <notmyfirstname @planet.nl> schrieb:[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Well given the gibberish you're prone to post Cor, that hardly surprises
>>> me.[/color]
>>
>> Note that not everybody in this group is a native English speaker. I
>> encourage you to take care of that :-)...[/color]
>
> I am very much able to read what Stephany wrote, and as you know, is that
> something I very much agree with ,as I have written it with other words in
> the same way as she did, in the other thread directly on statements of
> you.[/color]

Well, I didn't want to doubt that you understand what Stephany wrote and I
understand what you want to say, but I for me it's sometimes hard to
understand what you write.
[color=blue]
> I miss in this thread your very much-used link to rules of conduct. I
> think that that was more on his place message to Richard.
>
> Alternatively, is it a kind of selective use of that; When the messages
> fits your idea's it is not against the rules of conduct. Richard abused
> both Stephanie and me in a horrible way, what did me decide not to answer
> on that anymore.[/color]

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

--
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?

Cor,

"Cor Ligthert" <notmyfirstname @planet.nl> schrieb:[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Well given the gibberish you're prone to post Cor, that hardly surprises
>>> me.[/color]
>>
>> Note that not everybody in this group is a native English speaker. I
>> encourage you to take care of that :-)...[/color]
>
> Before you don't understand my message, with this you agree with Richard
> that my messages are gibberish.
>
> Although you are not a native English speaker have I no doubt that you
> understand what is written by Richard.[/color]

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

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

[Cor Ligthert]

Re: VB6 easier than VB.NET?

Herfried,
[color=blue]
> Well, I didn't want to doubt that you understand what Stephany wrote and I
> understand what you want to say, but I for me it's sometimes hard to
> understand what you write.
>[/color]
I did almost write nothing to Richard. He did not understand the message
from Stephany, which is for me very clear. That he than tells that he does
not understand my messages tells more about his ability with the English
language than about my. Whereby I don't write that I am a perfect English
writer. Although I make the writing errors, I make in English, in almost
every language (including Dutch) in mail messages.

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

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

Cor

[Keith Seeley]

Re: VB6 easier than VB.NET?

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mitchell S. Honnert]

Re: VB6 easier than VB.NET?

> To me, VBA should be separated from VB6 in this particular context.
Exactly. In fact, I intentionally omitted any reference to VBA in my
original post. My goal was to get the opinion of professional programmers
on enterprise-level programming tools. Yes, I know that VBA is used in the
enterprise, but I had wanted to focus the responses to more "hard core"
programming. Not to discount the programs written by the "guy in
accounting", but that wasn't my focus.
[color=blue]
> 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[/color]
Exactly! But again, I didn't reference any migration issues because I
personally was looking for a more objective, side-by-side comparison, rather
than the issues of going from one to another. (Which apparently warrants
its own thread!)
[color=blue]
> 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.[/color]
Exactly!!! I think the discussion about the "VB6 comfort zone" is
appropriate, not to arbitrarily ridicule the programmers who are "stuck in
the past", but to point out how there might be confusion between familiarity
and true ease-of-use. Specifically, I believe that it really *is* easier to
program in VB.NET. Yes, if you want to delve into the complexities of OO,
you will have a steeper learning curve, but you can still to the
drag-and-drop style of programming you could with VB6. It's just that when
you need to go beyond some of the simple stuff, there is an amazingly clear
and coherent architecture waiting for you to discover.

- Mitchell S. Honnert

"Michael C#" <xyz@abcdef.com > wrote in message
news:JQK0e.409$ tu6.130@fe11.lg a...[color=blue]
>
> "Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hirf-spam-me-here@gmx.at> wrote in message
> news:u7wEgmNMFH A.3420@tk2msftn gp13.phx.gbl...
>[color=green]
>> 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=green]
>> * 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=green]
>> 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.
>[/color]

[Keith Seeley]

Re: VB6 easier than VB.NET?

