.NOT My Views

Hi all devies!

Many (.NUT, .NOT or whatever), APIs, VB6, Views & Questions

Your can not call APIs directly in .NET, only via P/Invoke. There are some
things that cannot be done in .NET, and that requires APIs. Earlier people
used to say "you can do this in VB" and now. "You can't do this in .NET"

I also have these questions to ask:

Is MS stopping APIs altogether? If yes, what about CPP developer, how would
they program?

APIs are more powerful and faster than foolish class, this is one of the
reason Java is not considered a local application development languages,
because it's not powerful for app dev, only for web. That same applied to
..NET, its great for web, especially ASP.NET. But not for local development.

And anybody can disassemble your source code and claims they wrote it. O!,
yeah, dotfukcator, who has the money to buy a $2500 anti-disassembly too.

In my view, one of the reasons, classic VB is/was great, because of great MS
minds of late 90'.

Now they just hire, cheap people, to "get the job done". Today's VB/.NET
versions are developed on the internal views, offshore R&D, foolish internal
MVPs and offshoring minds. And not by views of 3 Million Developers, 3
million is not "3 Million", its 3000000 people. just go to channel nine, and
see, how the vb team member shows us the futures vb version videos, like
they have invented something great. more messy lang with more less code, lol

lol

vb6: 10 lines of code

vb.net 2002 : 6 lines of code

vb.net 2003: 3 lines of code

vb.net 2005: 1 line of code

vb.net 2007: throw some water on your pc or spray a deodorant can in the
cpu, because MS will invent AI that will write code automatically, and also
upload to your website. all u have to do is implant a chip, and the chip
will convert vb6 codes in your mind, via satellite.

Wtf, a company with an annual, budget of 8 Billion dollars, can't keep its
biggest no of developers happy?

the only things vb6 is lacking is Unicode support, except that it has
everything.

sorry for bad, English.

T K

"VB6 User" <vb6@love.com> schrieb:[color=blue]
> Your can not call APIs directly in .NET, only via P/Invoke. There are some
> things that cannot be done in .NET, and that requires APIs. Earlier people
> used to say "you can do this in VB" and now. "You can't do this in .NET"[/color]

That's wrong. You can still use "API calls", either by using VB.NET's
'Declare' statement or the 'DllImport' attribute. .NET provides even more
interoperability mechanisms than VB6 does.
[color=blue]
> Is MS stopping APIs altogether? If yes, what about CPP developer, how
> would they program?[/color]

API = Application Programming Interface. The .NET Framework's class library
is an API too. I assume you are referring to the function-based APIs of
Win16/Win32 (GDI, etc.). These APIs still exist and will work on Longhorn.
In addition to that, I assume that many new APIs are still implemented in
and exposed to unmanaged code, but there are wrappers for use in managed
code available. It simply doesn't make sense to implement certain things in
managed code because of .NET's runtime characteristics.

An interesting article about Microsoft and APIs can be found here:

How Microsoft Lost the API War
<URL:http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html>
[color=blue]
> APIs are more powerful and faster than foolish class, this is one of the
> reason Java is not considered a local application development languages,
> because it's not powerful for app dev, only for web. That same applied to
> .NET, its great for web, especially ASP.NET. But not for local
> development.[/color]

I tend to agree with you. .NET is great for Web development, but it's not
very suitable for "desktop" development. The main advantage of Windows has
always been the huge number of applications which were developed for this
operating system. With .NET, I see a decline in "desktop" applications and
an increasing number of Web applications, which are not necessarily bound to
the Windows operating system.
[color=blue]
> In my view, one of the reasons, classic VB is/was great, because of great
> MS minds of late 90'.[/color]

If you have not already done so and if you want to make Microsoft aware that
Classic VB should have a future, I encourage you to sign the petition at
<URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>.

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

As a programmer who uses both VS6 and VS.Net on daily bases for web
development , application development and distributed application
development ( COM and .Net Remoting ) these are my answers to your
questions / remarks

Q[color=blue]
> Your can not call APIs directly in .NET, only via P/Invoke. There are some
> things that cannot be done in .NET, and that requires APIs. Earlier people
> used to say "you can do this in VB" and now. "You can't do this in .NET"[/color]

A:

You can use API`s in .Net , however lots of people use API`s for
functionality that is now built in the framework so it is often dissaproved
by people here in the comunity , however for those functionality you need
that is not yet in the framework or whenever it makes sense to do so API`s
are still valid .

Q:[color=blue]
> Is MS stopping APIs altogether? If yes, what about CPP developer, how
> would they program?[/color]

A: I did here this rumour to , that "they" would only allow managed code to
be executed on future operating systems , however i believe we have several
years to go before it will be so far as Vista still has a full API interface
onboard

Q[color=blue]
> APIs are more powerful and faster than foolish class, this is one of the
> reason Java is not considered a local application development languages,
> because it's not powerful for app dev, only for web. That same applied to
> .NET, its great for web, especially ASP.NET. But not for local development[/color]

A:
i agreee and dissagree :-) i have found that VB6 is in some operations a
much better tool as VB.Net however i also found that the same counts for
VB.Net
it depends totally on the project situation , i still start new development
projects in VB6 but web projects ( ASP) are now always written in .Net as it
is superior to its non .Net version .

some of the questions i ask myself before starting a desktop project and
make this dicission are :
A : How modern are the target computers ( < 256 mb and < P III means
automaticly VB6 )
B : what are the target operating systems ( support for win 9.x means
automaticly VB6 for me )
C : must this app be web connected ?
D : distributed architecture necessary ( n tier ) or possibly needed in the
future ?

Q[color=blue]
> And anybody can disassemble your source code and claims they wrote it. O!,
> yeah, dotfukcator, who has the money to buy a $2500 anti-disassembly too.[/color]

A:
There are also free dotfuscators / obfuscators
and as we noticed a few months ago if someone wants to hack your proggy they
can do this also with VB6
we have recently received a copy of our own program , that was hacked in
Poland it had the same functionality as our original , but did not need a
licernse from us to work , the hacker implemented its own registration
forms , also a litle embarising was that the assembly was much smaller as
our original :-(
the program was compiled in native code with optimizations on , we thought
it was impossible to decompile VB6 well we just woke up out of that dream
( this fact was on of our main reassons to stay with VB6 with our deployable
apps )

Q :[color=blue]
> In my view, one of the reasons, classic VB is/was great, because of great
> MS minds of late 90'.[/color]

A:
There are still great minds at MS corporation i visit the Technet MSDN
briefings twice a year here in the Netherlands and i am amazed of all the
new exciting technology`s that are coming towards us , however i see these
as additions to technology`s currently availlable

Q:[color=blue]
> Now they just hire, cheap people, to "get the job done". Today's VB/.NET
> versions are developed on the internal views, offshore R&D, foolish
> internal MVPs and offshoring minds. And not by views of 3 Million
> Developers, 3 million is not "3 Million", its 3000000 people. just go to
> channel nine, and see, how the vb team member shows us the futures vb
> version videos, like they have invented something great. more messy lang
> with more less code, lol
>[/color]

A:
I do not have a view in MS`s kitchen so i can not say anything about your
claims however
"foolish internal MVPs " ??? MVP`s are not employed by Microsoft they are
people who have most of the time a fulltime Job and use there spare free
hours to contribute in the comunity , so you and i can do a better job . i
believe these people should earn a litle more respect from your side
[color=blue]
> lol
>
> vb6: 10 lines of code
>
> vb.net 2002 : 6 lines of code
>
> vb.net 2003: 3 lines of code
>
> vb.net 2005: 1 line of code
>[/color]

counter example ??
take VB6 and a access 2000 database with a table with 4 million records
take VB.Net and a access 2000 database with a table with 4 million records

if you want to loop through a recordset make a decission on the content of
some fields and then update a column you will find that VB6 is superior in
speed and the lines of code you have to write , this all because of the
connected versus disconnected aproach

Hint to microsoft :-) i would like to have the possibility back as i had
in VB6 to do stuff like that in connected mode

Q:
[color=blue]
> Wtf, a company with an annual, budget of 8 Billion dollars, can't keep its
> biggest no of developers happy?[/color]

A:
most of the times i am happy , however with 3 million of developers there
will alway be people dissaproving some new roads Microsoft leads us to
if you do not like it stay with VB6 , maybe you are not ( yet ) ready for
the .Net step

Q:[color=blue]
> the only things vb6 is lacking is Unicode support, except that it has
> everything.[/color]

A: not completely true , VB6 is internally totally unicode compatible
however the vissible controls are not , so you have 2 options
1. buy third party unicode controls ,
2. write your program with a HTML gui http://www.toolbase.nl/ press
screenshots for an example of how this looks ( a dutch version however you
might get the idea ) i wrote programs like this for the Russian market with
the Russian fonts without a problem ( access 2000 with unicode option on in
text fileds , and writing the HTML pages as unicode output from VB6 , browse
on them with the webbrowser control and there you are :-) )

Regards

Michel Posseth [MCP]

"VB6 User" <vb6@love.com> schreef in bericht
news:Oz6VXcMzFHA.3856@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Hi all devies!
>
>
>
> Many (.NUT, .NOT or whatever), APIs, VB6, Views & Questions
>
>
>
> Your can not call APIs directly in .NET, only via P/Invoke. There are some
> things that cannot be done in .NET, and that requires APIs. Earlier people
> used to say "you can do this in VB" and now. "You can't do this in .NET"
>
>
>
> I also have these questions to ask:
>
> Is MS stopping APIs altogether? If yes, what about CPP developer, how
> would they program?
>
>
>
> APIs are more powerful and faster than foolish class, this is one of the
> reason Java is not considered a local application development languages,
> because it's not powerful for app dev, only for web. That same applied to
> .NET, its great for web, especially ASP.NET. But not for local
> development.
>
>
>
> And anybody can disassemble your source code and claims they wrote it. O!,
> yeah, dotfukcator, who has the money to buy a $2500 anti-disassembly too.
>
>
>
> In my view, one of the reasons, classic VB is/was great, because of great
> MS minds of late 90'.
>
>
>
> Now they just hire, cheap people, to "get the job done". Today's VB/.NET
> versions are developed on the internal views, offshore R&D, foolish
> internal MVPs and offshoring minds. And not by views of 3 Million
> Developers, 3 million is not "3 Million", its 3000000 people. just go to
> channel nine, and see, how the vb team member shows us the futures vb
> version videos, like they have invented something great. more messy lang
> with more less code, lol
>
>
>
> lol
>
> vb6: 10 lines of code
>
> vb.net 2002 : 6 lines of code
>
> vb.net 2003: 3 lines of code
>
> vb.net 2005: 1 line of code
>
> vb.net 2007: throw some water on your pc or spray a deodorant can in the
> cpu, because MS will invent AI that will write code automatically, and
> also upload to your website. all u have to do is implant a chip, and the
> chip will convert vb6 codes in your mind, via satellite.
>
>
>
> Wtf, a company with an annual, budget of 8 Billion dollars, can't keep its
> biggest no of developers happy?
>
>
>
> the only things vb6 is lacking is Unicode support, except that it has
> everything.
>
>
>
> sorry for bad, English.
>
> T K
>
>[/color]

