By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
455,578 Members | 1,835 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 455,578 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

VB NET Discussion

P: n/a
Hello,

I am using VB 6.0 for many years. Everytime I needed to build software
applications, I just opened VB 6.0 and started coding. I am now looking
VB.NET Express Edition and I find I can no longer do this very easily. I
find that there is too much copy and paste of code in order to get an app
running. I also find it slow. Is it me or I am missing something? Here is
a sample of my coding which you could find at:

http://www.amtekcenter.com/amtek/wdwscode.htm

P.S.: Do I have to change my style of coding? Can I code the same way in
VB.NET?

Thanks!
Nov 21 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
25 Replies


P: n/a
VB.NET is not just the "next" version of VB. It is a major upgrade to the
programming language as the language itself runs on a completely different
runtime (the Common Language Runtime - CLR). That runtime is part of a
larger framework (the .NET Framework).

Much of the syntax you've used for years may still "work", but you will find
that it is not optimal code anymore. For example, you can still generate a
message box in a Windows application with MSGBOX, but now there is a
MessageBox class that exposes a Show method. They both will work, but using
the MessageBox class yeilds better results. There are many such examples
like this.

Here's another one... In VB 6.0, the data type "Integer" meant 16 bit
integer, now "Integer" means 32 bit integer. If you were unaware of this it
would mean that everywhere you used the Integer type in .NET, you'd be using
twice as much memory as you thought you were.

The IDE has also undergone many changes as well.

From looking at your code, I can see that much of your code (while legal
code) should be modified to take advantage of the new language and object
features of VB.NET and the .NET Framework.

In a nutshell, VB.NET is not just something you should try to stumble your
way through. It is a new and different beast. It "can" give you MUCH
better results than VB 6.0, provided you use it correctly.

You should check out msdn.microsoft.com and/or pick up a good book on .NET.
I would recommend Programming Visual Basic .NET by Francesco Balena
(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...85785-0686413).

Good luck.

"Sharrukin Amiri" <sh*******@amtekcenter.com> wrote in message
news:_p********************@news20.bellglobal.com. ..
Hello,

I am using VB 6.0 for many years. Everytime I needed to build software
applications, I just opened VB 6.0 and started coding. I am now looking
VB.NET Express Edition and I find I can no longer do this very easily. I
find that there is too much copy and paste of code in order to get an app
running. I also find it slow. Is it me or I am missing something? Here
is
a sample of my coding which you could find at:

http://www.amtekcenter.com/amtek/wdwscode.htm

P.S.: Do I have to change my style of coding? Can I code the same way in
VB.NET?

Thanks!

Nov 21 '05 #2

P: n/a
Sharrukin,

I would only lightly change your style of coding. Basically it is not wrong,
however what you use is very much from the past. It looks now because of the
used methods as not very much evaluated very old Basic. While as far as I
can see your program flow, what is in my opinion more important, does not
look wrong.

Seven advices that I surely would do (not based on VBNet Express 2005
however on VBNet programming in general)

1.
Don't set all your values and objects global at the start, however try as
much to declare them in the procedures/methods where needed. The way you do
it now cost more memory and much more work to keep track of the used
values/objects for yourself.

When a procedure goes out of scope all values/objects that has no reference
to it or from it anymore will be destroyed. This is one of the basics of
OOP. It cost more overhead, however is a general accepted effect from OOP
that because of processor speed has to be negate.

2.
Don't use the On Error however the Try Catch. That gives you a nicer program
flow and shows better what you are doing.

3.
Don't use the very classic things as Po$. Just have a look at the website
MSDN.Microsoft.Com in samples how this is done.

4.
Try to use in Net inbuilt classes as by instance globalization. There are it
seems endless much and even when you are longtimes busy with it, you have
the change to see tomorrow one you never had seen. This makes your live
easier

5
Don't use the Call, that is not needed anymore

6.
Delete all code that is not needed anymore and you have now marked with as
comment. This is a very old not anymore done habit, it confuses to much and
makes your program not better readable.

7.
Mostly is in my opinion now used camel case notations, and not the
underscore. However that is a mater of preference.

I hope this helps,

Cor
Nov 21 '05 #3

P: n/a
Cor, you said:

"When a procedure goes out of scope all values/objects that has no reference
to it or from it anymore will be destroyed. "

To clarify, only the object variables are destroyed. The objects themselves
stay in memory until the GC cleans them up and we don't know when that will
be.


"Cor Ligthert" <no************@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:eR**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Sharrukin,

I would only lightly change your style of coding. Basically it is not
wrong, however what you use is very much from the past. It looks now
because of the used methods as not very much evaluated very old Basic.
While as far as I can see your program flow, what is in my opinion more
important, does not look wrong.

Seven advices that I surely would do (not based on VBNet Express 2005
however on VBNet programming in general)

1.
Don't set all your values and objects global at the start, however try as
much to declare them in the procedures/methods where needed. The way you
do it now cost more memory and much more work to keep track of the used
values/objects for yourself.

When a procedure goes out of scope all values/objects that has no
reference to it or from it anymore will be destroyed. This is one of the
basics of OOP. It cost more overhead, however is a general accepted effect
from OOP that because of processor speed has to be negate.

2.
Don't use the On Error however the Try Catch. That gives you a nicer
program flow and shows better what you are doing.

3.
Don't use the very classic things as Po$. Just have a look at the website
MSDN.Microsoft.Com in samples how this is done.

4.
Try to use in Net inbuilt classes as by instance globalization. There are
it seems endless much and even when you are longtimes busy with it, you
have the change to see tomorrow one you never had seen. This makes your
live easier

5
Don't use the Call, that is not needed anymore

6.
Delete all code that is not needed anymore and you have now marked with as
comment. This is a very old not anymore done habit, it confuses to much
and makes your program not better readable.

7.
Mostly is in my opinion now used camel case notations, and not the
underscore. However that is a mater of preference.

I hope this helps,

Cor

Nov 21 '05 #4

P: n/a
Scott,
"When a procedure goes out of scope all values/objects that has no
reference
to it or from it anymore will be destroyed. "

To clarify, only the object variables are destroyed. The objects
themselves stay in memory until the GC cleans them up and we don't know
when that will be.

Can you explain a little bit more what you mean with this. Or I do not
understand you or we have a different perception of this.

Cor
Nov 21 '05 #5

P: n/a
Since in .NET, memory is managed in a non-deterministic way, it is not up to
the program to determine when objects are removed from memory (the heap), it
is up to the Garbage Collector and we do not know when the Garbage Collector
will collect the garbage.

If you declare, say X as an instance of a class in a procedure and then the
procedure runs and ends only the variable X will be removed from memory.
The object that X was pointing to will remain in memory on the heap until
the Garbage Collector collects the garbage.

For example:

Sub Test()
Dim X As New StreamReader()
End Sub

After this sub is done processing, the variable X is immediately removed
from the stack frame and is lost, but the actual StreamReader instance
remains in memory. Because nothing is pointing to that StreamReader, we can
no longer access it, but it does still remain in memory until the GC removes
it.
"Cor Ligthert" <no************@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Scott,
"When a procedure goes out of scope all values/objects that has no
reference
to it or from it anymore will be destroyed. "

To clarify, only the object variables are destroyed. The objects
themselves stay in memory until the GC cleans them up and we don't know
when that will be.