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

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

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

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

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

I'd believe you. Problem is, the person producing those results needs to be
a programmer. They would require knowledge that currently is not required
using classic VB. Remember the old addage "KISS"?
[color=blue]
> The argument about programmers pushing a fancy new technology to keep
> themselves employed seems like an ad-hominem (ferget my Latin pls) attack.
> Actually, i see the opposite happening where teams can get smaller or stay
> small and get more stuff done quicker.
>[/color]

Sorry if that is how I came across-not my intention.
[color=blue]
>
> I disagree with a couple of your assumptions here:
> 1. VB classic is the most productive tool for small businesses.
> 2. VB.NET is hard to learn.
> Also, your reasoning is contradictory here: youre saying that your old VB
> apps will continue to run on future OS's, yet you will be forced into a
> costly rewrite of all your apps? If it doesnt make economic sense to
> rewrite your existing apps, the solution is simple: don't. That is what
> MSFT recommends, and also what it does... you didnt see them rush out a
> completely rewritten Office suite built with C# did you? And if an
> organization regularly comes to the possibly rational conclusion that
> technology upgrades have no economic benefit, then you probably do not[/color]
need[color=blue]
> to worry about them upgrading their OS either. So problem is doubly[/color]
solved![color=blue]
>[color=green]
> > 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[/color][/color]
able[color=blue][color=green]
> > 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.[/color]
>
>
> Your central assumptions are wrong IMO, because .NET development is[/color]
cheaper[color=blue]
> in the long run, and no one is being forced to do anything that doesnt[/color]
make[color=blue]
> economic sense. the only "forcing" that is going on is caused by natural
> competition between businesses who can use technology (both the reality[/color]
and[color=blue]
> the marketing) against their rivals. There are probably many industries
> where Windows 3.1 and WordPerfect 5.1 are perfectly "good enough" and
> competition between companies within those industries is not affected by
> technology. If you find yourself to be a specialist in a field like that,
> and youre happy with it, then good for you, i mean it!
>[/color]

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

[g9u5dd43_nospam@yahoo.com]

Re: VB6 easier than VB.NET?

Look at one specific application, serial I/O.

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

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 17:04:23 -0500, "Mitchell S. Honnert"[color=blue]
>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]

[Michael C#]

Re: VB6 easier than VB.NET?


"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hirf-spam-me-here@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:OHZSxYTMFH A.2940@TK2MSFTN GP15.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> "Michael C#" <xyz@abcdef.com > schrieb:[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> 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.[/color][/color][/color]

Agreed. But the so-called "office developers" who use VBA AFAIK aren't in
any danger of having the VBA engine pulled out from under them any time
soon. After all, the VBA engine hasn't been updated in what - almost a
decade? I haven't heard of any plans to move update it either... although
there definitely could be some.

If lack of knowledge and motivation are just symptoms, what is - in your
opinion - the real problem?
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Unless you want to modify your previous list of three standpoints, these
>> people can only fall into the first category: people with large
>> investments in VB6.
>>
>> It's doubtful that every individual or company has invested so largely in
>> VB6 that moving on to .NET is cost-prohibitive. Of those that are too
>> cost-prohibitive to "retool" their inventories of VB6 code, what's
>> stopping them from moving toward .NET for future development? It would
>> seem they already have - for the most part - the OO skills, so the
>> complexities of using Inheritance shouldn't be an issue to them...[/color]
>
> For real application developers the move to .NET for new projects is not
> such a big problem. However, to be able to do that, there must be a
> seamless way to use existing VB6 code by the new .NET projects without a
> rewrite. In addition to that, existing code still must be maintained for
> years to satisfy the needs of the customers. On the other hand there is
> the group of what I call "office developers", secretaries etc. who don't
> have in-depth programming skills, and use VBA/VB simply for writing loops
> and procedures. For them, OO increses complexity because it detracts from
> the "simple" problem they want to solve.[/color]