Responses inline (Hey, its Sunday. <g>)

"VB6 User" <vb6@love.com> wrote in message
news:Oz6VXcMzFHA.3856@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Hi all devies!
>
>
>
> Many (.NUT, .NOT or whatever), APIs, VB6, Views & Questions
>
>
>
> Your can not call APIs directly in .NET, only via P/Invoke. There are some
> things that cannot be done in .NET, and that requires APIs. Earlier people
> used to say "you can do this in VB" and now. "You can't do this in .NET"
>[/color]

The WinAPI and COM exist in unmanaged code. It has to be 'blocked' or
'bracketed' from managed code. This is little different than how any
'outside' code is managed today.
[color=blue]
>
>
> I also have these questions to ask:
>
> Is MS stopping APIs altogether? If yes, what about CPP developer, how[/color]
would[color=blue]
> they program?
>[/color]

The Win32 API exposes the 'windows engine' for programming. At some level
all frameworks, class libraries, runtimes, etc, use the published services
of the O/S and its components. The framework (just as all 'higher-level'
languages/libraries) is design to minimize the need to use 'lower-level'
services directly. The Framework is merely a wrapper to expose these
services as 'objects'. However, some such lower access will always be there.
[color=blue]
>
>
> APIs are more powerful and faster than foolish class, this is one of the
> reason Java is not considered a local application development languages,
> because it's not powerful for app dev, only for web. That same applied to
> .NET, its great for web, especially ASP.NET. But not for local[/color]
development.[color=blue]
>
>[/color]

If by APIs you mean the Win32 API, then there is no way they are more
'powerful', as the Framework is using the same services. Performance does
suffer as there is currently another layer of indirection. When the
Framework is moved into the kernel speed will improve.

You will find many people will disagree about the suitability of "Java" for
application development. "Java" in the larger sense is a development
platform analogous to "Visual Basic". True that Java doesn't do well in a
Windows environment for application development - but that is due more to
lawsuits than ability. <g>

[color=blue]
>
> And anybody can disassemble your source code and claims they wrote it. O!,
> yeah, dotfukcator, who has the money to buy a $2500 anti-disassembly too.
>
>[/color]

All binary code (compiled or tokenized) has a level of 'security' weakness.
In order to protect executables you need to use 'outside' system services,
an area where most programmers have been rather lazy, lulled into a false
sense of secruity of the 'compiled' application.

However, system security services are harder to manage with 'shrinkwrapped'
applications that are essentially released into the 'wild'. At this time you
are correct, you have to buy or build some rather complex 'obfuscators' to
protect your intellectual property. I believe this is a bigger weakness of
the Framework that MS will admit publicly.

It will be interesting to see how they address this in the future.

Ironically, the Framework is designed with security in mind. It does make it
easer to build security for in-house or corporate distributed applications
and suites. It also presents the opportunity for controled access to
lower-level services. Of little notice as been the extension of this model
into the realm of device drivers (the low of the low, <g>). The new Windows
Driver Foundation now presents kernel services as objects.

..>[color=blue]
> In my view, one of the reasons, classic VB is/was great, because of great[/color]
MS[color=blue]
> minds of late 90'.
>
>[/color]

How can anyone question success? Later historians will rank Visual Basic's
as one of the premier products of all time. It is a large part of what made
MS the juggernaut it has been over the last 15 years. It is fascinating that
everyone out there recognizes that except perhaps Billy and Ballmer. <g>

[color=blue]
>
> Now they just hire, cheap people, to "get the job done". Today's VB/.NET
> versions are developed on the internal views, offshore R&D, foolish[/color]
internal[color=blue]
> MVPs and offshoring minds. And not by views of 3 Million Developers, 3
> million is not "3 Million", its 3000000 people. just go to channel nine,[/color]
and[color=blue]
> see, how the vb team member shows us the futures vb version videos, like
> they have invented something great. more messy lang with more less code,[/color]
lol[color=blue]
>
>[/color]

Part of the Framework's design requrement is exactly that - simplify
development. Allow the mass production of powerful applications by
essentially 'un-skilled' labor. The ultimate goal of any corporation.

Ironically, that is exactly what propelled Visual Basic to the top of the
heap. NET is merely an extension of the VB model. I have no complaint
against .NET. I am only annoyed at how they stabbed so many companies in the
back, by dropping VB the way they did. It has to have cost them - yet it
doesn't seem to have shown-up on the profit sheet.

It seems amazingly unfair, calloused, and capricious. It doesn't seem right
that they are getting away with it. But apparently their market researchers
had a handle on something mere mortals can't understand.

[Appreciate that it is estimated that 70% of all development over the next 5
years will be done off-shore, by programmers who have never even heard of
Visual Basic. India alone can supply 3 million 'developers' at $12/hr with
six-month notice. <g>]

The whole thing reminds me of what happens when a major sports team leaves
town. It is horrible for the fans. The fans lose, but when all the agony
ends, the team makes bigger bucks, and life goes on.

[color=blue]
>
> lol
>
> vb6: 10 lines of code
>
> vb.net 2002 : 6 lines of code
>
> vb.net 2003: 3 lines of code
>
> vb.net 2005: 1 line of code
>
> vb.net 2007: throw some water on your pc or spray a deodorant can in the
> cpu, because MS will invent AI that will write code automatically, and[/color]
also[color=blue]
> upload to your website. all u have to do is implant a chip, and the chip
> will convert vb6 codes in your mind, via satellite.
>
>[/color]

Watch a couple of StarTrek episodes. That is essential the goal.
[color=blue]
>
> Wtf, a company with an annual, budget of 8 Billion dollars, can't keep its
> biggest no of developers happy?
>[/color]

Note above. They are obviously of no importance in this new economy.

[color=blue]
>
>
> the only things vb6 is lacking is Unicode support, except that it has
> everything.
>
>[/color]

It is supported. You just have to pay attention.
[color=blue]
>
> sorry for bad, English.
>
> T K
>
>[/color]

Hi,

Is it not a little bit late for this Dos interface versus Windows interface
battle.

I thought that that was won already by the Windows interface.

For me it is silly that you come back with this.

I hope that I don't understand you wrong?

Cor

"VB6 User" <vb6@love.com> schreef in bericht
news:Oz6VXcMzFHA.3856@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Hi all devies!
>
>
>
> Many (.NUT, .NOT or whatever), APIs, VB6, Views & Questions
>
>
>
> Your can not call APIs directly in .NET, only via P/Invoke. There are some
> things that cannot be done in .NET, and that requires APIs. Earlier people
> used to say "you can do this in VB" and now. "You can't do this in .NET"
>
>
>
> I also have these questions to ask:
>
> Is MS stopping APIs altogether? If yes, what about CPP developer, how
> would they program?
>
>
>
> APIs are more powerful and faster than foolish class, this is one of the
> reason Java is not considered a local application development languages,
> because it's not powerful for app dev, only for web. That same applied to
> .NET, its great for web, especially ASP.NET. But not for local
> development.
>
>
>
> And anybody can disassemble your source code and claims they wrote it. O!,
> yeah, dotfukcator, who has the money to buy a $2500 anti-disassembly too.
>
>
>
> In my view, one of the reasons, classic VB is/was great, because of great
> MS minds of late 90'.
>
>
>
> Now they just hire, cheap people, to "get the job done". Today's VB/.NET
> versions are developed on the internal views, offshore R&D, foolish
> internal MVPs and offshoring minds. And not by views of 3 Million
> Developers, 3 million is not "3 Million", its 3000000 people. just go to
> channel nine, and see, how the vb team member shows us the futures vb
> version videos, like they have invented something great. more messy lang
> with more less code, lol
>
>
>
> lol
>
> vb6: 10 lines of code
>
> vb.net 2002 : 6 lines of code
>
> vb.net 2003: 3 lines of code
>
> vb.net 2005: 1 line of code
>
> vb.net 2007: throw some water on your pc or spray a deodorant can in the
> cpu, because MS will invent AI that will write code automatically, and
> also upload to your website. all u have to do is implant a chip, and the
> chip will convert vb6 codes in your mind, via satellite.
>
>
>
> Wtf, a company with an annual, budget of 8 Billion dollars, can't keep its
> biggest no of developers happy?
>
>
>
> the only things vb6 is lacking is Unicode support, except that it has
> everything.
>
>
>
> sorry for bad, English.
>
> T K
>
>[/color]

"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:OW8yG2NzFHA.3000@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Hi,
>
> Is it not a little bit late for this Dos interface versus Windows[/color]
interface[color=blue]
> battle.
>
> I thought that that was won already by the Windows interface.
>
> For me it is silly that you come back with this.
>
> I hope that I don't understand you wrong?
>
> Cor
>
>[/color]

Or the C++ vs C wars,
OO vs Procedural,
Relational vs Networked Data,
Micro-kernel vs 'Mach',
Null vs Zero,
....

Still it is kind of fun. <g>
(Except for the companies and people who found the trust and investment go
up in smoke.)

-ralph

[color=blue]
> "VB6 User" <vb6@love.com> schreef in bericht
> news:Oz6VXcMzFHA.3856@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...[color=green]
> > Hi all devies!
> >
> >
> >
> > Many (.NUT, .NOT or whatever), APIs, VB6, Views & Questions
> >
> >
> >
> > Your can not call APIs directly in .NET, only via P/Invoke. There are[/color][/color]
some[color=blue][color=green]
> > things that cannot be done in .NET, and that requires APIs. Earlier[/color][/color]
people[color=blue][color=green]
> > used to say "you can do this in VB" and now. "You can't do this in .NET"
> >
> >
> >
> > I also have these questions to ask:
> >
> > Is MS stopping APIs altogether? If yes, what about CPP developer, how
> > would they program?
> >
> >
> >
> > APIs are more powerful and faster than foolish class, this is one of the
> > reason Java is not considered a local application development languages,
> > because it's not powerful for app dev, only for web. That same applied[/color][/color]
to[color=blue][color=green]
> > .NET, its great for web, especially ASP.NET. But not for local
> > development.
> >
> >
> >
> > And anybody can disassemble your source code and claims they wrote it.[/color][/color]
O!,[color=blue][color=green]
> > yeah, dotfukcator, who has the money to buy a $2500 anti-disassembly[/color][/color]
too.[color=blue][color=green]
> >
> >
> >
> > In my view, one of the reasons, classic VB is/was great, because of[/color][/color]
great[color=blue][color=green]
> > MS minds of late 90'.
> >
> >
> >
> > Now they just hire, cheap people, to "get the job done". Today's VB/.NET
> > versions are developed on the internal views, offshore R&D, foolish
> > internal MVPs and offshoring minds. And not by views of 3 Million
> > Developers, 3 million is not "3 Million", its 3000000 people. just go to
> > channel nine, and see, how the vb team member shows us the futures vb
> > version videos, like they have invented something great. more messy lang
> > with more less code, lol
> >
> >
> >
> > lol
> >
> > vb6: 10 lines of code
> >
> > vb.net 2002 : 6 lines of code
> >
> > vb.net 2003: 3 lines of code
> >
> > vb.net 2005: 1 line of code
> >
> > vb.net 2007: throw some water on your pc or spray a deodorant can in the
> > cpu, because MS will invent AI that will write code automatically, and
> > also upload to your website. all u have to do is implant a chip, and the
> > chip will convert vb6 codes in your mind, via satellite.
> >
> >
> >
> > Wtf, a company with an annual, budget of 8 Billion dollars, can't keep[/color][/color]
its[color=blue][color=green]
> > biggest no of developers happy?
> >
> >
> >
> > the only things vb6 is lacking is Unicode support, except that it has
> > everything.
> >
> >
> >
> > sorry for bad, English.
> >
> > T K
> >
> >[/color]
>
>[/color]

Below is how to code an API function call in both VB6 and VB.Net. Note that
the only difference is that VB6 requires you to use a Long because the data
types don't match up with the API in VB6. However they do in VB.Net, very
convenient.