Can you explain a little bit more what you mean with this. Or I do not
understand you or we have a different perception of this.

Cor

Nov 21 '05 #6

P: n/a
Scott,
Since in .NET, memory is managed in a non-deterministic way, it is not up
to the program to determine when objects are removed from memory (the
heap), it is up to the Garbage Collector and we do not know when the
Garbage Collector will collect the garbage.

If you declare, say X as an instance of a class in a procedure and then
the procedure runs and ends only the variable X will be removed from
memory. The object that X was pointing to will remain in memory on the
heap until the Garbage Collector collects the garbage.

For example:

Sub Test()
Dim X As New StreamReader()
End Sub

After this sub is done processing, the variable X is immediately removed
from the stack frame and is lost, but the actual StreamReader instance
remains in memory. Because nothing is pointing to that StreamReader, we
can no longer access it, but it does still remain in memory until the GC
removes it.

What has that to do with the style of programming where Sharrukim asks for.

I really don't see your point? As long as there are enough resources or
memory who would than care. I wrote "it will be destroyed". I thought that
that was for the programmer enough to know.

That is the fact what I don't understand in your message. In other words,
what is the reason that you wrote this. I really don't see the relation.

Cor
Nov 21 '05 #7

P: n/a
Cor,

Here we go again. It's very clear why I wrote it if you would just take the
time to read what I wrote. I began by saying "To clarify". That was the
purpose that you are looking for...to clarify your misleading comments.

The OP tells us that he is new to .NET. I wanted to clarify your statement
as it is not quite correct and someone new to .NET needs to understand how
memory is managed. Not understanding non-deterministic finalization can
lead to very poor application performance (an issue the OP was asking about)
as well as confusion when it comes to the very common Dispose and Finalize
methods.

It would be great if you could just relax for once and simply let someone
make a comment without forcing a debate over an issue that only serves you.

-Scott
"Cor Ligthert" <no************@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Scott,
Since in .NET, memory is managed in a non-deterministic way, it is not up
to the program to determine when objects are removed from memory (the
heap), it is up to the Garbage Collector and we do not know when the
Garbage Collector will collect the garbage.

If you declare, say X as an instance of a class in a procedure and then
the procedure runs and ends only the variable X will be removed from
memory. The object that X was pointing to will remain in memory on the
heap until the Garbage Collector collects the garbage.

For example:

Sub Test()
Dim X As New StreamReader()
End Sub

After this sub is done processing, the variable X is immediately removed
from the stack frame and is lost, but the actual StreamReader instance
remains in memory. Because nothing is pointing to that StreamReader, we
can no longer access it, but it does still remain in memory until the GC
removes it.

What has that to do with the style of programming where Sharrukim asks
for.

I really don't see your point? As long as there are enough resources or
memory who would than care. I wrote "it will be destroyed". I thought that
that was for the programmer enough to know.

That is the fact what I don't understand in your message. In other words,
what is the reason that you wrote this. I really don't see the relation.

Cor

Nov 21 '05 #8

P: n/a
Apparently, Microsoft choked when it came time to name their new programming
language or perhaps thought they could suck along the "classic VB"
programmers by calling it "VB.Net". It's simply a bad joke on names and has
little to do with the VB you've been coding with, so the simple answer is
yes, you have to learn a lot of new material because there isn't much in the
way of an "upgrade path". That's not to say that "VB.Net" isn't a much
better language (and has a far superior IDE), because it is. Simply a
piss-poor choice of names which will likely result in its eventual demise
due to corporations having this affinity to avoid anything with the name
"VB" in it.

"Sharrukin Amiri" <sh*******@amtekcenter.com> wrote in message
news:_p********************@news20.bellglobal.com. ..
Hello,

I am using VB 6.0 for many years. Everytime I needed to build software
applications, I just opened VB 6.0 and started coding. I am now looking
VB.NET Express Edition and I find I can no longer do this very easily. I
find that there is too much copy and paste of code in order to get an app
running. I also find it slow. Is it me or I am missing something? Here
is
a sample of my coding which you could find at:

http://www.amtekcenter.com/amtek/wdwscode.htm

P.S.: Do I have to change my style of coding? Can I code the same way in
VB.NET?

Thanks!

Nov 21 '05 #9

P: n/a
IMHO I disagree. Much of the core language syntax has remained intact. You
still loop the way you used to. You still write If..Then...Else and Select
Case statements as you used to. Variable declaration keywords and meanings
have largely stayed the same. In other words, on the surface VB.NET does
have much in common with VB 6.0. It's under the surface where the
differences become apparent. And if you were a VB 6.0 developer looking to
move to the .NET platform and MS had decided to give VB.NET some other name,
you wouldn't know what language would give you the shortest learning curve
would you?

I think the major thing here is to know that while VB 6.0 and VB.NET do have
similarities, they are not driven by the same runtimes and thus, there are
going to be profound differences in how each language is internalized.
Also, VB 6.0 being object-based and VB.NET being fully object-oriented imply
major differences.

As long as you approach VB.NET knowing that you have some re-learning to do
and not taking things for granted, you will be fine.
"Earl" <br******@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:eV**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Apparently, Microsoft choked when it came time to name their new
programming language or perhaps thought they could suck along the "classic
VB" programmers by calling it "VB.Net". It's simply a bad joke on names
and has little to do with the VB you've been coding with, so the simple
answer is yes, you have to learn a lot of new material because there isn't
much in the way of an "upgrade path". That's not to say that "VB.Net"
isn't a much better language (and has a far superior IDE), because it is.
Simply a piss-poor choice of names which will likely result in its
eventual demise due to corporations having this affinity to avoid anything
with the name "VB" in it.

"Sharrukin Amiri" <sh*******@amtekcenter.com> wrote in message
news:_p********************@news20.bellglobal.com. ..
Hello,

I am using VB 6.0 for many years. Everytime I needed to build software
applications, I just opened VB 6.0 and started coding. I am now looking
VB.NET Express Edition and I find I can no longer do this very easily. I
find that there is too much copy and paste of code in order to get an app
running. I also find it slow. Is it me or I am missing something? Here
is
a sample of my coding which you could find at:

http://www.amtekcenter.com/amtek/wdwscode.htm

P.S.: Do I have to change my style of coding? Can I code the same way in
VB.NET?

Thanks!


Nov 21 '05 #10

P: n/a
What has remained is that it is a verbose language as contrasted to any
flavor of C. But the reality is that VB.Net is much closer to C# than it
is -- or ever will be -- to VB classic (close enough that the translation
can be codified, as contrasted to VB). It's quite a stretch to say that
simply because you can still write "If.Then.Else and "Select Case" then
there is a direct correlation to VB6. Based on the discussions I've seen on
the forums the last few years, I would guess that a high percentage of VB
developers who were required to move to .Net moved to C# instead of VB.Net.

"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:uv**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
IMHO I disagree. Much of the core language syntax has remained intact.
You still loop the way you used to. You still write If..Then...Else and
Select Case statements as you used to. Variable declaration keywords and
meanings have largely stayed the same. In other words, on the surface
VB.NET does have much in common with VB 6.0. It's under the surface where
the differences become apparent. And if you were a VB 6.0 developer
looking to move to the .NET platform and MS had decided to give VB.NET
some other name, you wouldn't know what language would give you the
shortest learning curve would you?

