speed issues

[Bill McCarthy]

Re: speed issues


"Mike Williams" <mikea@whiskyan dCoke.comwrote in message
news:Ohz1AkkpIH A.5916@TK2MSFTN GP04.phx.gbl...

"AMercer" <AMercer@discus sions.microsoft .comwrote in message
news:58D64022-4AB9-470D-97B5-C17A3CAA17D3@mi crosoft.com...
>

>It is 'safe to move'. Some things you do will run slower than
>you think they should, and with experience, you will overcome
>these problems. A profiler is a big time saver. The statement
>was misleading, and it sounds like the speaker is not spun up
>on .net or maybe he has an ax to grind.

>
Thank you. In fact that's what I thought myself. The problem is that Bill
McCarthy told me that such a statement was perfectly valid and that he
does not believe it is in any way misleading and, knowing that McCarthy is
a regular contributor here, I actually believed him. Thanks for pointing
out your belief that the statement is actually misleading. At least I know
now that I can safely make the move and that Bill McCarthy is wrong. Thank
you.
>

Oh Mike, you're still trolling here. If you read what I said, was that I
expect VB.NET and Vb6 to be the same. You're trying to put words in my
mouth I never said. What I did say was your deliberate misquoting of
someone else, only reporting half the story is misleading.

[Tom Shelton]

Re: speed issues

On 2008-04-24, Galen Somerville <galen@communit y.nospamwrote:

>
"AMercer" <AMercer@discus sions.microsoft .comwrote in message
news:58D64022-4AB9-470D-97B5-C17A3CAA17D3@mi crosoft.com...

>>Is there anyone here who has used both VB6 and vb.net and who can tell me
>>whether I am safe to move, or is the statement I was given misleading?

>>
>It is 'safe to move'. Some things you do will run slower than you think
>they should, and with experience, you will overcome these problems. A
>profiler is a big time saver. The statement was misleading, and it sounds
>like the speaker is not spun up on .net or maybe he has an ax to grind. I
>think vb.net programs perform just fine.
>>

>
In my personal opinion, marshaling is the speed killer in vb.net.
>
I have a vb6 app that gets short burst's of data, repeatedly, from a USB
device. Normally a USB device is used to get large chunks of data.
>
In vb6 the USB dll is called directly.
>
I have stepped through the net code and it goes all over the place before it
actually gets to the USB dll.
>
Galen

Are you using COM interop for this? My guess is yes, because there are
definately issues with that - especially if your making lots of calls.

--
Tom Shelton

[Tom Shelton]

Re: speed issues

On 2008-04-24, Galen Somerville <galen@communit y.nospamwrote:

>
"AMercer" <AMercer@discus sions.microsoft .comwrote in message
news:58D64022-4AB9-470D-97B5-C17A3CAA17D3@mi crosoft.com...

>>Is there anyone here who has used both VB6 and vb.net and who can tell me
>>whether I am safe to move, or is the statement I was given misleading?

>>
>It is 'safe to move'. Some things you do will run slower than you think
>they should, and with experience, you will overcome these problems. A
>profiler is a big time saver. The statement was misleading, and it sounds
>like the speaker is not spun up on .net or maybe he has an ax to grind. I
>think vb.net programs perform just fine.
>>

>
In my personal opinion, marshaling is the speed killer in vb.net.
>
I have a vb6 app that gets short burst's of data, repeatedly, from a USB
device. Normally a USB device is used to get large chunks of data.
>
In vb6 the USB dll is called directly.
>
I have stepped through the net code and it goes all over the place before it
actually gets to the USB dll.
>
Galen

By the way, have you considered using a .NET based USB library? I
haven't tested it or used it, but over at icsharpcode.net there is a
#usblib :)

--
Tom Shelton

[Bill McCarthy]

Re: speed issues


"Galen Somerville" <galen@communit y.nospamwrote in message
news:uOLEwxkpIH A.552@TK2MSFTNG P06.phx.gbl...

>
"AMercer" <AMercer@discus sions.microsoft .comwrote in message
news:58D64022-4AB9-470D-97B5-C17A3CAA17D3@mi crosoft.com...

>>Is there anyone here who has used both VB6 and vb.net and who can tell
>>me
>>whether I am safe to move, or is the statement I was given misleading?