Using the Windows API is much easier in .Net especially when dealing with
Callbacks and APIs that fill arguments sent ByRef with things like Byte &
Integer arrays. I make very heavy use of the Windows API in many of my
programs (mainly for sound, memory manipulation, and port communications).
I also use many unmanaged third party libraries and dealing with them has
been made a ton easier in .Net. As .Net grows up I'm sure it will allow us
to do many more things in a "managed" way (play sounds/music) but until then
it has made it a lot easier on developers who still need to use the Windows
API and other 3rd party tools like FMod. Good luck! Ken.

VB6 Code To Call API
----------------------------
Public Declare Function PlaySound Lib "winmm.dll" Alias "PlaySoundA" _
(ByVal lpszName As String, ByVal hModule As Long, ByVal dwFlags As Long) As
Long
PlaySound "chime.wav", 0, SND_NODEFAULT Or SND_ASYNC

VB.Net Code To Call Same API
-------------------------------------
Private Declare Function PlaySound Lib "winmm.dll" Alias "PlaySoundA" _
(ByVal lpszName As String, ByVal hModule As Integer, ByVal dwFlags As
Integer) As Integer
PlaySound("chime.wav", 0, SND_NODEFAULT + SND_ASYNC)

"VB6 User" <vb6@love.com> wrote in message
news:Oz6VXcMzFHA.3856@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Hi all devies!
>
>
>
> Many (.NUT, .NOT or whatever), APIs, VB6, Views & Questions
>
>
>
> Your can not call APIs directly in .NET, only via P/Invoke. There are some
> things that cannot be done in .NET, and that requires APIs. Earlier people
> used to say "you can do this in VB" and now. "You can't do this in .NET"
>
>
>
> I also have these questions to ask:
>
> Is MS stopping APIs altogether? If yes, what about CPP developer, how[/color]
would[color=blue]
> they program?
>
>
>
> APIs are more powerful and faster than foolish class, this is one of the
> reason Java is not considered a local application development languages,
> because it's not powerful for app dev, only for web. That same applied to
> .NET, its great for web, especially ASP.NET. But not for local[/color]
development.[color=blue]
>
>
>
> And anybody can disassemble your source code and claims they wrote it. O!,
> yeah, dotfukcator, who has the money to buy a $2500 anti-disassembly too.
>
>
>
> In my view, one of the reasons, classic VB is/was great, because of great[/color]
MS[color=blue]
> minds of late 90'.
>
>
>
> Now they just hire, cheap people, to "get the job done". Today's VB/.NET
> versions are developed on the internal views, offshore R&D, foolish[/color]
internal[color=blue]
> MVPs and offshoring minds. And not by views of 3 Million Developers, 3
> million is not "3 Million", its 3000000 people. just go to channel nine,[/color]
and[color=blue]
> see, how the vb team member shows us the futures vb version videos, like
> they have invented something great. more messy lang with more less code,[/color]
lol[color=blue]
>
>
>
> lol
>
> vb6: 10 lines of code
>
> vb.net 2002 : 6 lines of code
>
> vb.net 2003: 3 lines of code
>
> vb.net 2005: 1 line of code
>
> vb.net 2007: throw some water on your pc or spray a deodorant can in the
> cpu, because MS will invent AI that will write code automatically, and[/color]
also[color=blue]
> upload to your website. all u have to do is implant a chip, and the chip
> will convert vb6 codes in your mind, via satellite.
>
>
>
> Wtf, a company with an annual, budget of 8 Billion dollars, can't keep its
> biggest no of developers happy?
>
>
>
> the only things vb6 is lacking is Unicode support, except that it has
> everything.
>
>
>
> sorry for bad, English.
>
> T K
>
>[/color]

you really need to do research before talking... all programs can be
decompiled... its not something new with .NET VB6 apps could be too VB4 was
the easiest thing in the world to decompile it was all Pcode... java is
decompilable C++ is decompilable...

..NET has everything all the other languages have too you just have to know
how to access them... not everything is PInvoke... there is a reason we have
DLLImport commands... I suggest actually learning the framework before
ranting on it... because your precious VB6 has major flaws in it also...
everything on a computer does...

"VB6 User" <vb6@love.com> wrote in message
news:Oz6VXcMzFHA.3856@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Hi all devies!
>
>
>
> Many (.NUT, .NOT or whatever), APIs, VB6, Views & Questions
>
>
>
> Your can not call APIs directly in .NET, only via P/Invoke. There are some
> things that cannot be done in .NET, and that requires APIs. Earlier people
> used to say "you can do this in VB" and now. "You can't do this in .NET"
>
>
>
> I also have these questions to ask:
>
> Is MS stopping APIs altogether? If yes, what about CPP developer, how
> would they program?
>
>
>
> APIs are more powerful and faster than foolish class, this is one of the
> reason Java is not considered a local application development languages,
> because it's not powerful for app dev, only for web. That same applied to
> .NET, its great for web, especially ASP.NET. But not for local
> development.
>
>
>
> And anybody can disassemble your source code and claims they wrote it. O!,
> yeah, dotfukcator, who has the money to buy a $2500 anti-disassembly too.
>
>
>
> In my view, one of the reasons, classic VB is/was great, because of great
> MS minds of late 90'.
>
>
>
> Now they just hire, cheap people, to "get the job done". Today's VB/.NET
> versions are developed on the internal views, offshore R&D, foolish
> internal MVPs and offshoring minds. And not by views of 3 Million
> Developers, 3 million is not "3 Million", its 3000000 people. just go to
> channel nine, and see, how the vb team member shows us the futures vb
> version videos, like they have invented something great. more messy lang
> with more less code, lol
>
>
>
> lol
>
> vb6: 10 lines of code
>
> vb.net 2002 : 6 lines of code
>
> vb.net 2003: 3 lines of code
>
> vb.net 2005: 1 line of code
>
> vb.net 2007: throw some water on your pc or spray a deodorant can in the
> cpu, because MS will invent AI that will write code automatically, and
> also upload to your website. all u have to do is implant a chip, and the
> chip will convert vb6 codes in your mind, via satellite.
>
>
>
> Wtf, a company with an annual, budget of 8 Billion dollars, can't keep its
> biggest no of developers happy?
>
>
>
> the only things vb6 is lacking is Unicode support, except that it has
> everything.
>
>
>
> sorry for bad, English.
>
> T K
>
>[/color]

VB6 is as good as dead. Get over it.
VB6 was a 20th Century programming language. .NET is 21st Century
development platform.
[color=blue]
>vb.net 2007 all u have to do is implant a chip, and the chip
> will convert vb6 codes in your mind, via satellite.[/color]

Great. If this were true then our kids will have to learn something other
than/more than computer programming. Why is that such a bad thing? Theres
nothing holy about being a software developer. Nothing sacred. Nothing worth
protecting. If AI can one day replace software developers then that's a very
good thing ( but it wont be 2007). In fact i'd suggest its the whole point
of software.

Andy Warhole might well have said "Software will eat itself".

If the intermediate step is too offshore to India then again.. "tough luck
find a new job". Hammering out lines of code doesn't create value.
Programmers are just a manufacturing "cost".

Value is created by architecture. If the Indians can do that as well then
good for them. Its their "competitive adavantage". Software development is
undergoing precisely the same evolution as every other industry which
essentially boils down to a transfer of wealth from labour to the owners of
capital. We are fast becoming 21st Century cotton pickers.

If you want security then own what you code. If you expect to have a future
sitting in someone elses cubicle, writing someone elses code, for someone
elses customers you've never met then im afraid you'll soon be in for a
short sharp shock. Complaining that programming is just too easy nowadays
wont change that.

There is no future in programming. None. Besides who would want to spend
their day doing something so simple a computer can do it?

RR

"VB6 User" <vb6@love.com> wrote in message
news:Oz6VXcMzFHA.3856@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Hi all devies!
>
>
>
> Many (.NUT, .NOT or whatever), APIs, VB6, Views & Questions
>
>
>
> Your can not call APIs directly in .NET, only via P/Invoke. There are some
> things that cannot be done in .NET, and that requires APIs. Earlier people
> used to say "you can do this in VB" and now. "You can't do this in .NET"
>
>
>
> I also have these questions to ask:
>
> Is MS stopping APIs altogether? If yes, what about CPP developer, how[/color]
would[color=blue]
> they program?
>
>
>
> APIs are more powerful and faster than foolish class, this is one of the
> reason Java is not considered a local application development languages,
> because it's not powerful for app dev, only for web. That same applied to
> .NET, its great for web, especially ASP.NET. But not for local[/color]
development.[color=blue]
>
>
>
> And anybody can disassemble your source code and claims they wrote it. O!,
> yeah, dotfukcator, who has the money to buy a $2500 anti-disassembly too.
>
>
>
> In my view, one of the reasons, classic VB is/was great, because of great[/color]
MS[color=blue]
> minds of late 90'.
>
>
>
> Now they just hire, cheap people, to "get the job done". Today's VB/.NET
> versions are developed on the internal views, offshore R&D, foolish[/color]
internal[color=blue]
> MVPs and offshoring minds. And not by views of 3 Million Developers, 3
> million is not "3 Million", its 3000000 people. just go to channel nine,[/color]
and[color=blue]
> see, how the vb team member shows us the futures vb version videos, like
> they have invented something great. more messy lang with more less code,[/color]
lol[color=blue]
>
>
>
> lol
>
> vb6: 10 lines of code
>
> vb.net 2002 : 6 lines of code
>
> vb.net 2003: 3 lines of code
>
> vb.net 2005: 1 line of code
>
> vb.net 2007: throw some water on your pc or spray a deodorant can in the
> cpu, because MS will invent AI that will write code automatically, and[/color]
also[color=blue]
> upload to your website. all u have to do is implant a chip, and the chip
> will convert vb6 codes in your mind, via satellite.
>
>
>
> Wtf, a company with an annual, budget of 8 Billion dollars, can't keep its
> biggest no of developers happy?
>
>
>
> the only things vb6 is lacking is Unicode support, except that it has
> everything.
>
>
>
> sorry for bad, English.
>
> T K
>
>[/color]

hi,

i am not saying that u can't decomplie vb6, every app can be decomplieds but
it can not decomplie to a extent where a 10 year old can download a
software, open a exe/dll and then say export to projects file. there is a
hugh diffence between what 100 people can do easily than 10 people can do
working very hard.