I think the major thing here is to know that while VB 6.0 and VB.NET do
have similarities, they are not driven by the same runtimes and thus,
there are going to be profound differences in how each language is
internalized. Also, VB 6.0 being object-based and VB.NET being fully
object-oriented imply major differences.

As long as you approach VB.NET knowing that you have some re-learning to
do and not taking things for granted, you will be fine.
"Earl" <br******@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:eV**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Apparently, Microsoft choked when it came time to name their new
programming language or perhaps thought they could suck along the
"classic VB" programmers by calling it "VB.Net". It's simply a bad joke
on names and has little to do with the VB you've been coding with, so the
simple answer is yes, you have to learn a lot of new material because
there isn't much in the way of an "upgrade path". That's not to say that
"VB.Net" isn't a much better language (and has a far superior IDE),
because it is. Simply a piss-poor choice of names which will likely
result in its eventual demise due to corporations having this affinity to
avoid anything with the name "VB" in it.

"Sharrukin Amiri" <sh*******@amtekcenter.com> wrote in message
news:_p********************@news20.bellglobal.com. ..
Hello,

I am using VB 6.0 for many years. Everytime I needed to build software
applications, I just opened VB 6.0 and started coding. I am now looking
VB.NET Express Edition and I find I can no longer do this very easily.
I
find that there is too much copy and paste of code in order to get an
app
running. I also find it slow. Is it me or I am missing something?
Here is
a sample of my coding which you could find at:

http://www.amtekcenter.com/amtek/wdwscode.htm

P.S.: Do I have to change my style of coding? Can I code the same way
in
VB.NET?

Thanks!



Nov 21 '05 #11

P: n/a
Scott

For me you can give with your clarification the idea that it is better to
set everything globally, because all things that are not cleaned up, stays
in memory as long as the GC did not do its job. The OP can than think: that
because he is every time calling a method therefore use more and more memory
(That is exactly the reason why people set often things globally). Therefore
you bring in my opinion, in the way as you stated it, the OP in the wrong
direction. That was the reason that I asked you, with as goal to overcome a
long discussion, for more clarification.

Moreover, because I took some time to answer the OP. Do I not like it when
you by what you tells is clarifying, in fact can deny my message in a point
that I find important.

When you did not mean in your message to set every globally (the style the
OP is doing it now), than you did in my opinion with your clarifying in the
way you did it, now a bad job.
The OP tells us that he is new to .NET. I wanted to clarify your
statement as it is not quite correct and someone new to .NET needs to
understand how memory is managed.


In addition, when you write that I write incorrect things, than tell me
where my statement that memory "will be removed" is wrong. It did not became
clear for me in your message. The only thing you showed was, that it was not
"is direct removed"; however, that is not what I wrote. In addition to make
it more clearly, in fact it is. "It will be released."

When you really mean that setting everything global is better and therefore
my statement is incorrect, than I only can say that we disagree and don't
want to discuss that, because that has no sense for me.

Cor
Nov 21 '05 #12

P: n/a
Cor,

The short version, here and in every message of yours that I respond to, is
that I believe what I have written is clear and to the point.

In my experience, the only one who has trouble understanding what I'm saying
is you. You are consistently the only one saying that you don't understand
what I'm saying or asking for clarification. What does that tell you?

You stated something that was incorrect. I corrected you by providing a
clear explanation of what really happens. If you have trouble understanding
my meaning, you may want to consider taking more English classes.

In the last week, you have posted 3 incorrect statements (that I know of
anyway) in this and other threads. I've grown tired of having to explain to
you why your statements are wrong. The bottom line is that you need to read
and think a bit more before you post messages.

-Scott


"Cor Ligthert" <no************@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:e7**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Scott

For me you can give with your clarification the idea that it is better to
set everything globally, because all things that are not cleaned up, stays
in memory as long as the GC did not do its job. The OP can than think:
that because he is every time calling a method therefore use more and more
memory (That is exactly the reason why people set often things globally).
Therefore you bring in my opinion, in the way as you stated it, the OP in
the wrong direction. That was the reason that I asked you, with as goal
to overcome a long discussion, for more clarification.

Moreover, because I took some time to answer the OP. Do I not like it when
you by what you tells is clarifying, in fact can deny my message in a
point that I find important.

When you did not mean in your message to set every globally (the style the
OP is doing it now), than you did in my opinion with your clarifying in
the way you did it, now a bad job.
The OP tells us that he is new to .NET. I wanted to clarify your
statement as it is not quite correct and someone new to .NET needs to
understand how memory is managed.


In addition, when you write that I write incorrect things, than tell me
where my statement that memory "will be removed" is wrong. It did not
became clear for me in your message. The only thing you showed was, that
it was not "is direct removed"; however, that is not what I wrote. In
addition to make it more clearly, in fact it is. "It will be released."

When you really mean that setting everything global is better and
therefore my statement is incorrect, than I only can say that we disagree
and don't want to discuss that, because that has no sense for me.

Cor

Nov 21 '05 #13

P: n/a
All I can say to that is that your response is a textbook response of a C,
Java or C++ developer. If you were a VB developer (and by that I don't mean
someone who knows VB 6.0, I mean someone who had used VB over the years
through different versions as their primary development language) as the OP
is and I am, I belive you would take a different opinion.
"Earl" <br******@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:uG**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
What has remained is that it is a verbose language as contrasted to any
flavor of C. But the reality is that VB.Net is much closer to C# than it
is -- or ever will be -- to VB classic (close enough that the translation
can be codified, as contrasted to VB). It's quite a stretch to say that
simply because you can still write "If.Then.Else and "Select Case" then
there is a direct correlation to VB6. Based on the discussions I've seen
on the forums the last few years, I would guess that a high percentage of
VB developers who were required to move to .Net moved to C# instead of
VB.Net.

"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:uv**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
IMHO I disagree. Much of the core language syntax has remained intact.
You still loop the way you used to. You still write If..Then...Else and
Select Case statements as you used to. Variable declaration keywords and
meanings have largely stayed the same. In other words, on the surface
VB.NET does have much in common with VB 6.0. It's under the surface
where the differences become apparent. And if you were a VB 6.0
developer looking to move to the .NET platform and MS had decided to give
VB.NET some other name, you wouldn't know what language would give you
the shortest learning curve would you?

I think the major thing here is to know that while VB 6.0 and VB.NET do
have similarities, they are not driven by the same runtimes and thus,
there are going to be profound differences in how each language is
internalized. Also, VB 6.0 being object-based and VB.NET being fully
object-oriented imply major differences.

As long as you approach VB.NET knowing that you have some re-learning to
do and not taking things for granted, you will be fine.
"Earl" <br******@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:eV**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Apparently, Microsoft choked when it came time to name their new
programming language or perhaps thought they could suck along the
"classic VB" programmers by calling it "VB.Net". It's simply a bad joke
on names and has little to do with the VB you've been coding with, so
the simple answer is yes, you have to learn a lot of new material
because there isn't much in the way of an "upgrade path". That's not to
say that "VB.Net" isn't a much better language (and has a far superior
IDE), because it is. Simply a piss-poor choice of names which will
likely result in its eventual demise due to corporations having this
affinity to avoid anything with the name "VB" in it.

