VB.net beginner

[john andrew]

--
hello

1) I have only played around with VB.net a little but I know VB6 pretty well.
I just want to know does VB.net use basic controls with the same coding as
VB6 eg textbox, command, label,options....combo,list boxes use additem
with a '.'
2) where do the similarities end....I know graphics are set up a bit
different.

3) the heading code for each control is different to VB6 eg sub private..end
sub
VB.net has more API call look about it and it looks more complicated to use
than VB6. Is it more complicated to use compared to VB6 or it is much
better,faster?

[Lucas Tam]

"=?Utf-8?B?am9obiBhbmRyZXc=?=" <jo********@discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote in news:8E**********************************@microsof t.com:

hello

1) I have only played around with VB.net a little but I know VB6
pretty well. I just want to know does VB.net use basic controls with
the same coding as VB6 eg textbox, command,
label,options....combo,list boxes use additem with a '.'
No, not really... the syntax has changed somewhat. So if you paste old
VB6 code into VB.NET, you'll have to make some changes. Most changes are
trival, but some may take more work.
2) where do the similarities end....I know graphics are set up a bit
different.
The whole premise of VB.NET is different. VB.NET is object oriented,
multi-threaded, and runs in a .NET environment (the code is non-
compiled, very similar to Java+JRE).

Check here for more information:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...l=/library/en-
us/dnvb600/html/vb6tovbdotnet.asp

http://msdn.microsoft.com/vbasic/usi...g/default.aspx
3) the heading code for each control is different to VB6 eg sub
private..end sub
VB.net has more API call look about it and it looks more complicated
to use than VB6. Is it more complicated to use compared to VB6 or it
is much better,faster?

I would say VB.NET is much better only because it's object oriented.
Then again, you lose the ability to compile native code in VB.NET which
maybe an issue for you

--
Lucas Tam (RE********@rogers.com)
Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/

[john andrew]

"Lucas Tam" wrote:

"=?Utf-8?B?am9obiBhbmRyZXc=?=" <jo********@discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote in news:8E**********************************@microsof t.com:

hello

1) I have only played around with VB.net a little but I know VB6
pretty well. I just want to know does VB.net use basic controls with
the same coding as VB6 eg textbox, command,
label,options....combo,list boxes use additem with a '.'

No, not really... the syntax has changed somewhat. So if you paste old
VB6 code into VB.NET, you'll have to make some changes. Most changes are
trival, but some may take more work.

2) where do the similarities end....I know graphics are set up a bit
different.

The whole premise of VB.NET is different. VB.NET is object oriented,
multi-threaded, and runs in a .NET environment (the code is non-
compiled, very similar to Java+JRE).

Check here for more information:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...l=/library/en-
us/dnvb600/html/vb6tovbdotnet.asp

http://msdn.microsoft.com/vbasic/usi...g/default.aspx

3) the heading code for each control is different to VB6 eg sub
private..end sub
VB.net has more API call look about it and it looks more complicated
to use than VB6. Is it more complicated to use compared to VB6 or it
is much better,faster?

I would say VB.NET is much better only because it's object oriented.
Then again, you lose the ability to compile native code in VB.NET which
maybe an issue for you

--
Lucas Tam (RE********@rogers.com)
Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/

I dont really care if VB is OO or not. What I want is to do tasks eg
database, graphics , games. With VB6 you could do this but improvements could
be made.
From a novice point of view it is harder to learn than VB6. I need some more
experience but it really didnt impress me first off and it didnt impress the
large university I was at either as they refused to teach it.

I will keep at it though as I have experience with other programming.

[Tim Anderson]

"john andrew" <jo********@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:15**********************************@microsof t.com...

I dont really care if VB is OO or not. What I want is to do tasks eg
database, graphics , games. With VB6 you could do this but improvements
could
be made.
From a novice point of view it is harder to learn than VB6. I need some
more
experience but it really didnt impress me first off and it didnt impress
the
large university I was at either as they refused to teach it.

I don't think it is harder overall, although certain things are harder. I've
written introductory books aimed at novices, both for VB 6 and for VB.NET.
It was an interesting experience since I had to explain each task as simply
as possible with a short piece of sample code. In general, the VB.NET code
was no more complex than the VB 6 code; in fact, overall I would say it is a
little easier to learn. When it comes to more advanced applications, VB.NET
is well ahead. You also have the advantage of learning standard
object-oriented techniques, as opposed to the COM-based object orientation
in VB 6.

There was one point in the book where I found obscure code unavoidable. This
was to add a search feature to the Data Form generated by the Data Form
wizard. I found it necessary to use things like CurrencyManager and
BindingContext - not very intuitive for beginners. I believe this is easier
in Visual Basic .NET 2005.

Tim
..NET pros and cons
http://www.itwriting.com/phorum/list.php?f=6

[Cor Ligthert]

John,

One little addition to Lucas text

You can use VBNet with late and early binding (Option Strict On).

The first is more VB6 what leads that you can compare

VBNet with early binding (Option Strict On) same performance as C#
VBNet with late binding same performance as VB6

The first is a fact the second is something to give an idea.

The way of coding has in my opinion as well a lot of those simulars.

I hope this gives as well some ideas?

Cor

[Brian Schwartz]

> it didnt impress the

large university I was at either as they refused to teach it.

Yikes, what university is that?

--
Brian Schwartz
FishNet Components
http://www.fishnetcomponents.com
Building better tools for developers - be part of it!

[Anon-E-Moose]

"Brian Schwartz" <br***@fishnetcomponents.com.no.spam> wrote in news:
#R**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl:

it didnt impress the
large university I was at either as they refused to teach it.

Yikes, what university is that?

Most universities don't bother teaching specific languages - it's upto the
students prerogative to learn the language. Rather universities teach
concepts. Concepts can be applied to all languages.

You can often see the difference between a university trained computer
programmer vs. a community college trained one. The university trained
computer programmer will first design the application (or at least think it
through) then program it in a logical manner. Often times programmers from
community colleges just sit down and start programming frantically. While
in the end both applications work, the application written by the community
college programmer is often a spaghetti code.

It would be beneficial if community colleges provided a bit more theory in
their teaching and universities a bit more practical knowledge.

[Brian Schwartz]

<snip>

It would be beneficial if community colleges provided a bit more
theory in their teaching and universities a bit more practical
knowledge.

Interesting. I skipped both and have never regretted it. Real-life
experience has been a far better teacher than a classroom could ever be, I
think.

--

Brian Schwartz
FishNet Components
http://www.fishnetcomponents.com
Building better tools for developers - Be part of it!

[Lucas Tam]

"Brian Schwartz" <br***@fishnetcomponents.com.no.spam> wrote in
news:eA**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl:

<snip>

It would be beneficial if community colleges provided a bit more
theory in their teaching and universities a bit more practical
knowledge.

Interesting. I skipped both and have never regretted it. Real-life
experience has been a far better teacher than a classroom could ever
be, I think.

Real-life experience is only part of the whole equation. But good practices
and theory does help a lot.
--
Lucas Tam (RE********@rogers.com)
Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/