I won't even get into the problems often caused by applications developed by
"office developers" who dabble in programming. I've seen large
organizations hire outside consultants to audit years' of financial data,
because a broken VBA macro caused their numbers to not match. I don't think
OO "detracts from the 'simple' problem they want to solve." I do think,
that in many respects, it forces you to think a problem through more
thoroughly before you jump in and hack out a half-arsed solution. I agree
that an "office developer" might not be able to put out as much poor quality
code using true OO models as they could with VBA, but the code they do put
out could be of considerably higher quality. Besides, I maintain that .NET
hides a lot of the complexity of OO programming from the user for simple
projects; unlike unmanaged C++, where you have a lot of internal management
issues to take care of in addition to the basic functionality you're trying
to implement.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> IMHO, it boils down to the "VB6 mindstate". They are comfortable
>> programming VB6, and don't feel the need to upgrade their skill sets.[/color]
>
> That's true for office developers who I wouldn't consider to be real
> developers mostly. However, OO is not the right tool for them.[/color]

It might be, it might not be. They're not currently faced with having to
change anytime soon, however.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> An opposing viewpoint - the VB6 programmers with little or no OO
>> experience - might be the minority, but these people are the ones who are
>> going to get hit the hardest. And I do know some of these types,
>> including your VBA developers. They seem to make the most noise about
>> not wanting to change.[/color]
>
> Imagine you are a carpenter and use a little handsaw. This tool is
> opmtimized for the work you do, so there is absolutely no need for a
> change of the tool.[/color]

To take your analogy further, to apply it to VBA "office developers", the
ability to use your handsaw to cut 100 pieces of wood each day may make you
feel that the tool is "optimized for the work you do"; but in the end, if
those 100 pieces of wood were cut wrong, what difference does it make how
efficiently you can turn large pieces of wood into small pieces of wood?
[color=blue]
> Would you learn how to use the power saw if it doesn't fit your needs as
> exactly as the handsaw did, or would you consider to buy a new handsaw
> from another manufacturer instead? Would you buy a tool that is
> dysfunctional because you cannot use it to do your work? I think it's
> absolutely clear that those people don't want to change.[/color]

I wouldn't disavow the existence of the power saw just because I've spent
money on "Handsaw" attachments. I would use the handsaw where it worked,
and use the powersaw where it applied. Same thing I personally do with
programming languages right now. For me personally, however, VB6 and VB.NET
are two different versions of the same type of saw; not two completely
different tools altogether - as would be unmanaged C++ and VB.NET.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Now, on the topic of support for VB6 - as opposed to "not wanting to port
>> code to .NET" or "not wanting to learn the new technology" - I have
>> different feelings. I think that VB6 should continue to be supported by
>> MS, as there are a lot of businesses and individuals who are still
>> running VB6 code. I feel that VB6 will eventually phase itself out, just
>> like other older technologies like WFW... But I don't think it will be
>> dictated merely by Microsoft's force of will, but rather by the forces of
>> the market.[/color]
>
> That's exactly what I think.
>[/color]

I think the support issue is more or less the main issue they're going to
have to deal with more than anything else. Like you said, a lot of
businesses and individuals have installed a lot of $$$ in VB6-based COM
technology and among those people, I can understand the unhappiness about
the lack of support for COM from MS. There are better ways than COM to get
the job done, but like you said, it's hard to justify upgrading to new
technology when the old technology appears to work just fine.

[Mitchell S. Honnert]

Re: VB6 easier than VB.NET?

> "If you spend the money to upgrade to VB.NET, well, you just spent a lot[color=blue]
> of money to stand still."[/color]
I admit that I haven't read the entire article, but this particular quote is
patently ridiculous. Even if you only duplicate existing functionality in
the new VB.NET application, you have gained the ability to take advantage of
all of VB.NET's features. For any future development, you have the new IDE,
you have the ease of extending an OO application, you have all of the other
myriad of benefits that VB.NET has over VB6. (Not to mention, all of the
benefits that would come from redesigning the underlying code.) It's like
saying that investing in a college degree is "standing still". The graduate
may not have a job the day he gets his diploma, but the investment allows
him to gain that reward. So to does an investment in an upgrade from VB6 to
VB.NET set you up for the rewards of using all of the benefits of VB.NET.
(BTW, I'm not saying that it makes economic sense in all cases to convert
from VB6 to VB.NET. But to say outright that you are standing still by
doing this conversion is just plain silly.)