"Sharrukin Amiri" <sh*******@amtekcenter.com> wrote in message
news:_p********************@news20.bellglobal.com. ..
Hello,

I am using VB 6.0 for many years. Everytime I needed to build software
applications, I just opened VB 6.0 and started coding. I am now
looking
VB.NET Express Edition and I find I can no longer do this very easily.
I
find that there is too much copy and paste of code in order to get an
app
running. I also find it slow. Is it me or I am missing something?
Here is
a sample of my coding which you could find at:

http://www.amtekcenter.com/amtek/wdwscode.htm

P.S.: Do I have to change my style of coding? Can I code the same way
in
VB.NET?

Thanks!



Nov 21 '05 #14

P: n/a
Scott,

Arguing is not accusing people from what you think personally about them or
what is your personal opinion about a subject.

You are in this threads (however more times) stating irrelevant facts. I
only asked you to clarify what you did mean when you told that my statement
"When a procedure goes out of scope all values/objects that has no reference
to it or from it anymore will be destroyed". is incorrect.

My sentence tells only that this will happen in future, what is express
written like this, and not as "are destroyed." The way it happens is
irrelevant for the question from the OP, while your answer is in my opinion
much to short to give an idea about the working of the GC and only
confusing.

When you or the OP want to know something about GC, read than the GC part in
these pages. Although I don't want to advice it to the OP. It only can
confuse him, because it is in my opinion absolute irrelevant when starting
with VBNet.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/architectu...l/scalenet.asp

Or do you want to say that "will be happen" means in English that it forever
happens direct.

Than you are right and is that a by me wrong understanding of the English
language.

Cor


Nov 21 '05 #15

P: n/a
I used VB "classic" for several years, including eVB for the PPc. I know
about the same amount of C++ as I know how to play the guitar (which I gave
away from lack of use), which is to say, not much. Pretty much followed
parallel paths with VB.Net and C# the last few years, although I know VB.Net
somewhat better (due mainly to its verbosity). I enjoy working with it, but
I'm skeptical that it will survive long-term due to it being misnamed. When
the old school of business thinks of anything "VB", they think of something
that can be used to quickly prototype an app, but not build a full-fledged
system. Unfortunately, they are dead wrong -- but that's not going to
eliminate the snob factor of favoring anything with a C in its name. What
VB.Net brings to the table is a the best of VB and the best of C++. Someone
in the forums uses a signature that goes something to the effect, "Whatever
VB.Net is, it aint VB". Upon that I agree.

"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:uD****************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
All I can say to that is that your response is a textbook response of a C,
Java or C++ developer. If you were a VB developer (and by that I don't
mean someone who knows VB 6.0, I mean someone who had used VB over the
years through different versions as their primary development language) as
the OP is and I am, I belive you would take a different opinion.
"Earl" <br******@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:uG**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
What has remained is that it is a verbose language as contrasted to any
flavor of C. But the reality is that VB.Net is much closer to C# than it
is -- or ever will be -- to VB classic (close enough that the translation
can be codified, as contrasted to VB). It's quite a stretch to say that
simply because you can still write "If.Then.Else and "Select Case" then
there is a direct correlation to VB6. Based on the discussions I've seen
on the forums the last few years, I would guess that a high percentage of
VB developers who were required to move to .Net moved to C# instead of
VB.Net.

"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:uv**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
IMHO I disagree. Much of the core language syntax has remained intact.
You still loop the way you used to. You still write If..Then...Else and
Select Case statements as you used to. Variable declaration keywords
and meanings have largely stayed the same. In other words, on the
surface VB.NET does have much in common with VB 6.0. It's under the
surface where the differences become apparent. And if you were a VB 6.0
developer looking to move to the .NET platform and MS had decided to
give VB.NET some other name, you wouldn't know what language would give
you the shortest learning curve would you?

I think the major thing here is to know that while VB 6.0 and VB.NET do
have similarities, they are not driven by the same runtimes and thus,
there are going to be profound differences in how each language is
internalized. Also, VB 6.0 being object-based and VB.NET being fully
object-oriented imply major differences.

As long as you approach VB.NET knowing that you have some re-learning to
do and not taking things for granted, you will be fine.
"Earl" <br******@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:eV**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Apparently, Microsoft choked when it came time to name their new
programming language or perhaps thought they could suck along the
"classic VB" programmers by calling it "VB.Net". It's simply a bad joke
on names and has little to do with the VB you've been coding with, so
the simple answer is yes, you have to learn a lot of new material
because there isn't much in the way of an "upgrade path". That's not to
say that "VB.Net" isn't a much better language (and has a far superior
IDE), because it is. Simply a piss-poor choice of names which will
likely result in its eventual demise due to corporations having this
affinity to avoid anything with the name "VB" in it.

"Sharrukin Amiri" <sh*******@amtekcenter.com> wrote in message
news:_p********************@news20.bellglobal.com. ..
> Hello,
>
> I am using VB 6.0 for many years. Everytime I needed to build
> software
> applications, I just opened VB 6.0 and started coding. I am now
> looking
> VB.NET Express Edition and I find I can no longer do this very easily.
> I
> find that there is too much copy and paste of code in order to get an
> app
> running. I also find it slow. Is it me or I am missing something?
> Here is
> a sample of my coding which you could find at:
>
> http://www.amtekcenter.com/amtek/wdwscode.htm
>
> P.S.: Do I have to change my style of coding? Can I code the same way
> in
> VB.NET?
>
> Thanks!
>
>



Nov 21 '05 #16

P: n/a
Cor, stop rambling.

If YOU are going to present some information, YOU should present the correct
information, period. If YOU don't, I will, period.

Goodbye.
"Cor Ligthert" <no************@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:Oq****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Scott,

Arguing is not accusing people from what you think personally about them
or what is your personal opinion about a subject.

You are in this threads (however more times) stating irrelevant facts. I
only asked you to clarify what you did mean when you told that my
statement "When a procedure goes out of scope all values/objects that has
no reference to it or from it anymore will be destroyed". is incorrect.

My sentence tells only that this will happen in future, what is express
written like this, and not as "are destroyed." The way it happens is
irrelevant for the question from the OP, while your answer is in my
opinion much to short to give an idea about the working of the GC and only
confusing.

When you or the OP want to know something about GC, read than the GC part
in these pages. Although I don't want to advice it to the OP. It only can
confuse him, because it is in my opinion absolute irrelevant when starting
with VBNet.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/architectu...l/scalenet.asp

Or do you want to say that "will be happen" means in English that it
forever happens direct.

Than you are right and is that a by me wrong understanding of the English
language.

Cor

Nov 21 '05 #17

P: n/a
If some old school person is going to dismiss VB.NET, because the term VB is
in there, then they are too ignorant to expect that they would be
knowledgeable about any technology.