VB.NET = Visual Bill .NET, Visual Fred .NET

bye! .NUTTER

"Brian Henry" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%23ZUGMbVzFHA.3856@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> you really need to do research before talking... all programs can be
> decompiled... its not something new with .NET VB6 apps could be too VB4
> was the easiest thing in the world to decompile it was all Pcode... java
> is decompilable C++ is decompilable...
>
> .NET has everything all the other languages have too you just have to know
> how to access them... not everything is PInvoke... there is a reason we
> have DLLImport commands... I suggest actually learning the framework
> before ranting on it... because your precious VB6 has major flaws in it
> also... everything on a computer does...
>
>
>
>
> "VB6 User" <vb6@love.com> wrote in message
> news:Oz6VXcMzFHA.3856@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> Hi all devies!
>>
>>
>>
>> Many (.NUT, .NOT or whatever), APIs, VB6, Views & Questions
>>
>>
>>
>> Your can not call APIs directly in .NET, only via P/Invoke. There are
>> some things that cannot be done in .NET, and that requires APIs. Earlier
>> people used to say "you can do this in VB" and now. "You can't do this in
>> .NET"
>>
>>
>>
>> I also have these questions to ask:
>>
>> Is MS stopping APIs altogether? If yes, what about CPP developer, how
>> would they program?
>>
>>
>>
>> APIs are more powerful and faster than foolish class, this is one of the
>> reason Java is not considered a local application development languages,
>> because it's not powerful for app dev, only for web. That same applied to
>> .NET, its great for web, especially ASP.NET. But not for local
>> development.
>>
>>
>>
>> And anybody can disassemble your source code and claims they wrote it.
>> O!, yeah, dotfukcator, who has the money to buy a $2500 anti-disassembly
>> too.
>>
>>
>>
>> In my view, one of the reasons, classic VB is/was great, because of great
>> MS minds of late 90'.
>>
>>
>>
>> Now they just hire, cheap people, to "get the job done". Today's VB/.NET
>> versions are developed on the internal views, offshore R&D, foolish
>> internal MVPs and offshoring minds. And not by views of 3 Million
>> Developers, 3 million is not "3 Million", its 3000000 people. just go to
>> channel nine, and see, how the vb team member shows us the futures vb
>> version videos, like they have invented something great. more messy lang
>> with more less code, lol
>>
>>
>>
>> lol
>>
>> vb6: 10 lines of code
>>
>> vb.net 2002 : 6 lines of code
>>
>> vb.net 2003: 3 lines of code
>>
>> vb.net 2005: 1 line of code
>>
>> vb.net 2007: throw some water on your pc or spray a deodorant can in the
>> cpu, because MS will invent AI that will write code automatically, and
>> also upload to your website. all u have to do is implant a chip, and the
>> chip will convert vb6 codes in your mind, via satellite.
>>
>>
>>
>> Wtf, a company with an annual, budget of 8 Billion dollars, can't keep
>> its biggest no of developers happy?
>>
>>
>>
>> the only things vb6 is lacking is Unicode support, except that it has
>> everything.
>>
>>
>>
>> sorry for bad, English.
>>
>> T K
>>
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

Hi Herfried,[color=blue]
> If you have not already done so and if you want to make Microsoft aware[/color]
that[color=blue]
> Classic VB should have a future, I encourage you to sign the petition at
> <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>.[/color]

Is it not possible in vb.net to write desktop applications like vb6? What I
think througth the petition, people want is that microsoft remove the
weeknesses of vb6, like object-orientation, threading, etc and maintain the
appliction development that is Win32 focused. But how would you facilitate
multiple language versions? I'm trying to understand what would microsoft
have to include in vb7, for instance. .Net offers a lot of things, lets say
System.Convert. How would you make that available in vb7? Will not the devs
using vb7 want to use the facilities of System.Convert, System.Text, or
System.Threading? I mean everything will be sort of existing in 2 forms.
Naturally in the new object.oriented vb7+ there would be string class which
would offer methods when write "." instead of using mid or left etc. So than
there would be some need for a class library like the .net's bcl. Than the
community will start asking for "how can vb7 and vb.net code interop with
each other?" leading to what I imagine will be known as a "visual basic
mess". When every one knows that everything in Vista os will be available in
managed form why does visual basic community want to go back to an
environment where you have to pass function address for call backs and deal
with raw apis? I think the vb.net is a pretty natural evolution of vb 6 and
earlier versions. We must accept it. Its beautiful.

(these r just my thoughts on vb.not)

Ab.
http://joehacker.blogspot.com

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hirf-spam-me-here@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:OGZlGlMzFHA.2652@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> "VB6 User" <vb6@love.com> schrieb:[color=green]
> > Your can not call APIs directly in .NET, only via P/Invoke. There are[/color][/color]
some[color=blue][color=green]
> > things that cannot be done in .NET, and that requires APIs. Earlier[/color][/color]
people[color=blue][color=green]
> > used to say "you can do this in VB" and now. "You can't do this in .NET"[/color]
>
> That's wrong. You can still use "API calls", either by using VB.NET's
> 'Declare' statement or the 'DllImport' attribute. .NET provides even more
> interoperability mechanisms than VB6 does.
>[color=green]
> > Is MS stopping APIs altogether? If yes, what about CPP developer, how
> > would they program?[/color]
>
> API = Application Programming Interface. The .NET Framework's class[/color]
library[color=blue]
> is an API too. I assume you are referring to the function-based APIs of
> Win16/Win32 (GDI, etc.). These APIs still exist and will work on[/color]
Longhorn.[color=blue]
> In addition to that, I assume that many new APIs are still implemented in
> and exposed to unmanaged code, but there are wrappers for use in managed
> code available. It simply doesn't make sense to implement certain things[/color]
in[color=blue]
> managed code because of .NET's runtime characteristics.
>
> An interesting article about Microsoft and APIs can be found here:
>
> How Microsoft Lost the API War
> <URL:http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html>
>[color=green]
> > APIs are more powerful and faster than foolish class, this is one of the
> > reason Java is not considered a local application development languages,
> > because it's not powerful for app dev, only for web. That same applied[/color][/color]
to[color=blue][color=green]
> > .NET, its great for web, especially ASP.NET. But not for local
> > development.[/color]
>
> I tend to agree with you. .NET is great for Web development, but it's not
> very suitable for "desktop" development. The main advantage of Windows[/color]
has[color=blue]
> always been the huge number of applications which were developed for this
> operating system. With .NET, I see a decline in "desktop" applications[/color]
and[color=blue]
> an increasing number of Web applications, which are not necessarily bound[/color]
to[color=blue]
> the Windows operating system.
>[color=green]
> > In my view, one of the reasons, classic VB is/was great, because of[/color][/color]
great[color=blue][color=green]
> > MS minds of late 90'.[/color]
>
> If you have not already done so and if you want to make Microsoft aware[/color]
that[color=blue]
> Classic VB should have a future, I encourage you to sign the petition at
> <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>.
>
> --
> M S Herfried K. Wagner
> M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
> V B <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>
>[/color]

VB6 User,
[color=blue]
>VB.NET = Visual Bill .NET, Visual Fred .NET[/color]
[color=blue]
>bye! .NUTTER[/color]

A lot of people gave you serious answers (not me). You show for me now that
you were not worth the time they spent to do that.

I hope this helps,

Cor

"VB6 User" <vb6@love.com> wrote in message
news:Oz6VXcMzFHA.3856@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Your can not call APIs directly in .NET, only via P/Invoke.[/color]

Wrong, wrong, wrong.
O/S level API's are stil there, you just have to work a little harder
to get at them.
[color=blue]
> Is MS stopping APIs altogether?[/color]

If you mean the ones that let you "hook" into the operating system
- yes, they probably are, and that's a Good Thing too. The O/S
is going to change and it's a lot easier to change things if you don't
have Developers diving into the innards of your code.
[color=blue]
> what about CPP developer, how would they program?[/color]

Program? I've always seen it more like Conjuring ... :-)
[color=blue]
> APIs are more powerful and faster than foolish class[/color]

If you want to flash the title bar of a window a couple of million
times then yes; the API is faster. For very specific, atomic purposes.
Unit for unit, Procedural Code /will/ always be faster than Object
Oriented code. But, these days, that's just not the point any more ...

We're not paid to reinvent how a given control works by calling this
API method, then that one, then this other one. We're paid to get
information in front of Users so that they can take "decisions" on it.
That's a far more Abstract way of working than what you're describing.
[color=blue]
> this is one of the reason Java is not considered a local application
> development languages, because it's not powerful for app dev,
> only for web. That same applied to .NET, its great for web,
> especially ASP.NET. But not for local development.[/color]

Java-ignorant (or is that "ignoring"?) nonsense.

If anything, the Java Community has seen itself as far superior to
the Microsoft camp for many years because of the sheer power of
the language that .Net now emulates (although, having used both,
..Net /still/ doesn't do Exception Handling "properly").
[color=blue]
> And anybody can disassemble your source code[/color]

/Any/ code can be "disassembled", but who can be bothered to
work in Assembler any more? "Decompiling" is a different can of
worms and IMHO, one of the very /worst/ things introduced by
..Net, sounding the Death Knell for the independent VB developer.
[color=blue]
> Wtf, a company with an annual, budget of 8 Billion dollars, can't
> keep its biggest no of developers happy?[/color]

Know /that/ makes you wonder ...

Regards,
Phill W.

"Abubakar" <abubakarm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OF3ac4WzFHA.3660@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
[color=blue]
> Is it not possible in vb.net to write desktop applications like vb6? What[/color]
I[color=blue]
> think througth the petition, people want is that microsoft remove the
> weeknesses of vb6, like object-orientation, threading, etc and maintain[/color]
the[color=blue]
> appliction development that is Win32 focused.[/color]

What we /wanted/ was a compiler that took existing, VB6 syntax
and generated CLR-compliant code that would run atop the
Framework. OK, it would be less efficient than the pure "VB7"
syntax, which could take advantage of /all/ the functionality of the
CLR, but at least it would NOT mean having to rewrite millions
upon millions of lines of existing, production code, just to "keep up"
with technological platform that seems to be jumping about in an
ever-increasingly random fashion.

Real companies simply /don't/ have an endless, throw-away budget
ear-marked for

"Rewrite/retest and redeploy everything because the language has
changed (again)"
[color=blue]
> When every one knows that everything in Vista os will be available
> in managed form[/color]

Haven't you heard? Much of the Managed Code hype has been
"decoupled" from Vista (as has the Windows File System) just so
that Our Friends in Redmond can get something to work and actually
sell some units of "Vista".
[color=blue]
> I think the vb.net is a pretty natural evolution of vb 6 and earlier
> versions.[/color]

IMHO, Rubbish!

VB*7* (and, yes, it did get written and /very/ nearly released) was
the natural evolution of VB6 - almost identical syntax, simple (or,
at least, extant) upgrade path. "VB.Net" grew out of a desire not
to waste all the effort Our Friends in Redmond made in their
attempted (and failed) theft of Java.
[color=blue]
> We must accept it. Its beautiful.[/color]

Whatever you're taking must be Good Stuff ... ;-)

Regards,
Phill W.

