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?
Jul 21 '05
44  2084 
"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?
With some editing, the poster is correct:
Visual Studio .NET is not more efficient than
VB6. I can write a VB6 App that is at least twice as fast as
..NET. (: and 1/10 th the size :-)
Roger
Sounds like we've got challenge on our hands (and too much time ;)
How about a stupid wee challenge then? You write a *small* app in VB6 and
I'll try and replicate it in VB .net.
For VB6 to be "better" than VB.net it must meet the following criteria:
1) It must demonstrate a clear performance advantage (i.e. > 20%)
2) It must be half the size of the .net version
I don't think these criteria ar harsh - after all, you claim that you can
write one that is twice as fast and 1/10th the size!
Best Regards,
Trev.
"Roger" <NO****@hotmail .com> wrote in message
news:ul******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP12.phx.gbl...
"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?
With some editing, the poster is correct:
Visual Studio .NET is not more efficient than
VB6. I can write a VB6 App that is at least twice as fast as
.NET. (: and 1/10 th the size :-)
Roger
"Codemonkey " <hu*********@ho tmail.com> wrote in message
news:eh******** ******@tk2msftn gp13.phx.gbl... Sounds like we've got challenge on our hands (and too much time ;)
How about a stupid wee challenge then? You write a *small* app in VB6 and
I'll try and replicate it in VB .net.
For VB6 to be "better" than VB.net it must meet the following criteria:
1) It must demonstrate a clear performance advantage (i.e. > 20%)
Win98/ 64 meg, OK :-)
2) It must be half the size of the .net version
I'm counting the runtime.
I don't think these criteria ar harsh - after all, you claim that you can
write one that is twice as fast and 1/10th the size!
Best Regards,
Trev.
Why is everyone picking on Truble? I dont actually use VB6 but somebody's
got to take his side.
HTH,
Roger
"Roger" <NO****@hotmail .com> wrote in message
news:ul******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP12.phx.gbl...
"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?
With some editing, the poster is correct:
Visual Studio .NET is not more efficient than
VB6. I can write a VB6 App that is at least twice as fast as
.NET. (: and 1/10 th the size :-)
Roger
"Roger" <NO****@hotmail .com> wrote in message
news:ul******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP12.phx.gbl...
"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?
With some editing, the poster is correct:
Visual Studio .NET is not more efficient than VB6.
You can't make a blanket statement like that about anything. But out of
curiosity, why would you say this? VB 6.0 was NEVER known for its
performance or efficiency. Why do you think that MS made most of their apps
in C not VB?
I can write a VB6 App that is at least twice as fast as .NET. (: and 1/10
th the size :-)
This is not a measure of efficiency. The reason VB 6.0 does not requre as
much coding is because it was HDING a lot of cumbersome code in the
background. In some cases, this was helpful (ie. you don't have to worry
about creating an instance of your startup form - VB did it for you). In
many other cases, this is a detrement. What if you wanted to alter the way
VB 6.0 does something that it was HIDING from you? Tough luck, you had to
deal with it.
I'll give you a simple example of this....
If you created a form and placed numerous controls on the form and then at
some point wrote a loop that would iterate over the form's Controls
collection....
The order that the controls would be looked at in the loop would be the
order in which you created them on the form (not their sequential placement
on the form, the sequence was based on what control was CREATED first,
second, third, etc.).
In many cases, developers would use this technique for validating user input
on the form. But it's not very nice if the first control validated is the
6th one down on the form.
In VB 6.0, once the Controls collection is populated, that's it, you can't
alter the sequence of them (unless you delete all the controls and re-create
them or make a control array out of them and re-sequence their Indexes).
In VB.NET all you have to do to change the sequence of the controls is to
look at the line of generated code that adds the controls to the controls
collection (Controls.Add control1, control2, etc.) and re-order the
sequence on that line!
This is but one small example of how, in VB.NET, their may be more code to
deal with, but in return, you get MUCH more control over what is happening
and therefore you can fine tune an application MUCH BETTER than you ever
could before, which results is MUCH BETTER performance.
Also, by having certain general housekeeping functions running in the .NET
Framework, rather than your application (ie. Garbage Collection), your
application doesn't have to have that code in it, which results in more
streamlined programs (the .NET Framework runs in a different thread from the
application you built).