Being involved with .NET, you know that the language does not dictate
capabilities. It's all about the framework. Personally, I think that those
who would write off VB.NET, simply because of its name without investigating
what .NET are a small percentage of people out there.
"Earl" <br******@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:O1**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
I used VB "classic" for several years, including eVB for the PPc. I know
about the same amount of C++ as I know how to play the guitar (which I gave
away from lack of use), which is to say, not much. Pretty much followed
parallel paths with VB.Net and C# the last few years, although I know
VB.Net somewhat better (due mainly to its verbosity). I enjoy working with
it, but I'm skeptical that it will survive long-term due to it being
misnamed. When the old school of business thinks of anything "VB", they
think of something that can be used to quickly prototype an app, but not
build a full-fledged system. Unfortunately, they are dead wrong -- but
that's not going to eliminate the snob factor of favoring anything with a C
in its name. What VB.Net brings to the table is a the best of VB and the
best of C++. Someone in the forums uses a signature that goes something to
the effect, "Whatever VB.Net is, it aint VB". Upon that I agree.

"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:uD****************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
All I can say to that is that your response is a textbook response of a
C, Java or C++ developer. If you were a VB developer (and by that I
don't mean someone who knows VB 6.0, I mean someone who had used VB over
the years through different versions as their primary development
language) as the OP is and I am, I belive you would take a different
opinion.
"Earl" <br******@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:uG**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
What has remained is that it is a verbose language as contrasted to any
flavor of C. But the reality is that VB.Net is much closer to C# than it
is -- or ever will be -- to VB classic (close enough that the
translation can be codified, as contrasted to VB). It's quite a stretch
to say that simply because you can still write "If.Then.Else and "Select
Case" then there is a direct correlation to VB6. Based on the
discussions I've seen on the forums the last few years, I would guess
that a high percentage of VB developers who were required to move to
.Net moved to C# instead of VB.Net.

"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:uv**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
IMHO I disagree. Much of the core language syntax has remained intact.
You still loop the way you used to. You still write If..Then...Else
and Select Case statements as you used to. Variable declaration
keywords and meanings have largely stayed the same. In other words, on
the surface VB.NET does have much in common with VB 6.0. It's under
the surface where the differences become apparent. And if you were a
VB 6.0 developer looking to move to the .NET platform and MS had
decided to give VB.NET some other name, you wouldn't know what language
would give you the shortest learning curve would you?

I think the major thing here is to know that while VB 6.0 and VB.NET do
have similarities, they are not driven by the same runtimes and thus,
there are going to be profound differences in how each language is
internalized. Also, VB 6.0 being object-based and VB.NET being fully
object-oriented imply major differences.

As long as you approach VB.NET knowing that you have some re-learning
to do and not taking things for granted, you will be fine.
"Earl" <br******@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:eV**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Apparently, Microsoft choked when it came time to name their new
> programming language or perhaps thought they could suck along the
> "classic VB" programmers by calling it "VB.Net". It's simply a bad
> joke on names and has little to do with the VB you've been coding
> with, so the simple answer is yes, you have to learn a lot of new
> material because there isn't much in the way of an "upgrade path".
> That's not to say that "VB.Net" isn't a much better language (and has
> a far superior IDE), because it is. Simply a piss-poor choice of names
> which will likely result in its eventual demise due to corporations
> having this affinity to avoid anything with the name "VB" in it.
>
> "Sharrukin Amiri" <sh*******@amtekcenter.com> wrote in message
> news:_p********************@news20.bellglobal.com. ..
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am using VB 6.0 for many years. Everytime I needed to build
>> software
>> applications, I just opened VB 6.0 and started coding. I am now
>> looking
>> VB.NET Express Edition and I find I can no longer do this very
>> easily. I
>> find that there is too much copy and paste of code in order to get an
>> app
>> running. I also find it slow. Is it me or I am missing something?
>> Here is
>> a sample of my coding which you could find at:
>>
>> http://www.amtekcenter.com/amtek/wdwscode.htm
>>
>> P.S.: Do I have to change my style of coding? Can I code the same
>> way in
>> VB.NET?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>
>



Nov 21 '05 #18

P: n/a
What is the percentage of vb6.0 developers compare to vb dot net developers?
and how many people write OOP programming?

"Cor Ligthert" <no************@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:eR**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Sharrukin,

I would only lightly change your style of coding. Basically it is not wrong, however what you use is very much from the past. It looks now because of the used methods as not very much evaluated very old Basic. While as far as I
can see your program flow, what is in my opinion more important, does not
look wrong.

Seven advices that I surely would do (not based on VBNet Express 2005
however on VBNet programming in general)

1.
Don't set all your values and objects global at the start, however try as
much to declare them in the procedures/methods where needed. The way you do it now cost more memory and much more work to keep track of the used
values/objects for yourself.

When a procedure goes out of scope all values/objects that has no reference to it or from it anymore will be destroyed. This is one of the basics of
OOP. It cost more overhead, however is a general accepted effect from OOP
that because of processor speed has to be negate.

2.
Don't use the On Error however the Try Catch. That gives you a nicer program flow and shows better what you are doing.

3.
Don't use the very classic things as Po$. Just have a look at the website
MSDN.Microsoft.Com in samples how this is done.

4.
Try to use in Net inbuilt classes as by instance globalization. There are it seems endless much and even when you are longtimes busy with it, you have
the change to see tomorrow one you never had seen. This makes your live
easier

5
Don't use the Call, that is not needed anymore

6.
Delete all code that is not needed anymore and you have now marked with as
comment. This is a very old not anymore done habit, it confuses to much and makes your program not better readable.

7.
Mostly is in my opinion now used camel case notations, and not the
underscore. However that is a mater of preference.

I hope this helps,

Cor

Nov 21 '05 #19

P: n/a
What is the percentage of vb6.0 developers compare to vb dot net developers?
and how many people write OOP programming?
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:ub**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
If some old school person is going to dismiss VB.NET, because the term VB is in there, then they are too ignorant to expect that they would be
knowledgeable about any technology.

Being involved with .NET, you know that the language does not dictate
capabilities. It's all about the framework. Personally, I think that those who would write off VB.NET, simply because of its name without investigating what .NET are a small percentage of people out there.
"Earl" <br******@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:O1**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
I used VB "classic" for several years, including eVB for the PPc. I know
about the same amount of C++ as I know how to play the guitar (which I gaveaway from lack of use), which is to say, not much. Pretty much followed
parallel paths with VB.Net and C# the last few years, although I know
VB.Net somewhat better (due mainly to its verbosity). I enjoy working withit, but I'm skeptical that it will survive long-term due to it being
misnamed. When the old school of business thinks of anything "VB", they
think of something that can be used to quickly prototype an app, but not
build a full-fledged system. Unfortunately, they are dead wrong -- but
that's not going to eliminate the snob factor of favoring anything with a Cin its name. What VB.Net brings to the table is a the best of VB and the
best of C++. Someone in the forums uses a signature that goes something tothe effect, "Whatever VB.Net is, it aint VB". Upon that I agree.

"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:uD****************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
All I can say to that is that your response is a textbook response of a
C, Java or C++ developer. If you were a VB developer (and by that I
don't mean someone who knows VB 6.0, I mean someone who had used VB over the years through different versions as their primary development
language) as the OP is and I am, I belive you would take a different
opinion.
"Earl" <br******@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:uG**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
What has remained is that it is a verbose language as contrasted to any flavor of C. But the reality is that VB.Net is much closer to C# than it is -- or ever will be -- to VB classic (close enough that the
translation can be codified, as contrasted to VB). It's quite a stretch to say that simply because you can still write "If.Then.Else and "Select Case" then there is a direct correlation to VB6. Based on the
discussions I've seen on the forums the last few years, I would guess
that a high percentage of VB developers who were required to move to
.Net moved to C# instead of VB.Net.