Hi Phill,
first of all thanks for the reply.
[color=blue]
> What we /wanted/ was a compiler that took existing, VB6 syntax
> and generated CLR-compliant code that would run atop the[/color]

oh ok, now its clear. I thought everyone from vb6 wanted to stick to win32.
[color=blue]
> "Rewrite/retest and redeploy everything because the language has
> changed (again)"[/color]

what do u mean again? When did this last heppen other than the .net change?
[color=blue]
> Haven't you heard? Much of the Managed Code hype has been
> "decoupled" from Vista (as has the Windows File System) just so[/color]

what i have heard about winfs, is that its not going to be available in the
initial release of vista that is comming next year. It doesnt mean thats not
going to be there forever. Work on winfs is going on and it'll be there with
all that it promisses. Even its beta 1 is here. And the managed code, its
all there. Much of the new things are available in managed code (avalon and
indigo).
[color=blue]
> IMHO, Rubbish![/color]

:-) I dont know what to say. It just looks good to me, but you have all the
write to say that.
[color=blue]
> VB*7* (and, yes, it did get written and /very/ nearly released) was
> the natural evolution of VB6 - almost identical syntax, simple (or,[/color]

Really? Please give me any link on the web where I can read about it. Its
sounds interesting.
[color=blue]
> at least, extant) upgrade path. "VB.Net" grew out of a desire not
> to waste all the effort Our Friends in Redmond made in their
> attempted (and failed) theft of Java.[/color]

Now that is something I can never agree with. Sorry :-) Because than Java
would become a failed theft of earlier written, less known, vitual machine
systems also.
[color=blue]
> Whatever you're taking must be Good Stuff ... ;-)[/color]

hey I dont understand what u mean by this. My english is not that good :-)

Cheers.

-Ab.
http://joehacker.blogspot.com

"Phill. W" <P.A.Ward@o-p-e-n-.-a-c-.-u-k> wrote in message
news:didb58$6lm$1@yarrow.open.ac.uk...[color=blue]
> "Abubakar" <abubakarm@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OF3ac4WzFHA.3660@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>[color=green]
> > Is it not possible in vb.net to write desktop applications like vb6?[/color][/color]
What[color=blue]
> I[color=green]
> > think througth the petition, people want is that microsoft remove the
> > weeknesses of vb6, like object-orientation, threading, etc and maintain[/color]
> the[color=green]
> > appliction development that is Win32 focused.[/color]
>
> What we /wanted/ was a compiler that took existing, VB6 syntax
> and generated CLR-compliant code that would run atop the
> Framework. OK, it would be less efficient than the pure "VB7"
> syntax, which could take advantage of /all/ the functionality of the
> CLR, but at least it would NOT mean having to rewrite millions
> upon millions of lines of existing, production code, just to "keep up"
> with technological platform that seems to be jumping about in an
> ever-increasingly random fashion.
>
> Real companies simply /don't/ have an endless, throw-away budget
> ear-marked for
>
> "Rewrite/retest and redeploy everything because the language has
> changed (again)"
>[color=green]
> > When every one knows that everything in Vista os will be available
> > in managed form[/color]
>
> Haven't you heard? Much of the Managed Code hype has been
> "decoupled" from Vista (as has the Windows File System) just so
> that Our Friends in Redmond can get something to work and actually
> sell some units of "Vista".
>[color=green]
> > I think the vb.net is a pretty natural evolution of vb 6 and earlier
> > versions.[/color]
>
> IMHO, Rubbish!
>
> VB*7* (and, yes, it did get written and /very/ nearly released) was
> the natural evolution of VB6 - almost identical syntax, simple (or,
> at least, extant) upgrade path. "VB.Net" grew out of a desire not
> to waste all the effort Our Friends in Redmond made in their
> attempted (and failed) theft of Java.
>[color=green]
> > We must accept it. Its beautiful.[/color]
>
> Whatever you're taking must be Good Stuff ... ;-)
>
> Regards,
> Phill W.
>
>[/color]

Phill,

If Hitler had won the war, than we would not have had *this* kind of
problems to discuss.

Just my thought,

Cor

"Abubakar" <abubakarm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ulY8w%23XzFHA.3408@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Hi Phill,
> first of all thanks for the reply.
>[color=green]
> > What we /wanted/ was a compiler that took existing, VB6 syntax
> > and generated CLR-compliant code that would run atop the[/color]
>
> oh ok, now its clear. I thought everyone from vb6 wanted to stick to[/color]
win32.[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> > "Rewrite/retest and redeploy everything because the language has
> > changed (again)"[/color]
>
> what do u mean again? When did this last heppen other than the .net[/color]
change?[color=blue]
>[/color]

When VB changed from 16 bit to 32 bit around VB4. I spent 3 months rewriting
a single VB project. It was worth it in the end though!!

If there was a decent convertsion from VB6 to .NET I might use it, but with
my main project exceeding 1 million lines of code, I not prepared to stop
development for 6 months+ to do a complete rewrite!.
That is ignoring the problem of getting the NET Framework (33Mb inc updates)
onto our customer machines. Most of which don't have Internet Access for
Security reasons!.

John..

Hi,

You cannot use a gearbox from a Ford T as well on a Ferrari.

Ford thought that he could keep his Ford T production line forever. He had
to invest more to correct that failure than when he had brought his
production-line time by time to newer standards

There is a lot of documentation, how to convert your vb6 program to Net.

Even with already for a very long time documentation for a first step, to
recreate your old VB6 program first to a better to upgrade VB6 program while
you still can use it as VB6.

Often the problem in this kind of situations is however that people did not
make their old programs in a good documented way and don't even understand
it themselves anymore.

In my opinion is it not a challenge to make a program with 1000000 lines of
code, the challenge is to make it in parts (which uses as less lines as
possible) that can easily be recreated.

Just my thought,

Cor

"Abubakar" <abubakarm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ulY8w%23XzFHA.3408@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Hi Phill,
> first of all thanks for the reply.
>[color=green]
> > What we /wanted/ was a compiler that took existing, VB6 syntax
> > and generated CLR-compliant code that would run atop the[/color]
>
> oh ok, now its clear. I thought everyone from vb6 wanted to stick
> to win32.[/color]

No, we're not /that/ bad ... ;-)
[color=blue][color=green]
> > "Rewrite/retest and redeploy everything because the language has
> > changed (again)"[/color]
>
> what do u mean again? When did this last heppen other than the
> .net change?[/color]

It *hasn't* - that's my point - but now that it's happened /once/,
who's to say it /won't/ happen again ... ?

Regards,
Phill W.

> It *hasn't* - that's my point - but now that it's happened /once/,[color=blue]
> who's to say it /won't/ happen again ... ?[/color]

I found this:
"No, the transition to Visual Basic .NET 2002 was a one-time-only thing that
allowed us to make the big leap from COM to .NET. If we've done things right
with .NET, and I think we have, developers won't have to experience that
level of change again." - Paul Vick, Author of the Visual Basic .NET
Language Specification

cheers,

Ab.
http://joehacker.blogspot.com

"Phill. W" <P.A.Ward@o-p-e-n-.-a-c-.-u-k> wrote in message
news:didham$9ot$1@yarrow.open.ac.uk...[color=blue]
> "Abubakar" <abubakarm@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ulY8w%23XzFHA.3408@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...[color=green]
> > Hi Phill,
> > first of all thanks for the reply.
> >[color=darkred]
> > > What we /wanted/ was a compiler that took existing, VB6 syntax
> > > and generated CLR-compliant code that would run atop the[/color]
> >
> > oh ok, now its clear. I thought everyone from vb6 wanted to stick
> > to win32.[/color]
>
> No, we're not /that/ bad ... ;-)
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > "Rewrite/retest and redeploy everything because the language has
> > > changed (again)"[/color]
> >
> > what do u mean again? When did this last heppen other than the
> > .net change?[/color]
>
> It *hasn't* - that's my point - but now that it's happened /once/,
> who's to say it /won't/ happen again ... ?
>
> Regards,
> Phill W.
>
>[/color]

Lot of typical FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) on this thread.

Fact is, there are 3 types of development, Web based, enterprise and
"consumer desktop".

For web-based and enterprise development, .NET is great.

For desktop apps, .NET has crashed and burned. Carnage. Nearly 5 years
now and no-one is using it. Why? Slow, huge resources, need to install
25Mb runtime etc etc. Some shareware authors have moved to it. Their
children are now hungry.

The Win32 API will be there for the next 10 years. So will VB6 apps.

"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:O327FpYzFHA.1264@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
[color=blue]
>
> There is a lot of documentation, how to convert your vb6 program to Net.[/color]

There shouldn't need to be! It should just work!
[color=blue]
>
> Even with already for a very long time documentation for a first step, to
> recreate your old VB6 program first to a better to upgrade VB6 program
> while you still can use it as VB6.
>
> Often the problem in this kind of situations is however that people did
> not make their old programs in a good documented way and don't even
> understand it themselves anymore.[/color]

So, in changing the language, Microsoft makes in necessary for such code to
be rewritten in order that new platform features can be accessed. Hmmm. I
wonder how that would have affected some of the more obscure corners of the
source code for Microsoft Word, some of which dates back to 16-bit days!
[color=blue]
>
> In my opinion is it not a challenge to make a program with 1000000 lines
> of code, the challenge is to make it in parts (which uses as less lines as
> possible) that can easily be recreated.[/color]

Why? If it works as is, why should it have to be changed?

Also, why are you making assumptions that his million line application is
not already well-structured?

--
Regards
Jonathan West - Word MVP
www.intelligentdocuments.co.uk
Please reply to the newsgroup
Keep your VBA code safe, sign the ClassicVB petition www.classicvb.org

"Abubakar" <abubakarm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:u5zeL6YzFHA.164@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...[color=blue][color=green]
>> It *hasn't* - that's my point - but now that it's happened /once/,
>> who's to say it /won't/ happen again ... ?[/color]
>
> I found this:
> "No, the transition to Visual Basic .NET 2002 was a one-time-only thing
> that
> allowed us to make the big leap from COM to .NET. If we've done things
> right
> with .NET, and I think we have, developers won't have to experience that
> level of change again." - Paul Vick, Author of the Visual Basic .NET
> Language Specification[/color]

I've had discussions with Paul Vick, and the impression I get is that he
regards it as justifiable to make language changes whenever there is a
platform change. Therefore, if he is still involved when .NET is superseded
(it will be, sometime) you had better prepare for further syntax changes.

You see, he would justify that on the basis that things are not as right
with .NET as they had thought, and so the changes are necessary.

--
Regards
Jonathan West - Word MVP
www.intelligentdocuments.co.uk
Please reply to the newsgroup
Keep your VBA code safe, sign the ClassicVB petition www.classicvb.org

"Abubakar" <abubakarm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ulY8w%23XzFHA.3408@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Hi Phill,
> first of all thanks for the reply.
>[color=green]
>> What we /wanted/ was a compiler that took existing, VB6 syntax
>> and generated CLR-compliant code that would run atop the[/color]
>
> oh ok, now its clear. I thought everyone from vb6 wanted to stick to
> win32.[/color]

No. The key point is that while there was a good reason for creating the
..NET platform, there was no necessity for most of the changes to the
*language*. The VB MVPs at the time had an extensive discussion with the
VB.NET product group, and the fact is that a small number of the changes
were justified (e.g. the change in handling object destruction, and the loss
of parameterless default properties). The great majority of language changes
were not necessary for compatibility with the platform and were made because
the product group thought that they would improve the language and gave
entirely inadequate consideration to how VB6 projects would migrate.