- Mitchell S. Honnert



"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hirf-spam-me-here@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:OstCQZOMFH A.732@TK2MSFTNG P12.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> "Michael C#" <xyz@abcdef.com > schrieb:[color=green]
>> 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/>[/color]

[Michael C#]

Re: VB6 easier than VB.NET?

"Mitchell S. Honnert" <news@honnert~R ~E~M~O~V~E~.com > wrote in message
news:%23$X4E0UM FHA.2704@TK2MSF TNGP15.phx.gbl. ..[color=blue][color=green]
>> 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[/color]
> Exactly! But again, I didn't reference any migration issues because I
> personally was looking for a more objective, side-by-side comparison,
> rather than the issues of going from one to another. (Which apparently
> warrants its own thread!)[/color]

One point that Herfried did bring up, which I think is relevant to any
objective side-by-side comparison, is the migration of COM technologies. A
lot of businesses did invest a lot of money in COM, DCOM, COM+, etc., and MS
has relegated it to step-child status. There are better technologies
available in .NET that do the same job (Remoting, Web Services), but COM
development was an expensive and complex proposition to begin with. Among
professional programmers, some of the ranting and raving is probably due to
aggravation over the lack of support for the COM technology they've invested
so much in. I can't see the reason for not moving forward with the newer
technology for future projects, but support for COM components that are
currently in production seems rather lacking.

[smith]

Re: VB6 easier than VB.NET?

"Keith Seeley" <kseeley@worldn et.att.net> wrote in message
news:mJV0e.7280 $cg1.623@bgtnsc 04-news.ops.worldn et.att.net...[color=blue]
> Hi Stephany,
>[color=green]
>>. In this respect, companies WILL be FORCED to spend more[/color]
> money to keep up with the "latest and greatest", even though the RESULTS
> produced will be no different than before.[/color]


:) I recall that these were exactly the words being yelled in VB3 user
groups when VB4 was released (there wasn't much of an internet back then to
it was human to human and a few BBSes). So much anger so much fear and in
the end so untrue. We all thought - Including ME - that VB3 was the perfect
tool and that nothing could beat it and that ActiveX was a scam. We were
"FORCED" to move up to VB4.

Now look how we hang on the same way to VB5/6.

VB3 fit the needs of the day but the day moved on and we had to start
working with the enterprise and the internet ... things that VB3 didn't
understand because it was made before those things were important.

VB5/6 was made with the things we thought were important in 1996. 10 years
later there are features that users want that we didn't know about in 1996
.... and deadlines that were no way as tight as they were 9 years ago. So
the tool was re-made to fit the needs of the developer today.

In 5 years we'll all be right back here pissing and moaning that MS is
destroying the world because we don't like VB10. (But I'm lookng foreward
to VB9 for Refactoring, a JAVA helper that VBers today simply aren't aware
that they can't live without)

This is nothing new. .Net is 3 years old, if you haven't yet come up with
your company plan for migration and maintenancne then you've got management
problems, not technical problems. Techncally it's just code, like VB3 was
just code three years after VB4 came out ... it's not that hard to port or
keep for developers who realize that porting and maintaining have always
been, and will always be, over 70% of the job for a tech person. (I find
porting to to be a more cost effective result in the end based on my VB3 >
VB456 experience but that's my experienced opinion. Some folks don't like
to work late to grow their careers so maintenance of legacy code more fits
their lifestyles)

All the best

Robert Smith
Kirkland, WA

https://www.smithvoice.com

[Mitchell S. Honnert]

Re: VB6 easier than VB.NET?