"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:uv**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> IMHO I disagree. Much of the core language syntax has remained intact.> You still loop the way you used to. You still write If..Then...Else
> and Select Case statements as you used to. Variable declaration
> keywords and meanings have largely stayed the same. In other words, on> the surface VB.NET does have much in common with VB 6.0. It's under
> the surface where the differences become apparent. And if you were a
> VB 6.0 developer looking to move to the .NET platform and MS had
> decided to give VB.NET some other name, you wouldn't know what language> would give you the shortest learning curve would you?
>
> I think the major thing here is to know that while VB 6.0 and VB.NET do> have similarities, they are not driven by the same runtimes and thus, there are going to be profound differences in how each language is
> internalized. Also, VB 6.0 being object-based and VB.NET being fully
> object-oriented imply major differences.
>
> As long as you approach VB.NET knowing that you have some re-learning
> to do and not taking things for granted, you will be fine.
>
>
> "Earl" <br******@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
> news:eV**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> Apparently, Microsoft choked when it came time to name their new
>> programming language or perhaps thought they could suck along the
>> "classic VB" programmers by calling it "VB.Net". It's simply a bad
>> joke on names and has little to do with the VB you've been coding
>> with, so the simple answer is yes, you have to learn a lot of new
>> material because there isn't much in the way of an "upgrade path".
>> That's not to say that "VB.Net" isn't a much better language (and has>> a far superior IDE), because it is. Simply a piss-poor choice of names>> which will likely result in its eventual demise due to corporations
>> having this affinity to avoid anything with the name "VB" in it.
>>
>> "Sharrukin Amiri" <sh*******@amtekcenter.com> wrote in message
>> news:_p********************@news20.bellglobal.com. ..
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I am using VB 6.0 for many years. Everytime I needed to build
>>> software
>>> applications, I just opened VB 6.0 and started coding. I am now
>>> looking
>>> VB.NET Express Edition and I find I can no longer do this very
>>> easily. I
>>> find that there is too much copy and paste of code in order to get an>>> app
>>> running. I also find it slow. Is it me or I am missing something?
>>> Here is
>>> a sample of my coding which you could find at:
>>>
>>> http://www.amtekcenter.com/amtek/wdwscode.htm
>>>
>>> P.S.: Do I have to change my style of coding? Can I code the same
>>> way in
>>> VB.NET?
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>



Nov 21 '05 #20

P: n/a
"Sharrukin Amiri" <sh*******@amtekcenter.com> schrieb:
What is the percentage of vb6.0 developers compare to vb dot net
developers?
and how many people write OOP programming?


<URL:http://classicvb.org/>
-> "Adoption / Migration"

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

Nov 21 '05 #21

P: n/a
Cor,

"Cor Ligthert" <no************@planet.nl> schrieb:
5
Don't use the Call, that is not needed anymore


Huh?!

\\\
Call (New Foo()).Bar()
///

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>
Nov 21 '05 #22

P: n/a
Hefried,

Thanks for this one, because I was searching some days ago for it and never
thought about it.

I used this one.
dim a as new .................................................. ...

However Sharrukin is using the Call for every method that he uses.

See my message to Sharrukim as to a beginner in VBNet.

In my opinion has in learningtime not everything to be exactly true.

As by instance you had asked it, than it would have had another content.

:-)

Cor
Nov 21 '05 #23

P: n/a
I don't know that there is a reliable statistic on this available.

In my personal experience, I would say that 90+% of VB 6.0
developers/development has been migrated to VB.NET.

As for OOP, that's a different question. Since Java, C, C++, C#, J#, VB.NET
and other languages are all object-oriented, I think that OOP programming
represents quite a large chunk of the development happening today.

"Sharrukin Amiri" <sh*******@amtekcenter.com> wrote in message
news:kX*******************@news20.bellglobal.com.. .
What is the percentage of vb6.0 developers compare to vb dot net
developers?
and how many people write OOP programming?
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:ub**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
If some old school person is going to dismiss VB.NET, because the term VB

is
in there, then they are too ignorant to expect that they would be
knowledgeable about any technology.

Being involved with .NET, you know that the language does not dictate
capabilities. It's all about the framework. Personally, I think that

those
who would write off VB.NET, simply because of its name without

investigating
what .NET are a small percentage of people out there.
"Earl" <br******@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:O1**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>I used VB "classic" for several years, including eVB for the PPc. I know
>about the same amount of C++ as I know how to play the guitar (which I gave >away from lack of use), which is to say, not much. Pretty much followed
>parallel paths with VB.Net and C# the last few years, although I know
>VB.Net somewhat better (due mainly to its verbosity). I enjoy working with >it, but I'm skeptical that it will survive long-term due to it being
>misnamed. When the old school of business thinks of anything "VB", they
>think of something that can be used to quickly prototype an app, but not
>build a full-fledged system. Unfortunately, they are dead wrong -- but
>that's not going to eliminate the snob factor of favoring anything with
>a C >in its name. What VB.Net brings to the table is a the best of VB and the
>best of C++. Someone in the forums uses a signature that goes something to >the effect, "Whatever VB.Net is, it aint VB". Upon that I agree.
>
> "Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
> news:uD****************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> All I can say to that is that your response is a textbook response of
>> a
>> C, Java or C++ developer. If you were a VB developer (and by that I
>> don't mean someone who knows VB 6.0, I mean someone who had used VB over >> the years through different versions as their primary development
>> language) as the OP is and I am, I belive you would take a different
>> opinion.
>>
>>
>> "Earl" <br******@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
>> news:uG**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>> What has remained is that it is a verbose language as contrasted to any >>> flavor of C. But the reality is that VB.Net is much closer to C# than it >>> is -- or ever will be -- to VB classic (close enough that the
>>> translation can be codified, as contrasted to VB). It's quite a stretch >>> to say that simply because you can still write "If.Then.Else and "Select >>> Case" then there is a direct correlation to VB6. Based on the
>>> discussions I've seen on the forums the last few years, I would guess
>>> that a high percentage of VB developers who were required to move to
>>> .Net moved to C# instead of VB.Net.
>>>
>>> "Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
>>> news:uv**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>>> IMHO I disagree. Much of the core language syntax has remained intact. >>>> You still loop the way you used to. You still write If..Then...Else
>>>> and Select Case statements as you used to. Variable declaration
>>>> keywords and meanings have largely stayed the same. In other words, on >>>> the surface VB.NET does have much in common with VB 6.0. It's under
>>>> the surface where the differences become apparent. And if you were
>>>> a
>>>> VB 6.0 developer looking to move to the .NET platform and MS had
>>>> decided to give VB.NET some other name, you wouldn't know what language >>>> would give you the shortest learning curve would you?
>>>>
>>>> I think the major thing here is to know that while VB 6.0 and VB.NET do >>>> have similarities, they are not driven by the same runtimes and
>>>> thus, >>>> there are going to be profound differences in how each language is
>>>> internalized. Also, VB 6.0 being object-based and VB.NET being fully
>>>> object-oriented imply major differences.
>>>>
>>>> As long as you approach VB.NET knowing that you have some
>>>> re-learning
>>>> to do and not taking things for granted, you will be fine.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Earl" <br******@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
>>>> news:eV**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Apparently, Microsoft choked when it came time to name their new
>>>>> programming language or perhaps thought they could suck along the
>>>>> "classic VB" programmers by calling it "VB.Net". It's simply a bad
>>>>> joke on names and has little to do with the VB you've been coding
>>>>> with, so the simple answer is yes, you have to learn a lot of new
>>>>> material because there isn't much in the way of an "upgrade path".
>>>>> That's not to say that "VB.Net" isn't a much better language (and has >>>>> a far superior IDE), because it is. Simply a piss-poor choice of names >>>>> which will likely result in its eventual demise due to corporations
>>>>> having this affinity to avoid anything with the name "VB" in it.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Sharrukin Amiri" <sh*******@amtekcenter.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:_p********************@news20.bellglobal.com. ..
>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am using VB 6.0 for many years. Everytime I needed to build
>>>>>> software
>>>>>> applications, I just opened VB 6.0 and started coding. I am now
>>>>>> looking
>>>>>> VB.NET Express Edition and I find I can no longer do this very
>>>>>> easily. I
>>>>>> find that there is too much copy and paste of code in order to get an >>>>>> app
>>>>>> running. I also find it slow. Is it me or I am missing
>>>>>> something?
>>>>>> Here is
>>>>>> a sample of my coding which you could find at:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.amtekcenter.com/amtek/wdwscode.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P.S.: Do I have to change my style of coding? Can I code the same
>>>>>> way in
>>>>>> VB.NET?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>