The whole idea of a high-level language is that its syntax can be made
relatively independent of its platform. To address different platforms you
modify the compiler, not the language!

Note that criticism of the changes has nothing to to with the addition of
new features - almost everyone approves of new features. It is changes that
break the operation of existing code that cause the trouble.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> "Rewrite/retest and redeploy everything because the language has
>> changed (again)"[/color]
>
> what do u mean again? When did this last heppen other than the .net
> change?[/color]

In the change from VB3 to VB4/32, a fundamental datatype - the String - was
changed from being 8-bit ASCII to 16-bit unicode characters. This messed up
code that used strings as byte arrays and broke the only available and
documented way of handling binary file I/O. A great howl went up among the
beta testers at the time. Afterwards, a pre-alpha meeting for VB5 was held
by Microsoft to which various VB developers were invited, and the issue was
thoroughly discussed. Microsoft appeared to understand it and realise that
changes of that sort ought not to happen again. Unfortunately, by the time
VB.NET came out, the Microsoft participants in the meeting had moved on to
other positions and their successors were not aware of the issue.

The concern is that even if the Microsoft people responsible for VB.NET
realise that they made a mistake and shouldn't make such changes again in
future, who is to say whether their successors will have the same view. The
evidence is that there is currently something of a lack of institutional
memory at Microsoft. That is why some people are concerned that VB.NET might
change all over again at the next major platform change.

That said, part of Microsoft does seem to have taken the lessons on board.
VBA is essentially the same language as VB6, but with a different Forms
library and integrated access to the Office object models. The Office group
has already kept VBA in Office for 2 releases since VB.NET was launched, and
has publicly announced that it will be in at least the next two versions as
well. Maybe they looked at the VB.NET experience and didn't like what they
saw?

--
Regards
Jonathan West - Word MVP
www.intelligentdocuments.co.uk
Please reply to the newsgroup
Keep your VBA code safe, sign the ClassicVB petition www.classicvb.org

"Brian Henry" <nospam@nospam.com> schrieb:[color=blue]
> you really need to do research before talking... all programs can be
> decompiled...[/color]

They can at least be disassembled, but not necessarily decompiled.
[color=blue]
> its not something new with .NET VB6 apps[/color]

Mhm... I have never seen a working decompiler for VB6 native code
applications which restored the VB6 project files...

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

"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nl> wrote[color=blue]
> If Hitler had won the war, than we would not have had *this* kind of
> problems to discuss.
>
> Just my thought,[/color]

....And if the sun goes into a super nova, this VB/VB.Net argument would
be the least of our troubles!

<g>
LFS

> There shouldn't need to be! It should just work!

But if the move is from COM/Win32 to .NET. Do we still think it should just
work? Can it be that easy?

-Ab.

"Jonathan West" <jwest@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:eNazoAZzFHA.3540@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
>
> "Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nl> wrote in message
> news:O327FpYzFHA.1264@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>[color=green]
> >
> > There is a lot of documentation, how to convert your vb6 program to Net.[/color]
>
> There shouldn't need to be! It should just work!
>[color=green]
> >
> > Even with already for a very long time documentation for a first step,[/color][/color]
to[color=blue][color=green]
> > recreate your old VB6 program first to a better to upgrade VB6 program
> > while you still can use it as VB6.
> >
> > Often the problem in this kind of situations is however that people did
> > not make their old programs in a good documented way and don't even
> > understand it themselves anymore.[/color]
>
> So, in changing the language, Microsoft makes in necessary for such code[/color]
to[color=blue]
> be rewritten in order that new platform features can be accessed. Hmmm. I
> wonder how that would have affected some of the more obscure corners of[/color]
the[color=blue]
> source code for Microsoft Word, some of which dates back to 16-bit days!
>[color=green]
> >
> > In my opinion is it not a challenge to make a program with 1000000 lines
> > of code, the challenge is to make it in parts (which uses as less lines[/color][/color]
as[color=blue][color=green]
> > possible) that can easily be recreated.[/color]
>
> Why? If it works as is, why should it have to be changed?
>
> Also, why are you making assumptions that his million line application is
> not already well-structured?
>
>
> --
> Regards
> Jonathan West - Word MVP
> www.intelligentdocuments.co.uk
> Please reply to the newsgroup
> Keep your VBA code safe, sign the ClassicVB petition www.classicvb.org
>[/color]

"Abubakar" <abubakarm@gmail.com> schrieb:[color=blue]
> Is it not possible in vb.net to write desktop applications like vb6? What
> I
> think througth the petition, people want is that microsoft remove the
> weeknesses of vb6, like object-orientation, threading, etc and maintain
> the
> appliction development that is Win32 focused.[/color]

That's definitely not the goal. The petition is /not/ about "programming
language X is better than programming language Y". It doesn't claim that
VB6 is better than anything. The aim of the petition is simply to ask for a
viable way for preserving customers' assets.
[color=blue]
> .Net offers a lot of things, lets say System.Convert. How would you
> make that available in vb7? Will not the devs using vb7 want to use the
> facilities of System.Convert, System.Text, or
> System.Threading? I mean everything will be sort of existing in 2 forms.[/color]

I doubt that it has top priority for VB6 developers to be able to use
'System.Convert' et al.
[color=blue]
> Naturally in the new object.oriented vb7+ there would be string class
> which
> would offer methods when write "." instead of using mid or left etc. So
> than
> there would be some need for a class library like the .net's bcl.[/color]

VB.NET has a similar class library.
[color=blue]
> I think the vb.net is a pretty natural evolution of vb 6 and
> earlier versions. We must accept it. Its beautiful.[/color]

Although I like VB.NET, I don't think that it is a new version of VB6.
Language stability was obviously not important for the designers of this new
programming language. The article below illustrates what language stability
means and why it should have top priority:

Language Stability
<URL:http://vb.mvps.org/tips/stability.asp>

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

> The whole idea of a high-level language is that its syntax can be made[color=blue]
> relatively independent of its platform. To address different platforms you
> modify the compiler, not the language![/color]

Correct, but in this case the platform in question is just one and that is
..net and maybe they wanted visual basic to appear as #1 language (and i
remember them saying this #1-citizen-thing) and have a .net feel, which is
to have namespaces and classes, and everything being managed and so they
ended up with vb.net.

Hey thanks for writing about the history of version (breaking) changes.

-Ab.
http://joehacker.blogspot.com

"Jonathan West" <jwest@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:Ojh6yHZzFHA.2424@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
>
> "Abubakar" <abubakarm@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ulY8w%23XzFHA.3408@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...[color=green]
> > Hi Phill,
> > first of all thanks for the reply.
> >[color=darkred]
> >> What we /wanted/ was a compiler that took existing, VB6 syntax
> >> and generated CLR-compliant code that would run atop the[/color]
> >
> > oh ok, now its clear. I thought everyone from vb6 wanted to stick to
> > win32.[/color]
>
> No. The key point is that while there was a good reason for creating the
> .NET platform, there was no necessity for most of the changes to the
> *language*. The VB MVPs at the time had an extensive discussion with the
> VB.NET product group, and the fact is that a small number of the changes
> were justified (e.g. the change in handling object destruction, and the[/color]
loss[color=blue]
> of parameterless default properties). The great majority of language[/color]
changes[color=blue]
> were not necessary for compatibility with the platform and were made[/color]
because[color=blue]
> the product group thought that they would improve the language and gave
> entirely inadequate consideration to how VB6 projects would migrate.
>
> The whole idea of a high-level language is that its syntax can be made
> relatively independent of its platform. To address different platforms you
> modify the compiler, not the language!
>
> Note that criticism of the changes has nothing to to with the addition of
> new features - almost everyone approves of new features. It is changes[/color]
that[color=blue]
> break the operation of existing code that cause the trouble.
>[color=green]
> >[color=darkred]
> >> "Rewrite/retest and redeploy everything because the language has
> >> changed (again)"[/color]
> >
> > what do u mean again? When did this last heppen other than the .net
> > change?[/color]
>
> In the change from VB3 to VB4/32, a fundamental datatype - the String -[/color]
was[color=blue]
> changed from being 8-bit ASCII to 16-bit unicode characters. This messed[/color]
up[color=blue]
> code that used strings as byte arrays and broke the only available and
> documented way of handling binary file I/O. A great howl went up among the
> beta testers at the time. Afterwards, a pre-alpha meeting for VB5 was held
> by Microsoft to which various VB developers were invited, and the issue[/color]
was[color=blue]
> thoroughly discussed. Microsoft appeared to understand it and realise that
> changes of that sort ought not to happen again. Unfortunately, by the time
> VB.NET came out, the Microsoft participants in the meeting had moved on to
> other positions and their successors were not aware of the issue.
>
> The concern is that even if the Microsoft people responsible for VB.NET
> realise that they made a mistake and shouldn't make such changes again in
> future, who is to say whether their successors will have the same view.[/color]
The[color=blue]
> evidence is that there is currently something of a lack of institutional
> memory at Microsoft. That is why some people are concerned that VB.NET[/color]
might[color=blue]
> change all over again at the next major platform change.
>
> That said, part of Microsoft does seem to have taken the lessons on board.
> VBA is essentially the same language as VB6, but with a different Forms
> library and integrated access to the Office object models. The Office[/color]
group[color=blue]
> has already kept VBA in Office for 2 releases since VB.NET was launched,[/color]
and[color=blue]
> has publicly announced that it will be in at least the next two versions[/color]
as[color=blue]
> well. Maybe they looked at the VB.NET experience and didn't like what they
> saw?
>
>
> --
> Regards
> Jonathan West - Word MVP
> www.intelligentdocuments.co.uk
> Please reply to the newsgroup
> Keep your VBA code safe, sign the ClassicVB petition www.classicvb.org
>[/color]

"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:O327FpYzFHA.1264@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
[color=blue]
> You cannot use a gearbox from a Ford T as well on a Ferrari.[/color]

Oh; I'm sure someone /somewhere/ has tried it ;-)
[color=blue]
> ... documentation, how to convert your vb6 program to Net.[/color]

Interesting how you say "convert", and not "upgrade".
[color=blue]
> Often the problem in this kind of situations is however that people
> did not make their old programs in a good documented way and
> don't even understand it themselves anymore.[/color]

All too true (even assuming the person who wrote the program is still
/with/ the company), but the fact remains that VB6 programs still run
and still support the businesses that chooses to run them. Rewriting
them just to "fit in" with a change of language is simply not an option
for all too many.
[color=blue]
> In my opinion is it not a challenge to make a program with
> 1000000 lines of code, the challenge is to make it in parts[/color]

Now /there/, I agree with you.
(Mind you, 1,000,000 lines of code must have an /awful/ lot of
repetition in it, mustn't it?)

Regards,
Phill W.

Larry,

I was talking about a part of the history of mankind. You are talking of
future of the world.

We can change small things on the future of the world (with our current
knowledge not those big things as you describe). However we are able to
change the future of mankind. (Especially those simple things as
program-code).