>>
>It is 'safe to move'. Some things you do will run slower than you think
>they should, and with experience, you will overcome these problems. A
>profiler is a big time saver. The statement was misleading, and it
>sounds
>like the speaker is not spun up on .net or maybe he has an ax to grind.
>I
>think vb.net programs perform just fine.
>>

>
In my personal opinion, marshaling is the speed killer in vb.net.
>
I have a vb6 app that gets short burst's of data, repeatedly, from a USB
device. Normally a USB device is used to get large chunks of data.
>
In vb6 the USB dll is called directly.
>

What do you mean by directly ? It is a COM based dll ?

I have stepped through the net code and it goes all over the place before
it actually gets to the USB dll.
>

Sure there can be some, and there is also marshalling in VB6 as well, just
you don't see it. What format is the data in ?

[Mike Williams]

Re: speed issues

"Bill McCarthy" <Bill@N0SPAM.co mwrote in message
news:57223EEF-FAF0-47F7-B211-1F8C03917AE9@mi crosoft.com...

If you read what I said, was that I expect VB.NET
and Vb6 to be the same. You're trying to put words
in my mouth I never said.

No I'm not. I suggested that the statement made by Cor Ligthert on 22 April
was at best intentionally misleading and at worst deliberately inflammatory
when he said about vb.net code [comparing it to VB6 code]:

"When well done it can be about 10 times quicker"
"When bad done it can be about 10 times slower."

Ligthert was deliberately trying to suggest that a well coded vb.net program
would run ten times faster than a similar VB6 program, which is definitely
NOT the case. Both programs would in fact run at approximately the same
speed, with perhaps the odd difference here and there and Ligthert's
statement was a deliberate attempt to pretend that vb.net is faster than
VB6, which it is NOT. Any programming language can run ten times slower than
any other programming langauge if the code is badly written, whatever those
languages are, so that statement conveys no useful information at all. But
the statement that well done vb.net can be about ten times quicker than VB6
is clearly intended to persuade people that a well done vb.net program is
ten times quicker than a well done VB6 program (otherwise the comparision
has no validity at all). Therefore Ligthert was deliberately trying to be
provovative and was effectively telling lies.You told me that his statement
was /not/ misleading, when in fact it very clearly was, as is evidenced by
the fact that other people here on this vb.net group have since told me that
virtually the exact same statement, but with VB6 and vb.net reversed, was
deliberately misleading and was probably written by someone with "an axe to
grind".

You did later make a statement that in your view both programs would run at
about the same speed, but you made that statement simply because you were
attempting to defend your failure to condemn Ligthert's deliberately
inflammatory statement while at the same time you spend half of your life
spamming and trolling the VB6 newsgroup and jumping on anybody who makes
even the slightest remark about vb.net.

You are trolling the VB6 group and you are upsetting a lot of people. I
suggest that if you prefer vb.net that you stay in the vb.net group and that
you stop deliberately spamming and trolling the VB6 group. Stay away from
your trolling of the VB6 group and we will not follow you here! You are a
spammer and a troll.

Mike

[Bill McCarthy]

Re: speed issues


"Mike Williams" <mikea@whiskyan dCoke.comwrote in message
news:%23xO7Aflp IHA.2068@TK2MSF TNGP05.phx.gbl. ..

"Bill McCarthy" <Bill@N0SPAM.co mwrote in message
news:57223EEF-FAF0-47F7-B211-1F8C03917AE9@mi crosoft.com...
>

>If you read what I said, was that I expect VB.NET
>and Vb6 to be the same. You're trying to put words
>in my mouth I never said.

>
No I'm not.

Actually you are.

>
You are trolling the VB6 group and you are upsetting a lot of people.

I suggest you stop attacking folks in there too Mike. Everytime a dotnet
newby posts to the VB6 group by mistake you attack. Yesterday's outbursts
by you were particularly un-warranted. If you don't like people responding
to your attacks, I suggest you stop attacking people in the first place.

You've now also made your intent here publicly known, so folks know to add
you to their blocked sender list.

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Mathias_W=FChrmann?=]

Re: speed issues

Hi Mike,

Mike Williams schrieb:

I'm trying to decide whether or not I need to move to a different
development tool and I'm told that VB6 code, when well written, can
be ten times faster than vb.net, but that if its badly written it can
be ten times slower. Is that correct?