Nov 21 '05 #24

P: n/a
From the Information Week article,

"In a survey of more than 400 developers in October, market researcher Evans
Data Corp. found that North American developers use VB6 and earlier versions
of the language more than VB .Net, 45 percent to 34 percent, respectively.
In Europe, Middle East and Africa, however, Visual Basic use as a whole has
lost 25 percent of its developer base since 2003. Use of VB .Net, on the
other hand, has grown to 32 percent of EMEA developers today from 16 percent
in the fall of 2002.

Several million professional developers worldwide still program in VB,
experts say."

"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
I don't know that there is a reliable statistic on this available.

In my personal experience, I would say that 90+% of VB 6.0
developers/development has been migrated to VB.NET.

As for OOP, that's a different question. Since Java, C, C++, C#, J#,
VB.NET and other languages are all object-oriented, I think that OOP
programming represents quite a large chunk of the development happening
today.

"Sharrukin Amiri" <sh*******@amtekcenter.com> wrote in message
news:kX*******************@news20.bellglobal.com.. .
What is the percentage of vb6.0 developers compare to vb dot net
developers?
and how many people write OOP programming?
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:ub**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
If some old school person is going to dismiss VB.NET, because the term
VB

is
in there, then they are too ignorant to expect that they would be
knowledgeable about any technology.

Being involved with .NET, you know that the language does not dictate
capabilities. It's all about the framework. Personally, I think that

those
who would write off VB.NET, simply because of its name without

investigating
what .NET are a small percentage of people out there.
"Earl" <br******@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:O1**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>I used VB "classic" for several years, including eVB for the PPc. I
>know
>about the same amount of C++ as I know how to play the guitar (which I

gave
>away from lack of use), which is to say, not much. Pretty much followed
>parallel paths with VB.Net and C# the last few years, although I know
>VB.Net somewhat better (due mainly to its verbosity). I enjoy working

with
>it, but I'm skeptical that it will survive long-term due to it being
>misnamed. When the old school of business thinks of anything "VB", they
>think of something that can be used to quickly prototype an app, but
>not
>build a full-fledged system. Unfortunately, they are dead wrong -- but
>that's not going to eliminate the snob factor of favoring anything with
>a

C
>in its name. What VB.Net brings to the table is a the best of VB and
>the
>best of C++. Someone in the forums uses a signature that goes something

to
>the effect, "Whatever VB.Net is, it aint VB". Upon that I agree.
>
> "Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
> news:uD****************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> All I can say to that is that your response is a textbook response of
>> a
>> C, Java or C++ developer. If you were a VB developer (and by that I
>> don't mean someone who knows VB 6.0, I mean someone who had used VB

over
>> the years through different versions as their primary development
>> language) as the OP is and I am, I belive you would take a different
>> opinion.
>>
>>
>> "Earl" <br******@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
>> news:uG**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>> What has remained is that it is a verbose language as contrasted to

any
>>> flavor of C. But the reality is that VB.Net is much closer to C#
>>> than

it
>>> is -- or ever will be -- to VB classic (close enough that the
>>> translation can be codified, as contrasted to VB). It's quite a

stretch
>>> to say that simply because you can still write "If.Then.Else and

"Select
>>> Case" then there is a direct correlation to VB6. Based on the
>>> discussions I've seen on the forums the last few years, I would
>>> guess
>>> that a high percentage of VB developers who were required to move to
>>> .Net moved to C# instead of VB.Net.
>>>
>>> "Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
>>> news:uv**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>>> IMHO I disagree. Much of the core language syntax has remained

intact.
>>>> You still loop the way you used to. You still write
>>>> If..Then...Else
>>>> and Select Case statements as you used to. Variable declaration
>>>> keywords and meanings have largely stayed the same. In other
>>>> words,

on
>>>> the surface VB.NET does have much in common with VB 6.0. It's
>>>> under
>>>> the surface where the differences become apparent. And if you were
>>>> a
>>>> VB 6.0 developer looking to move to the .NET platform and MS had
>>>> decided to give VB.NET some other name, you wouldn't know what

language
>>>> would give you the shortest learning curve would you?
>>>>
>>>> I think the major thing here is to know that while VB 6.0 and
>>>> VB.NET

do
>>>> have similarities, they are not driven by the same runtimes and
>>>> thus,

>>>> there are going to be profound differences in how each language is
>>>> internalized. Also, VB 6.0 being object-based and VB.NET being
>>>> fully
>>>> object-oriented imply major differences.
>>>>
>>>> As long as you approach VB.NET knowing that you have some
>>>> re-learning
>>>> to do and not taking things for granted, you will be fine.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Earl" <br******@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
>>>> news:eV**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Apparently, Microsoft choked when it came time to name their new
>>>>> programming language or perhaps thought they could suck along the
>>>>> "classic VB" programmers by calling it "VB.Net". It's simply a bad
>>>>> joke on names and has little to do with the VB you've been coding
>>>>> with, so the simple answer is yes, you have to learn a lot of new
>>>>> material because there isn't much in the way of an "upgrade path".
>>>>> That's not to say that "VB.Net" isn't a much better language (and

has
>>>>> a far superior IDE), because it is. Simply a piss-poor choice of

names
>>>>> which will likely result in its eventual demise due to
>>>>> corporations
>>>>> having this affinity to avoid anything with the name "VB" in it.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Sharrukin Amiri" <sh*******@amtekcenter.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:_p********************@news20.bellglobal.com. ..
>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am using VB 6.0 for many years. Everytime I needed to build
>>>>>> software
>>>>>> applications, I just opened VB 6.0 and started coding. I am now
>>>>>> looking
>>>>>> VB.NET Express Edition and I find I can no longer do this very
>>>>>> easily. I
>>>>>> find that there is too much copy and paste of code in order to
>>>>>> get

an
>>>>>> app
>>>>>> running. I also find it slow. Is it me or I am missing
>>>>>> something?
>>>>>> Here is
>>>>>> a sample of my coding which you could find at:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.amtekcenter.com/amtek/wdwscode.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P.S.: Do I have to change my style of coding? Can I code the
>>>>>> same
>>>>>> way in
>>>>>> VB.NET?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>



