Why did Microsoft Ruin Visual Basic?

[Truble]

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

[BGD]

I disagree. I have been using VB since the first beta was released more than
12 years ago and I love the changes and the fact that it is now a true
object oriented language. I also program in Java, C++ and Delphi, and I
always wished that VB had the object oriented features that the other
languages did, and now it does!

I do most of my programming in C# now and it is a great language. In most
programs C# and VB.NET perform about the same, but I have some application
where C# clearly performs better. It is a matter of chosing the right
tool/language for the right project...
"Truble" <an*******@disc ussions.microso ft.com> wrote in message
news:06******** *************** *****@phx.gbl.. .

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

[Jan Tielens]

I disagree too, VB is not ruined. If you now how to use the new features
(e.g. OO), you can write faster and produce better code in VB.NET.
--
Greetz,
Jan
_______________ _______________ ____
Read my weblog: http://weblogs.asp.net/jan
"BGD" <tb******@hotma il.com> schreef in bericht
news:%2******** *******@tk2msft ngp13.phx.gbl.. .

I disagree. I have been using VB since the first beta was released more than 12 years ago and I love the changes and the fact that it is now a true
object oriented language. I also program in Java, C++ and Delphi, and I
always wished that VB had the object oriented features that the other
languages did, and now it does!

I do most of my programming in C# now and it is a great language. In most
programs C# and VB.NET perform about the same, but I have some application
where C# clearly performs better. It is a matter of chosing the right
tool/language for the right project...
"Truble" <an*******@disc ussions.microso ft.com> wrote in message
news:06******** *************** *****@phx.gbl.. .

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

[Codemonkey]

Sorry Mate, I don't agree. There's a lot of stuff that you can do in VB.net
with a single line of code that would take you a long time to achieve in VB6
(e.g. Inheritance)

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

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

Thanks for your thoughts though.

Trev.
"Truble" <an*******@disc ussions.microso ft.com> wrote in message
news:06******** *************** *****@phx.gbl.. .

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

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Truble <an*******@disc ussions.microso ft.com> wrote:

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

You being able to write a VB6 app twice as fast as you can write the
equivalent in VB.NET doesn't mean that VB.NET isn't as efficient - it
may well just mean that you're more proficient in VB6.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.co m>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Adam]

Why use .NET when you're not forced to. Personally speaking I wish MS had
not bothered converting VB into VB.NET :)

"Truble" <an*******@disc ussions.microso ft.com> wrote in message
news:06******** *************** *****@phx.gbl.. .

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

[Scott M.]

It's obvious that you haven't explored VB.NET enough yet to see the
tremendous improvements to the language. Yes, it is true that you may have
to write more code than in the past, but you have so much more control over
applications and classes that this is well worth it.
"Truble" <an*******@disc ussions.microso ft.com> wrote in message
news:06******** *************** *****@phx.gbl.. .

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

[Scott M.]

Well, that's really the thing...MS didn't "convert" anything:

VB.NET is not VB 7, it's a whole new programming language that shares some
of the coding constructs that VB 6 had.
ASP.NET is not "Classic ASP", the similarity in their names is about the
only thing they have in common.
VS.NET is not VS 7.0. While having some of the features of VS 6, VS.NET is
vastly improved and allows for a consitent approach to application
development.
"Adam" <ad**@nospam.co m> wrote in message
news:un******** ******@tk2msftn gp13.phx.gbl...

Why use .NET when you're not forced to. Personally speaking I wish MS had
not bothered converting VB into VB.NET :)

"Truble" <an*******@disc ussions.microso ft.com> wrote in message
news:06******** *************** *****@phx.gbl.. .

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

[solex]

Actually VB.Net IS VB7 check your install directory.
"Scott M." <s-***@BADSPAMsnet .net> wrote in message
news:uS******** *****@TK2MSFTNG P11.phx.gbl...

Well, that's really the thing...MS didn't "convert" anything:

VB.NET is not VB 7, it's a whole new programming language that shares some
of the coding constructs that VB 6 had.
ASP.NET is not "Classic ASP", the similarity in their names is about the
only thing they have in common.
VS.NET is not VS 7.0. While having some of the features of VS 6, VS.NET is vastly improved and allows for a consitent approach to application
development.
"Adam" <ad**@nospam.co m> wrote in message
news:un******** ******@tk2msftn gp13.phx.gbl...

Why use .NET when you're not forced to. Personally speaking I wish MS had not bothered converting VB into VB.NET :)

"Truble" <an*******@disc ussions.microso ft.com> wrote in message
news:06******** *************** *****@phx.gbl.. .

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

[m]

> Actually VB.Net IS VB7 check your install directory.

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

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

The fact that it's called VB7 is trivial. Earlier versions of VB pretty much
had the same underpinnngs(ig noring the change from 16bit to 32bit). VB.Net
is a different product than VB6.
"solex" <so***@nowhere. com> wrote in message
news:%2******** **********@TK2M SFTNGP12.phx.gb l...

Actually VB.Net IS VB7 check your install directory.
"Scott M." <s-***@BADSPAMsnet .net> wrote in message
news:uS******** *****@TK2MSFTNG P11.phx.gbl...

Well, that's really the thing...MS didn't "convert" anything:

VB.NET is not VB 7, it's a whole new programming language that shares some

of the coding constructs that VB 6 had.
ASP.NET is not "Classic ASP", the similarity in their names is about the
only thing they have in common.
VS.NET is not VS 7.0. While having some of the features of VS 6, VS.NET

is

vastly improved and allows for a consitent approach to application
development.
"Adam" <ad**@nospam.co m> wrote in message
news:un******** ******@tk2msftn gp13.phx.gbl...

Why use .NET when you're not forced to. Personally speaking I wish MS

had not bothered converting VB into VB.NET :)

"Truble" <an*******@disc ussions.microso ft.com> wrote in message
news:06******** *************** *****@phx.gbl.. .
> Visual Studio .NET is not more efficient to write than
> VB6. I can write a VB6 App at least twice as fast as
> in .NET. Why did Microsoft ruin the syntax advantage of
> VB6 in .NET?