I have not the idea that we both will see that mankind will be able to
change history.

Therefore let us talk about future and not about past, that was the
intention of my message.

Cor

"Larry Serflaten" <serflaten@usinternet.com> schreef in bericht
news:%232L5RMZzFHA.904@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
>
> "Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nl> wrote[color=green]
>> If Hitler had won the war, than we would not have had *this* kind of
>> problems to discuss.
>>
>> Just my thought,[/color]
>
>
> ...And if the sun goes into a super nova, this VB/VB.Net argument would
> be the least of our troubles!
>
> <g>
> LFS[/color]

"Abubakar" <abubakarm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Oz8D1aZzFHA.2212@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...[color=blue][color=green]
>> The whole idea of a high-level language is that its syntax can be made
>> relatively independent of its platform. To address different platforms
>> you
>> modify the compiler, not the language![/color]
>
> Correct, but in this case the platform in question is just one and that is
> .net and maybe they wanted visual basic to appear as #1 language (and i
> remember them saying this #1-citizen-thing) and have a .net feel, which is
> to have namespaces and classes, and everything being managed and so they
> ended up with vb.net.[/color]

In that case, they put more effort into making VB.NET a #1 citizen than they
put into making VB programmers feel citizens of any kind. Personally, I
don't think that was a terribly sensible choice of priority.

Moreover, there would have been no difficulty in having the .NET classes as
*additions* to the language, alternative ways of doing things which people
could be encouraged to use for extending their programs.

--
Regards
Jonathan West - Word MVP
www.intelligentdocuments.co.uk
Please reply to the newsgroup
Keep your VBA code safe, sign the ClassicVB petition www.classicvb.org

"Abubakar" <abubakarm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uDI30QZzFHA.416@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...[color=blue][color=green]
>> There shouldn't need to be! It should just work![/color]
>
> But if the move is from COM/Win32 to .NET. Do we still think it should
> just
> work? Can it be that easy?[/color]

The main platform change is the behaviour for object destruction. That is a
*behavior* rather than a *syntax* change. It might require some rewriting of
programs in order to account for the fact that you can no longer be certain
of the order in which object destruction occurs.

But to take a simple example, the syntax for property assignment in classes
was changed, on the assumption (true in the original VB.NET) that
mixed-visibility properties were not possible (e.g. Public Get and Friend
Let). Now that it *is* possible, you now have to assign the visibility to
the property and then modify it for the changed assignment. That was
unnecessary - the old syntax would have worked perfectly well and allowed
for the re-introduction of mixed visibility without a further syntax change.

Of course, you can argue that the new syntax is an improvement - it keeps
Let and Get together within the code. But even so, it mean that you can't
copy & paste from an old VB6 project or code sample and have it just work in
VB.NET. That's a great pity and a brake on productivity when extending
existing projects.

--
Regards
Jonathan West - Word MVP
www.intelligentdocuments.co.uk
Please reply to the newsgroup
Keep your VBA code safe, sign the ClassicVB petition www.classicvb.org

MS made it just that easy for their C++ code. They implemented IJW
("It Just Works") and, guess what, it just works!

If they had wanted to invest the resources in doing the same for
existing VB code, it could have been just that easy. However, they
don't own anything significant written in VB so, they didn't see the
need to invest the resources.

HTH,
Bryan
_______________________________
Bryan Stafford
New Vision Software
newvision_don'tspam@mvps.org

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 17:14:46 -0700, "Abubakar" <abubakarm@gmail.com>
wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> There shouldn't need to be! It should just work![/color]
>
>But if the move is from COM/Win32 to .NET. Do we still think it should just
>work? Can it be that easy?
>
>-Ab.
>
>"Jonathan West" <jwest@mvps.org> wrote in message
>news:eNazoAZzFHA.3540@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>>
>> "Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nl> wrote in message
>> news:O327FpYzFHA.1264@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>[color=darkred]
>> >
>> > There is a lot of documentation, how to convert your vb6 program to Net.[/color]
>>
>> There shouldn't need to be! It should just work!
>>[color=darkred]
>> >
>> > Even with already for a very long time documentation for a first step,[/color][/color]
>to[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > recreate your old VB6 program first to a better to upgrade VB6 program
>> > while you still can use it as VB6.
>> >
>> > Often the problem in this kind of situations is however that people did
>> > not make their old programs in a good documented way and don't even
>> > understand it themselves anymore.[/color]
>>
>> So, in changing the language, Microsoft makes in necessary for such code[/color]
>to[color=green]
>> be rewritten in order that new platform features can be accessed. Hmmm. I
>> wonder how that would have affected some of the more obscure corners of[/color]
>the[color=green]
>> source code for Microsoft Word, some of which dates back to 16-bit days!
>>[color=darkred]
>> >
>> > In my opinion is it not a challenge to make a program with 1000000 lines
>> > of code, the challenge is to make it in parts (which uses as less lines[/color][/color]
>as[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > possible) that can easily be recreated.[/color]
>>
>> Why? If it works as is, why should it have to be changed?
>>
>> Also, why are you making assumptions that his million line application is
>> not already well-structured?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards
>> Jonathan West - Word MVP
>> www.intelligentdocuments.co.uk
>> Please reply to the newsgroup
>> Keep your VBA code safe, sign the ClassicVB petition www.classicvb.org
>>[/color]
>[/color]

> > What we /wanted/ was a compiler that took existing, VB6 syntax[color=blue][color=green]
> > and generated CLR-compliant code that would run atop the[/color]
>
> oh ok, now its clear. I thought everyone from vb6 wanted to stick to[/color]
win32.[color=blue]
>[/color]

Some of us do. What's wrong with Win32?
Underneath your .Net classes, somewhere, is
an equivalent to Win32 level.
[color=blue]
> Is it not possible in vb.net to write desktop applications like vb6?[/color]

Not very. It strikes me that this point just doesn't
seem to come up in the minds of most .Net users.
If it were not for Microsoft's strategy and tactics then
it would not even occur to anyone to discuss VB vs.
..Net. They're not for the same thing. This whole argument
is happening out of context.

For one good explanation of why .Net doesn't fit well
on the Desktop see Mark Russinovich's article:
http://www.sysinternals.com/blog/200...im-scared.html
]

My own situation: I taught myself VB, starting
out leaning heavily on OCXs and gradually
learned better, leaner coding. I write "shareware".
I don't make a lot of money at it but I enjoy coding
and I like making something that's useful to others.
My main program is an HTML and script editor
that's quick, light, free of dependencies (other
than the VB6 runtime) and has an installer of
about 800 KB. To my mind it's progress to cut
out the OCX middleman where that's feasible.
VB6 gives me the ability to do that, while still providing
easy methods where and when I want them.

What do I get if I move to .Net? First I lose
about half of my potential customer base right
off the bat, because dial-up users are not going to
download 25 MB runtimes and 12MB specialty
programs. Then I lose another 25% because many
people won't deal with the added complexity of
needing to download and install a runtime. I also lose
any ability to write for Windows 95. So now I've
got maybe 20% of my possible base left.

Beyond that, I'm
getting back into the bloat and inefficiency of objects
that are twice- or thrice-removed from the API. Why
would I want to do that? I like using the API. I like
using Windows. I don't want to be led gradually to some
sort of future X-Box/Vista crap hybrid that won't let me
access the system directly.

(And all of these reasons not to move to .Net don't even
address the common complaints, such as the issue
of easily decompiled code and poor speed, the
problem of continual changes that require new, giant
runtimes, and the question of how .Net will weather
the changes of Avalon, WinFX, etc. The thing is already
in its third rendition and now MS has plans for more
big changes with Vista.)

To my mind it borders on bizarre that so many people
using .Net keep hanging around here like religious
converts (or maybe MS plants) doing a .Net sales
pitch. I wish that people would try to just think for
themselves a bit, do what's best for their own case,
and not worry so much about what everyone else
is up to.

To anyone who says that the Desktop is old
hat and that I should be thinking about web-based
software: Maybe you're right, maybe you're not. Either
way, I have no intention of following such a path using
Microsoft software.

"Roger Rabbit" <roger@rabbit.com> wrote in
news:O31f61VzFHA.2072@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl:
[color=blue]
>
> Value is created by architecture. If the Indians can do that as well
> then good for them. Its their "competitive adavantage".[/color]

the competitive edge is strictly money based. period.

"Phill. W" <P.A.Ward@o-p-e-n-.-a-c-.-u-k> wrote in message
news:didb58$6lm$1@yarrow.open.ac.uk...[color=blue]
> "Abubakar" <abubakarm@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OF3ac4WzFHA.3660@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>
>
> Haven't you heard? Much of the Managed Code hype has been
> "decoupled" from Vista (as has the Windows File System) just so
> that Our Friends in Redmond can get something to work and actually
> sell some units of "Vista".
>[/color]
You forgot to mention "in a reasonable amount if time" <g>

Saga

Phill. W wrote:[color=blue]
> "Abubakar" <abubakarm@gmail.com> wrote ...[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> "Rewrite/retest and redeploy everything because the language has
>>> changed (again)"[/color]
>>
>> what do u mean again? When did this last heppen other than the
>> .net change?[/color]
>
> It *hasn't* - that's my point - but now that it's happened /once/,
> who's to say it /won't/ happen again ... ?[/color]

Oh yes it has! They redefined the fundamental String datatype with VB4/32, thus
breaking *every line* of binary file i/o code ever before written with MSBasic.

See http://vb.mvps.org/vfred/unimess.asp for (deep) background.

The following September, many in that thread were brought to Bellevue to discuss VB5
at its pre-alpha stage. In those discussions, this topic turned rather heated. They
said "We get it!", and promised that such redefinitions would never happen again.
Six short years later...
--
Working Without a .NET?
http://classicvb.org/petition

Ken Dopierala Jr. wrote:[color=blue]
> VB6 Code To Call API
> ----------------------------
> PlaySound "chime.wav", 0, SND_NODEFAULT Or SND_ASYNC
>
> VB.Net Code To Call Same API
> -------------------------------------
> PlaySound("chime.wav", 0, SND_NODEFAULT + SND_ASYNC)[/color]

Are you suggesting that "best practices" in VB.NET regressed to using addition for
combining bitflags?
--
Working Without a .NET?
http://classicvb.org/petition

(And all of these reasons not to move to .Net don't even
address the common complaints, such as the issue
of easily decompiled code and poor speed, the
problem of continual changes that require new, giant
runtimes, and the question of how .Net will weather
the changes of Avalon, WinFX, etc.

This makes little sense complaining about an OS thats not even been
commercially released as reason not to switch over to a development platform
that been in use for around 5 years. Especially when you claim to be still
writing for Win95 customers. Your hardly pitching your software to an early
adopter market. This issue of decomplied code is not very compelling either
in that anyone whose ever taken a trip to China/Bali/or one of a million
websites in this world knows that exisitng software, whatever language its
been written in, is clearly fairly easy to deconstruct. Poor Speed. Thats
highly dependant on the application at hand but a quick Ngen on deploy so
the app doesn't JIT compile every time its boots would solve the vast
majority of problems.