Nov 21 '05 #25

P: n/a
Hmmm, 400 surveyed out of millions. I'm not sure that's a reliable stat.
But, on the other hand. MS will stop its support for Visual Studio 6.0 (that
means VB 6) this summer. It may just be that many VB 6.0 shops were waiting
until they had to switch before taking the plunge.
"Earl" <br******@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:OT****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
From the Information Week article,

"In a survey of more than 400 developers in October, market researcher
Evans Data Corp. found that North American developers use VB6 and earlier
versions of the language more than VB .Net, 45 percent to 34 percent,
respectively.
In Europe, Middle East and Africa, however, Visual Basic use as a whole
has lost 25 percent of its developer base since 2003. Use of VB .Net, on
the other hand, has grown to 32 percent of EMEA developers today from 16
percent in the fall of 2002.

Several million professional developers worldwide still program in VB,
experts say."

"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
I don't know that there is a reliable statistic on this available.

In my personal experience, I would say that 90+% of VB 6.0
developers/development has been migrated to VB.NET.

As for OOP, that's a different question. Since Java, C, C++, C#, J#,
VB.NET and other languages are all object-oriented, I think that OOP
programming represents quite a large chunk of the development happening
today.

"Sharrukin Amiri" <sh*******@amtekcenter.com> wrote in message
news:kX*******************@news20.bellglobal.com.. .
What is the percentage of vb6.0 developers compare to vb dot net
developers?
and how many people write OOP programming?
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:ub**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
If some old school person is going to dismiss VB.NET, because the term
VB
is
in there, then they are too ignorant to expect that they would be
knowledgeable about any technology.

Being involved with .NET, you know that the language does not dictate
capabilities. It's all about the framework. Personally, I think that
those
who would write off VB.NET, simply because of its name without
investigating
what .NET are a small percentage of people out there.
"Earl" <br******@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:O1**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>I used VB "classic" for several years, including eVB for the PPc. I
>know
>about the same amount of C++ as I know how to play the guitar (which I
gave
>away from lack of use), which is to say, not much. Pretty much
>followed
>parallel paths with VB.Net and C# the last few years, although I know
>VB.Net somewhat better (due mainly to its verbosity). I enjoy working
with
>it, but I'm skeptical that it will survive long-term due to it being
>misnamed. When the old school of business thinks of anything "VB",
>they
>think of something that can be used to quickly prototype an app, but
>not
>build a full-fledged system. Unfortunately, they are dead wrong -- but
>that's not going to eliminate the snob factor of favoring anything
>with a
C
>in its name. What VB.Net brings to the table is a the best of VB and
>the
>best of C++. Someone in the forums uses a signature that goes
>something
to
>the effect, "Whatever VB.Net is, it aint VB". Upon that I agree.
>
> "Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
> news:uD****************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> All I can say to that is that your response is a textbook response
>> of a
>> C, Java or C++ developer. If you were a VB developer (and by that I
>> don't mean someone who knows VB 6.0, I mean someone who had used VB
over
>> the years through different versions as their primary development
>> language) as the OP is and I am, I belive you would take a different
>> opinion.
>>
>>
>> "Earl" <br******@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
>> news:uG**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>> What has remained is that it is a verbose language as contrasted to
any
>>> flavor of C. But the reality is that VB.Net is much closer to C#
>>> than
it
>>> is -- or ever will be -- to VB classic (close enough that the
>>> translation can be codified, as contrasted to VB). It's quite a
stretch
>>> to say that simply because you can still write "If.Then.Else and
"Select
>>> Case" then there is a direct correlation to VB6. Based on the
>>> discussions I've seen on the forums the last few years, I would
>>> guess
>>> that a high percentage of VB developers who were required to move
>>> to
>>> .Net moved to C# instead of VB.Net.
>>>
>>> "Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
>>> news:uv**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>>> IMHO I disagree. Much of the core language syntax has remained
intact.
>>>> You still loop the way you used to. You still write
>>>> If..Then...Else
>>>> and Select Case statements as you used to. Variable declaration
>>>> keywords and meanings have largely stayed the same. In other
>>>> words,
on
>>>> the surface VB.NET does have much in common with VB 6.0. It's
>>>> under
>>>> the surface where the differences become apparent. And if you
>>>> were a
>>>> VB 6.0 developer looking to move to the .NET platform and MS had
>>>> decided to give VB.NET some other name, you wouldn't know what
language
>>>> would give you the shortest learning curve would you?
>>>>
>>>> I think the major thing here is to know that while VB 6.0 and
>>>> VB.NET
do
>>>> have similarities, they are not driven by the same runtimes and
>>>> thus,

>>>> there are going to be profound differences in how each language is
>>>> internalized. Also, VB 6.0 being object-based and VB.NET being
>>>> fully
>>>> object-oriented imply major differences.
>>>>
>>>> As long as you approach VB.NET knowing that you have some
>>>> re-learning
>>>> to do and not taking things for granted, you will be fine.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Earl" <br******@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
>>>> news:eV**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Apparently, Microsoft choked when it came time to name their new
>>>>> programming language or perhaps thought they could suck along the
>>>>> "classic VB" programmers by calling it "VB.Net". It's simply a
>>>>> bad
>>>>> joke on names and has little to do with the VB you've been coding
>>>>> with, so the simple answer is yes, you have to learn a lot of new
>>>>> material because there isn't much in the way of an "upgrade
>>>>> path".
>>>>> That's not to say that "VB.Net" isn't a much better language (and
has
>>>>> a far superior IDE), because it is. Simply a piss-poor choice of
names
>>>>> which will likely result in its eventual demise due to
>>>>> corporations
>>>>> having this affinity to avoid anything with the name "VB" in it.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Sharrukin Amiri" <sh*******@amtekcenter.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:_p********************@news20.bellglobal.com. ..
>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am using VB 6.0 for many years. Everytime I needed to build
>>>>>> software
>>>>>> applications, I just opened VB 6.0 and started coding. I am now
>>>>>> looking
>>>>>> VB.NET Express Edition and I find I can no longer do this very
>>>>>> easily. I
>>>>>> find that there is too much copy and paste of code in order to
>>>>>> get
an
>>>>>> app
>>>>>> running. I also find it slow. Is it me or I am missing
>>>>>> something?
>>>>>> Here is
>>>>>> a sample of my coding which you could find at:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.amtekcenter.com/amtek/wdwscode.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P.S.: Do I have to change my style of coding? Can I code the
>>>>>> same
>>>>>> way in
>>>>>> VB.NET?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>



Nov 21 '05 #26

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.