Misleading, because badly written VB6 code can also be 10 times slower
that well written ;-)

There may be exceptions, but I would say even not so very well written
VB.NET code executes faster than well written VB6 code in nearly every
case. Plus it's easier to do things well in VB.NET. I'll clarify that in
the next paragraph...

I'm quite competent at writing code myself and so most of my code
will be quite well written, and I don't want to move to vb.net if
well written VB6 code is ten times faster. Have I been told the
truth? Or do I need to look into this further?

I have also migrated myself from brain 6.0 to brain.net. I found that
many things, especially performance critical parts of my old VB6
applications, where quite easier to achieve in .NET - because many of
them were already available as classes in the .NET Framework instead of
forcing me to find "speedy workarounds" using API functions.

One example is string concatenation. You can do var1 & var2 in VB6 as
well as in .NET, I didn't measure it, but I feel even here .NET is faster.

If you want to really speed it up in VB6, you'd have to use API /
another "third-party" class, called "FastString class" in this case
(Google for it). If you want to speed it up in .NET, you simply use the
builtin StringBuilder class. Usage of both feels quite the same - but
the difference is, that it's instantly available in .NET and you can be
quite sure Microsoft made a robust implementation, giving you well
defined errors instead of crashes if something goes wrong.

PS: You won't have to learn VB.NET. If you decide to ".NET", you'll
mainly have to learn all those Framework classes and their
possibilities, because they are the same in *every* .NET language. The
differences are merely just the syntax like all those case sensitivity
and semicolons in C#...yuck! ;-)


Best regards,

Mathias Wuehrmann

[Cor Ligthert[MVP]]

Re: speed issues

Mike,

This is turning my words around and you did not read what others (by
instance Michel) wrote, on what I had not anything to add.

"Bad" written code in VB.Net can be 10 times slower then "good" written code
in VB6
And Bad written code in VB6 can be 10 times slower then "good" written in
VB.Net

However, VB6 does not give you all the tools and optimizing VB.Net gives you
and therefore you are not able to make a program in VB6 that is as effective
as in VB.Net (as it is more than a simple console application)

However 10*10 will not be remarable quicker in VB.Net than in VB6 as they
both support that.

And other point is that you are able to build more solid solutions with VB
for Net because it is based on OOP principles and VB6 is not like that.

Cor

[Cor Ligthert[MVP]]

Re: speed issues

Mike

Probably my misunderstandin g of the by you used English

>
"When well done it can be about 10 times quicker"
"When bad done it can be about 10 times slower."
>

In my English "can be" is something different than "is".

However in your language it seems to be the same.

If "is" = the same in your language as "can be" then my message is
misleading.

I thought that I have often used it in England however maybe there are
differences in it.

Cor

[Andrew Morton]

Re: speed issues

Cor Ligthert[MVP] wrote:

In my English "can be" is something different than "is".

You are correct.

Andrew

[Armin Zingler]

Re: speed issues

"Mike Williams" <mikea@whiskyan dCoke.comschrie b

Is that correct?

There is no general answer. This is correct.


Armin

[rowe_newsgroups]

Re: speed issues

On Apr 24, 6:08 pm, "Mike Williams" <mi...@whiskyan dCoke.comwrote:

"Bill McCarthy" <B...@N0SPAM.co mwrote in message
>
news:57223EEF-FAF0-47F7-B211-1F8C03917AE9@mi crosoft.com...
>

If you read what I said, was that I expect VB.NET
and Vb6 to be the same. You're trying to put words
in my mouth I never said.