Being a fan of analogy, I had to comment on yours...
[color=blue]
> Imagine you are a carpenter and use a little handsaw. This tool is
> opmtimized for the work you do, so there is absolutely no need for a
> change of the tool. One day the handsaw doesn't work any more and the
> manufacturer of the saw wants to sell you a huge power saw and doesn't
> sell handsaws any more because power saws are, in his eyes, an
> improvement.[/color]
There is a fatal flaw in the above analogy. VB6 will not stop working on
the day that mainstream support ends. I've seen this point brought up a few
times, but haven't seen a real response. Neither your VB6 applications nor
the VB6 development tool itself will stop working "one day". To use your
analogy, the carpenter can continue to use his little handsaw all he wants.
The manufacturer may stop selling the little handsaw, but they aren't going
to come to the construction site and take it away from him. A more
appropriate analogy would be a carpenter that uses a little handsaw while
the young whippersnappers around him are using huge power saws. And to
extend on the analogy, the huge power saw may be overkill for certain small
jobs, but because the younger carpenters have become expert in its use, they
can apply the huge power saw to large or small jobs without having to go
back to the truck and exchange tools.

- Mitchell S. Honnert



"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hirf-spam-me-here@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:OHZSxYTMFH A.2940@TK2MSFTN GP15.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> "Michael C#" <xyz@abcdef.com > schrieb:[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.[/color]
>>
>> Unless you want to modify your previous list of three standpoints, these
>> people can only fall into the first category: people with large
>> investments in VB6.
>>
>> It's doubtful that every individual or company has invested so largely in
>> VB6 that moving on to .NET is cost-prohibitive. Of those that are too
>> cost-prohibitive to "retool" their inventories of VB6 code, what's
>> stopping them from moving toward .NET for future development? It would
>> seem they already have - for the most part - the OO skills, so the
>> complexities of using Inheritance shouldn't be an issue to them...[/color]
>
> For real application developers the move to .NET for new projects is not
> such a big problem. However, to be able to do that, there must be a
> seamless way to use existing VB6 code by the new .NET projects without a
> rewrite. In addition to that, existing code still must be maintained for
> years to satisfy the needs of the customers. On the other hand there is
> the group of what I call "office developers", secretaries etc. who don't
> have in-depth programming skills, and use VBA/VB simply for writing loops
> and procedures. For them, OO increses complexity because it detracts from
> the "simple" problem they want to solve.
>[color=green]
>> IMHO, it boils down to the "VB6 mindstate". They are comfortable
>> programming VB6, and don't feel the need to upgrade their skill sets.[/color]
>
> That's true for office developers who I wouldn't consider to be real
> developers mostly. However, OO is not the right tool for them.
>[color=green]
>> An opposing viewpoint - the VB6 programmers with little or no OO
>> experience - might be the minority, but these people are the ones who are
>> going to get hit the hardest. And I do know some of these types,
>> including your VBA developers. They seem to make the most noise about
>> not wanting to change.[/color]
>
> Imagine you are a carpenter and use a little handsaw. This tool is
> opmtimized for the work you do, so there is absolutely no need for a
> change of the tool. One day the handsaw doesn't work any more and the
> manufacturer of the saw wants to sell you a huge power saw and doesn't
> sell handsaws any more because power saws are, in his eyes, an
> improvement. Would you learn how to use the power saw if it doesn't fit
> your needs as exactly as the handsaw did, or would you consider to buy a
> new handsaw from another manufacturer instead? Would you buy a tool that
> is dysfunctional because you cannot use it to do your work? I think it's
> absolutely clear that those people don't want to change.
>[color=green]
>> Now, on the topic of support for VB6 - as opposed to "not wanting to port
>> code to .NET" or "not wanting to learn the new technology" - I have
>> different feelings. I think that VB6 should continue to be supported by
>> MS, as there are a lot of businesses and individuals who are still
>> running VB6 code. I feel that VB6 will eventually phase itself out, just
>> like other older technologies like WFW... But I don't think it will be
>> dictated merely by Microsoft's force of will, but rather by the forces of
>> the market.[/color]
>
> That's exactly what I think.
>
> --
> M S Herfried K. Wagner
> M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
> V B <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>[/color]