Give .NET a chance. I am a former VB 6.0 / Classic ASP person and I felt
like you did for about 6 months until the "light bulb" went off in my head
and I "got it".
..NET is by leaps and bounds far superior in almost all respects to VB 6.0.
Scott M.
Roger
> Win98/ 64 meg, OK :-)
Shouldn't be too much a problem for a small App. VB6 will have an inital
advantage because of the smaller memory footprint, but once the .net has
been fully JITted, there shouldn't be much difference. Certinly not twice as
slow. I'm counting the runtime.
And what size are all the VB6 support files when you add them together?
(MSVBVM60.dll etc., etc.) Not as big as the .net framework, but imagine you
had to include all the different support files for simple tasks such as
network communication, database access, graphics, remoting etc. etc.
Granted, not all apps use these features, but it's nice to know that they're
already on a machine if you have to change your application to include them.
Why is everyone picking on Truble? I dont actually use VB6
but somebody's got to take his side.
Nobody's picking on Truble. I'm disagreeing with Truble's point of view ;)
Truble shouldn't make such bold statements without expecting someone else to
disagree and make their own bold statements ;)
Trev.
"Roger" <NO****@hotmail .com> wrote in message
news:%2******** ********@TK2MSF TNGP12.phx.gbl. ..
"Codemonkey " <hu*********@ho tmail.com> wrote in message
news:eh******** ******@tk2msftn gp13.phx.gbl... Sounds like we've got challenge on our hands (and too much time ;)
How about a stupid wee challenge then? You write a *small* app in VB6
and I'll try and replicate it in VB .net.
For VB6 to be "better" than VB.net it must meet the following criteria:
1) It must demonstrate a clear performance advantage (i.e. > 20%)
Win98/ 64 meg, OK :-)
2) It must be half the size of the .net version
I'm counting the runtime.
I don't think these criteria ar harsh - after all, you claim that you
can write one that is twice as fast and 1/10th the size!
Best Regards,
Trev.
Why is everyone picking on Truble? I dont actually use VB6 but somebody's
got to take his side.
HTH,
Roger
"Roger" <NO****@hotmail .com> wrote in message
news:ul******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP12.phx.gbl...
"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?
With some editing, the poster is correct:
Visual Studio .NET is not more efficient than
VB6. I can write a VB6 App that is at least twice as fast as
.NET. (: and 1/10 th the size :-)
Roger
Roger <NO****@hotmail .com> wrote: 1) It must demonstrate a clear performance advantage (i.e. > 20%)
Win98/ 64 meg, OK :-)
2) It must be half the size of the .net version
I'm counting the runtime.
In that case, are you including the VB runtime and anything that links
against in turn? Are you including the operating system itself, and if
so how much of it? It would make sense to do so, given that a lot of
the .NET framework is a load of libraries which most applications won't
use. (Each application will use some of the framework, very few
applications will directly use most of it.)
--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.co m> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
"Roger" <NO****@hotmail .com> wrote in message
news:%2******** ********@TK2MSF TNGP12.phx.gbl. ..
"Codemonkey " <hu*********@ho tmail.com> wrote in message
news:eh******** ******@tk2msftn gp13.phx.gbl... Sounds like we've got challenge on our hands (and too much time ;)
How about a stupid wee challenge then? You write a *small* app in VB6
and I'll try and replicate it in VB .net.
For VB6 to be "better" than VB.net it must meet the following criteria:
1) It must demonstrate a clear performance advantage (i.e. > 20%)
Win98/ 64 meg, OK :-)
2) It must be half the size of the .net version
I'm counting the runtime.
The fact that you would say this clearly indicates that you don't yet fully
understand .NET. The .NET Framework (what you call the runtime) is quite
large, but it contains much of what you would have (in VB 6) had to build
into your application.
Now, in VB 6, when you build all that into your application, it would all
need to execute in the same process (thread) and that was always one of VB
6's biggest drawbacks.
The .NET Framework runs in its own process and allows your application to
run in its own process, so it can execute faster. The fact that the
Framework is 24MB isn't relevant, since much of it is the vast class
libraries that are defined there. By the way, you wouldn't have references
to all those libraries anyway, so you can't count the full 24MB of the
Framework in your little experiment. You'd have to find a way to determine
the size of the libraries that you are using.