[color=blue]
> To my mind it borders on bizarre that so many people
> using .Net keep hanging around here like religious
> converts (or maybe MS plants) doing a .Net sales
> pitch. I wish that people would try to just think for
> themselves a bit, do what's best for their own case,
> and not worry so much about what everyone else
> is up to.
>[/color]

Maybe they do think for themselves and they simply disagree with you.
Hanging around "here" is actually a dotnet newsgroup. Its odd that you
should come to one and complain that there are so many pro dotNetters on
board. As you've already said each to his own and do whats best for you. In
your case you clearly believe that dotNet is of no use to you. So what? Just
keep writing your VB6 apps. No one here is going to stop you.

[color=blue]
> To anyone who says that the Desktop is old
> hat and that I should be thinking about web-based
> software: Maybe you're right, maybe you're not. Either
> way, I have no intention of following such a path using
> Microsoft software.
>[/color]

I dont think anyone with any credibility is claiming that at all. Theres no
doubt over the next 5 to 10 years we are going to see a fundamental change
in the way software is licensed and delivered but the Desktop has quite a
long future ahead of it yet. ABove you complain that dotNet reduces your
overall potential platform market share (large download/Win95/etc) and now
here you claim that the "supposed" future of web based will see you reject
Microsoft software?

If that's the case then i really dont understand your initial complaint
given that IE is running at around 90 % + of overall marketshare. Your
position is to reject the supposed "omnipotent" platform of the future as a
response to a complaint about possible reduced market share today? Aren't
you just contridicting yourself?

RR

Karl,

"Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.org> schrieb:[color=blue][color=green]
>> VB6 Code To Call API
>> ----------------------------
>> PlaySound "chime.wav", 0, SND_NODEFAULT Or SND_ASYNC
>>
>> VB.Net Code To Call Same API
>> -------------------------------------
>> PlaySound("chime.wav", 0, SND_NODEFAULT + SND_ASYNC)[/color]
>
> Are you suggesting that "best practices" in VB.NET regressed to using
> addition for
> combining bitflags?[/color]

Using '+' to combine bitflags is not a "best practice" in VB.NET :-).

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

[color=blue][color=green]
> > In my opinion is it not a challenge to make a program with 1000000 lines
> > of code, the challenge is to make it in parts (which uses as less lines[/color][/color]
as[color=blue][color=green]
> > possible) that can easily be recreated.[/color]
>
> Why? If it works as is, why should it have to be changed?[/color]

The whole point is he doesn't. Its been constantly suggested that unless
there is a very specific need there is no need to convert "legacy" code to
dotNet.
[color=blue]
> Also, why are you making assumptions that his million line application is
> not already well-structured?
>[/color]

I think its a fair assumption. If he has a million lines of code that can
only be converted a million lines at a time then clearly its a monolith
thats not been very well constructed. Assuming the is a need to convert at
all, any reasonable design should allow a change in one part of the
application to have minimal effect on the remaining parts. Its fair for Cor
to assume spagetti code whether it is not.

RR

How many lines of VB6 code would it takes to do this? And what would that
nasty ass bit of code look like?

contents = My.Computer.FileSystem.ReadAllText("c:\mytextfile. txt")

RR

Herfried K. Wagner [MVP] wrote:[color=blue]
> "Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.org> schrieb:[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> VB6 Code To Call API
>>> ----------------------------
>>> PlaySound "chime.wav", 0, SND_NODEFAULT Or SND_ASYNC
>>>
>>> VB.Net Code To Call Same API
>>> -------------------------------------
>>> PlaySound("chime.wav", 0, SND_NODEFAULT + SND_ASYNC)[/color]
>>
>> Are you suggesting that "best practices" in VB.NET regressed to using
>> addition for combining bitflags?[/color]
>
> Using '+' to combine bitflags is not a "best practice" in VB.NET :-).[/color]

Jest checking... ;-)
--
Working Without a .NET?
http://classicvb.org/petition

Sorry, sorry.

To any new programmers out there *always* use OR unless you know what you
are doing. In this case the code was ripped from a game programming API I
wrote in both VB6 and VB.Net. Unlike VB6, VB.Net addition & subtraction
operations are extremely fast. In fact, a quick search will point you to a
white paper showing that the VB.Net compiled runtime is faster in addition &
subtraction than not only VB6 but also C#, C++ (pick your flavor), and of
course Java *note this holds true for .Net 1.0 & 1.1 - I havn't tested 2.0
yet but I would imagine the C# & C++ compilers are now using the same
optimizations*. I ORed in VB6 because there is no net gain to using
addition, I added in VB.Net because the gain is quite substantial. While
the PlaySound API call won't benefit much, even in a loop, it is just a
force of habit I have to help my compiler along into creating the most
optimized runtime possible.

Of course the whole point of this is that codewise, calling API functions
requires no additional code in VB.Net and is actually easier and more
straight forward than in VB6. Ken.

"Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:%23iRNoffzFHA.3540@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Herfried K. Wagner [MVP] wrote:[color=green]
> > "Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.org> schrieb:[color=darkred]
> >>> VB6 Code To Call API
> >>> ----------------------------
> >>> PlaySound "chime.wav", 0, SND_NODEFAULT Or SND_ASYNC
> >>>
> >>> VB.Net Code To Call Same API
> >>> -------------------------------------
> >>> PlaySound("chime.wav", 0, SND_NODEFAULT + SND_ASYNC)
> >>
> >> Are you suggesting that "best practices" in VB.NET regressed to using
> >> addition for combining bitflags?[/color]
> >
> > Using '+' to combine bitflags is not a "best practice" in VB.NET :-).[/color]
>
> Jest checking... ;-)
> --
> Working Without a .NET?
> http://classicvb.org/petition
>
>[/color]

Ken Dopierala Jr. wrote:[color=blue]
> Sorry, sorry.
>
> To any new programmers out there *always* use OR unless you know what
> you are doing. ^^^^^^[/color]

I feel like you misspelled "even if"... Hard to buy the rationale there, except in
*very* limited circumstances not at all like those demonstrated here.
[color=blue]
> Unlike VB6, VB.Net
> addition & subtraction operations are extremely fast. In fact, a
> quick search will point you to a white paper showing that the VB.Net
> compiled runtime is faster in addition & subtraction than not only
> VB6 but also C#, C++ (pick your flavor), and of course Java[/color]

And that sounds like a license violation against publishing benchmarks. Hmmm... ;-)

I really must wonder, though, how IL could possibly compete with ASM for such basic
operations. Smells rather fishy. This paper wasn't published by Microsoft, per
chance, was it?
[color=blue]
> While the PlaySound API call won't benefit much, even in a loop,[/color]
^^^^
And again, you seem to have misspelled "at all" -- HTH! :-)
--
Working Without a .NET?
http://classicvb.org/petition

> See http://vb.mvps.org/vfred/unimess.asp for (deep) background. <

Wow. Very interesting. And for as serious as that issue must have been at
the time, it pales in comparison to the .NET mess. You'd think M$ had
learned their lesson the first time.

- Kev

> How many lines of VB6 code would it takes to do this? And what
would that[color=blue]
> nasty ass bit of code look like?
>
> contents =[/color]
My.Computer.FileSystem.ReadAllText("c:\mytextfile. txt")

If I understand its purpose, this is a VB6 solution...

Dim FileNum As Long
Dim Contents As String
FileNum = FreeFile
Open "c:\mytextfile.txt" For Binary As #FileNum
Contents = Space(LOF(FileNum))
Get #FileNum, , Contents
Close #FileNum

Rick

Kevin Provance wrote:[color=blue][color=green]
>> See http://vb.mvps.org/vfred/unimess.asp for (deep) background. <[/color]
>
> Wow. Very interesting. And for as serious as that issue must have
> been at the time, it pales in comparison to the .NET mess. You'd
> think M$ had learned their lesson the first time.[/color]

The problem seems to be one of institutional memory. The guys who *swore* they "got
it!" were gone by the time the later destruction was done.

"Need a new type of data? Create a new datatype!" Duh.
--
Working Without a .NET?
http://classicvb.org/petition

>[color=blue]
> (And all of these reasons not to move to .Net don't even
> address the common complaints, such as the issue
> of easily decompiled code and poor speed, the
> problem of continual changes that require new, giant
> runtimes, and the question of how .Net will weather
> the changes of Avalon, WinFX, etc.
>
> This makes little sense complaining about an OS thats not even been
> commercially released as reason not to switch over to a development[/color]
platform[color=blue]
> that been in use for around 5 years.[/color]

You mean referring to Avalon and WinFX?
My point there was that it's a lot of work to
make a transition to a new language, yet .Net's
future doesn't seem clear. In Joel Spolsky's
article that someone linked to,
(http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html )
he seems to imply
that Avalon may obsolete .Net "Win Forms". And
he characterizes Avalon/WinFX as a second major
break with foregoing standards:

"And if you're developing a Windows GUI app today using Microsoft's
"official" latest-and-greatest Windows programming environment, WinForms,
you're going to have to start over again in two years to support Longhorn
and Avalon. Which explains why WinForms is completely stillborn. "

[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> > To my mind it borders on bizarre that so many people
> > using .Net keep hanging around here like religious
> > converts (or maybe MS plants) doing a .Net sales
> > pitch. I wish that people would try to just think for
> > themselves a bit, do what's best for their own case,
> > and not worry so much about what everyone else
> > is up to.
> >[/color]
>
> Hanging around "here" is actually a dotnet newsgroup. Its odd that you
> should come to one and complain that there are so many pro dotNetters on
> board.[/color]

My mistake. It's actually both. This thread is posting
to a VB6 group and a .Net group simultaneously. But
I wrote the last post before realizing that. The VB6 group
has been active with two similar threads this week, and
I thought this was a third. There's almost always a riled
.Netter around whenever a .Net criticism is posted in
the VB6 group. This week it's a character going by the
name of "Michael C." who's been dropping by periodically to
post inspired arguments along the lines of ".Net rules
and your grandmother wears army boots."

.NOT My Views

re: .NOT My Views

re: .NOT My Views

re: .NOT My Views

re: .NOT My Views

re: .NOT My Views

re: .NOT My Views

re: .NOT My Views

re: .NOT My Views

re: .NOT My Views

re: .NOT My Views

re: .NOT My Views

re: .NOT My Views

re: .NOT My Views

re: .NOT My Views

re: .NOT My Views

re: .NOT My Views

re: .NOT My Views

re: .NOT My Views

re: .NOT My Views

re: .NOT My Views

re: .NOT My Views

re: .NOT My Views

re: .NOT My Views

re: .NOT My Views

re: .NOT My Views

re: .NOT My Views

re: .NOT My Views

re: .NOT My Views

re: .NOT My Views

re: .NOT My Views

re: .NOT My Views

re: .NOT My Views

re: .NOT My Views

re: .NOT My Views

re: .NOT My Views

re: .NOT My Views

re: .NOT My Views

re: .NOT My Views

re: .NOT My Views

re: .NOT My Views

re: .NOT My Views

re: .NOT My Views

re: .NOT My Views

re: .NOT My Views

re: .NOT My Views

re: .NOT My Views

re: .NOT My Views

re: .NOT My Views

re: .NOT My Views

Similar Visual Basic .NET bytes

/bytes/development

/bytes/it

/bytes/about