>
No I'm not. I suggested that the statement made by Cor Ligthert on 22 April
was at best intentionally misleading and at worst deliberately inflammatory
when he said about vb.net code [comparing it to VB6 code]:
>
"When well done it can be about 10 times quicker"
"When bad done it can be about 10 times slower."
>
Ligthert was deliberately trying to suggest that a well coded vb.net program
would run ten times faster than a similar VB6 program, which is definitely
NOT the case. Both programs would in fact run at approximately the same
speed, with perhaps the odd difference here and there and Ligthert's
statement was a deliberate attempt to pretend that vb.net is faster than
VB6, which it is NOT. Any programming language can run ten times slower than
any other programming langauge if the code is badly written, whatever those
languages are, so that statement conveys no useful information at all. But
the statement that well done vb.net can be about ten times quicker than VB6
is clearly intended to persuade people that a well done vb.net program is
ten times quicker than a well done VB6 program (otherwise the comparision
has no validity at all). Therefore Ligthert was deliberately trying to be
provovative and was effectively telling lies.You told me that his statement
was /not/ misleading, when in fact it very clearly was, as is evidenced by
the fact that other people here on this vb.net group have since told me that
virtually the exact same statement, but with VB6 and vb.net reversed, was
deliberately misleading and was probably written by someone with "an axe to
grind".
>
You did later make a statement that in your view both programs would run at
about the same speed, but you made that statement simply because you were
attempting to defend your failure to condemn Ligthert's deliberately
inflammatory statement while at the same time you spend half of your life
spamming and trolling the VB6 newsgroup and jumping on anybody who makes
even the slightest remark about vb.net.
>
You are trolling the VB6 group and you are upsetting a lot of people. I
suggest that if you prefer vb.net that you stay in the vb.net group and that
you stop deliberately spamming and trolling the VB6 group. Stay away from
your trolling of the VB6 group and we will not follow you here! You are a
spammer and a troll.
>
Mike

This was the statement I was waiting for - the end to your long setup
for trolling.

What I find most interesting is how you don't bring up the issue in
the thread that Cor's possible misleading statement was in. Yes, you
said "Rubbish!" but then shortly after you start this thread, purely
for trolling.

If you want to start a serious discussion of the speed difference than
do it, but don't try to be misleading yourself and troll others into a
reputation bashing.

Thanks,

Seth Rowe [MVP]

[Mike Williams]

Re: speed issues

"Bill McCarthy" <Bill@N0SPAM.co mwrote in message
news:D8901610-3EF7-4CC1-9ABD-71EB785405AC@mi crosoft.com...

I suggest you stop attacking folks in there too Mike.

I'm not attacking anybody. I'm just telling them the truth. VB6 is NOT
vb.net and in general any responses written in VB6 code will NOT run in
vb.net, and I then ask them to post their vb.net questions to a dotnet
group. Sounds okay to me. I came here merely to ask you to stop spamming and
trolling the VB6 group, in the hope that you might listen to me here because
so far you have failed to listen to the dozens of people on the VB6 group
who have asked you to stop trolling it. You are a troll, McCarthy, and you
are annoying a lot of people on the VB6 group. Please desist.

Mike

[Mike Williams]

Re: speed issues

"Cor Ligthert[MVP]" <notmyfirstname @planet.nlwrote in message
news:BCF1059D-E879-4256-8AEF-103697241EF2@mi crosoft.com...

> "When well done it can be about 10 times quicker"
> "When bad done it can be about 10 times slower."

In my English "can be" is something different than "is".

Yes, of course. The phrase "can be" is different from "is", but your
statement was clearly intended to confuse people and ti imply something that
is not true. The following statement is true, so why didn't you make it? If
you want the truth then tell all the truth:

Well written VB6 code can be about 10 times quicker than vb.net

Mike

[Mike Williams]

Re: speed issues

"rowe_newsgroup s" <rowe_email@yah oo.comwrote in message
news:5ff2f2ca-a3cd-468a-a52d-11f30bfeded1@b1 g2000hsg.google groups.com...

What I find most interesting is how you don't bring up
the issue in the thread that Cor's possible misleading
statement was in. Yes, you said "Rubbish!" but then
shortly after you start this thread, purely for trolling.

No. I started this thread to discover why McCarthy refuses to condemn
inflammatory remarks in this group when he spends half his life spamming and
trolling the VB6 group and condemning almost everybody he comes across.
Also, I wan ted to ask McCarthy on his "home ground" to stop trolling the
VB6 group, because lots of people on the VB6 group have asked him to stop
trolling it there and so far he has not taken any notice of them.

If you want to start a serious discussion of the
speed difference than do it

I'm more interested in truth than in speed, and in finding out why McCarthy
refuses to condemn people in this group for doing exactly the same kind of
things that he condemns them for in the VB6 group. He is a troll, and he has
been trolling the VB6 group for many, many months.

Mike