I don't think these criteria ar harsh - after all, you claim that you
can write one that is twice as fast and 1/10th the size!
Best Regards,
Trev.
Why is everyone picking on Truble? I dont actually use VB6 but somebody's
got to take his side.
HTH,
Roger
"Roger" <NO****@hotmail .com> wrote in message
news:ul******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP12.phx.gbl...
"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?
With some editing, the poster is correct:
Visual Studio .NET is not more efficient than
VB6. I can write a VB6 App that is at least twice as fast as
.NET. (: and 1/10 th the size :-)
Roger
Scott M. <s-***@BADSPAMsnet .net> wrote: Now, in VB 6, when you build all that into your application, it would all
need to execute in the same process (thread) and that was always one of VB
6's biggest drawbacks.
<snip>
The .NET Framework runs in its own process and allows your application to
run in its own process, so it can execute faster.
Hang on a sec - you need to be very clear on the difference between a
process and a thread. They're quite different things...
--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.co m> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Quite simple: They didn't.
"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?
You are correct that one process can be running many threads within it. My
point was that since much of the "grunt" work of a .NET application is done
in its own thread, the main application is not encumbered by the Framework
doing its thing and in a VB 6 application, you would have everything
happening in one thread.
"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.co m> wrote in message
news:MP******** *************** @msnews.microso ft.com... Scott M. <s-***@BADSPAMsnet .net> wrote:
Now, in VB 6, when you build all that into your application, it would
all need to execute in the same process (thread) and that was always one of
VB 6's biggest drawbacks.
<snip>
The .NET Framework runs in its own process and allows your application
to run in its own process, so it can execute faster.
Hang on a sec - you need to be very clear on the difference between a
process and a thread. They're quite different things...
--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.co m>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics | |
by: Truble |
last post by:
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?
|
by: marktang |
last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However, people are often confused as to whether an ONU can Work As a Router. In this blog post, we’ll explore What is ONU, What Is Router, ONU & Router’s main usage, and What is the difference between ONU and Router. Let’s take a closer look !
Part I. Meaning of...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can effortlessly switch the default language on Windows 10 without reinstalling. I'll walk you through it.
First, let's disable language synchronization. With a Microsoft account, language settings sync across devices. To prevent any complications,...
|
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers, it seems that the internal comparison operator "<=>" tries to promote arguments from unsigned to signed.
This is as boiled down as I can make it.
Here is my compilation command:
g++-12 -std=c++20 -Wnarrowing bit_field.cpp
Here is the code in...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Overview:
Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows Update option using the Control Panel or Settings app; it automatically checks for updates and installs any it finds, whether you like it or not. For most users, this new feature is actually very convenient. If you want to control the update process,...
| | |
by: agi2029 |
last post by:
Let's talk about the concept of autonomous AI software engineers and no-code agents. These AIs are designed to manage the entire lifecycle of a software development project—planning, coding, testing, and deployment—without human intervention. Imagine an AI that can take a project description, break it down, write the code, debug it, and then launch it, all on its own....
Now, this would greatly impact the work of software developers. The idea...
|
by: isladogs |
last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 1 May 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM).
In this session, we are pleased to welcome a new presenter, Adolph Dupré who will be discussing some powerful techniques for using class modules.
He will explain when you may want to use classes instead of User Defined Types (UDT). For example, to manage the data in unbound forms.
Adolph will...
|
by: TSSRALBI |
last post by:
Hello
I'm a network technician in training and I need your help.
I am currently learning how to create and manage the different types of VPNs and I have a question about LAN-to-LAN VPNs.
The last exercise I practiced was to create a LAN-to-LAN VPN between two Pfsense firewalls, by using IPSEC protocols.
I succeeded, with both firewalls in the same network. But I'm wondering if it's possible to do the same thing, with 2 Pfsense firewalls...
|
by: adsilva |
last post by:
A Windows Forms form does not have the event Unload, like VB6. What one acts like?
|
by: bsmnconsultancy |
last post by:
In today's digital era, a well-designed website is crucial for businesses looking to succeed. Whether you're a small business owner or a large corporation in Toronto, having a strong online presence can significantly impact your brand's success. BSMN Consultancy, a leader in Website Development in Toronto offers valuable insights into creating effective websites that not only look great but also perform exceptionally well. In this comprehensive...
| |
