By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
435,241 Members | 733 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 435,241 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Is Visual Basic 2005 just another term for VB.NET?

P: n/a
I have seen the terms Visual Basic 2005 and VB.NET. It seems that sometimes
they seem to be referring to the same thing but sometimes they are not. I
also run into terms like VB9 and VB10.
Jun 28 '07 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
11 Replies


P: n/a
I have seen the terms Visual Basic 2005 and VB.NET. It seems that
sometimes they seem to be referring to the same thing but sometimes
they are not. I also run into terms like VB9 and VB10.
VB.Net is the general term for any version of the VB.net language after Vb
7.0.

Varoius versions of VB are suited to particular versions of Visual studio(
although you do not need VS to compile the code)

VB2002 has VB7.0
VB2003 has VB7.1
VB2005 has VB8.0
VB2008 has VB9.0 but is not out yet but in beta(codenamed Orcas)
VB20?? = VB10.0 = Future some time.

I hope this Helps
--
Rory
Jun 28 '07 #2

P: n/a
Hi Rory,

Thanks for the reply. If you can look at this link
http://www.appdev.com/visual_basic_training.asp,

why do VB2005 and VB.NET are separated? It seems they are different.
Peter

"Rory Becker" wrote:
I have seen the terms Visual Basic 2005 and VB.NET. It seems that
sometimes they seem to be referring to the same thing but sometimes
they are not. I also run into terms like VB9 and VB10.

VB.Net is the general term for any version of the VB.net language after Vb
7.0.

Varoius versions of VB are suited to particular versions of Visual studio(
although you do not need VS to compile the code)

VB2002 has VB7.0
VB2003 has VB7.1
VB2005 has VB8.0
VB2008 has VB9.0 but is not out yet but in beta(codenamed Orcas)
VB20?? = VB10.0 = Future some time.

I hope this Helps
--
Rory
Jun 28 '07 #3

P: n/a
Officially, "VB.NET" only refers to the 2002 and 2003 releases of Visual
Basic. Visual Basic 2005 does away with the ".NET" extension as part of the
name.

-----
Tim Patrick - www.timaki.com
Start-to-Finish Visual Basic 2005
I have seen the terms Visual Basic 2005 and VB.NET. It seems that
sometimes they seem to be referring to the same thing but sometimes
they are not. I also run into terms like VB9 and VB10.

Jun 28 '07 #4

P: n/a
Officially, "VB.NET" only refers to the 2002 and 2003 releases of
Visual Basic. Visual Basic 2005 does away with the ".NET" extension as
part of the name.
Entirely true.

Those marketing guys just can't stop playing with anything.

I guess it helps them feel like they're doing something useful.

I wonder if they're the same people who thought up...

....WPF instead of Avalon...
....WCF instead of Indigo...

I forget the others :)

--
Rory

Jun 28 '07 #5

P: n/a
=?Utf-8?B?UGV0ZXI=?= <Pe***@discussions.microsoft.comwrote in
news:68**********************************@microsof t.com:
Thanks for the reply. If you can look at this link
http://www.appdev.com/visual_basic_training.asp,

why do VB2005 and VB.NET are separated? It seems they are different.
Good Q - no idea why...
Jun 28 '07 #6

P: n/a
Rory Becker <Ro********@newsgroup.nospamwrote in
news:b0**************************@msnews.microsoft .com:
VB.Net is the general term for any version of the VB.net language
after Vb 7.0.
VB7 is VB.NET 1.0 which is VB 2002?

I've always called VB 2002 VB.NET...
Jun 28 '07 #7

P: n/a
Thanks Rory and Tim. I think even though Visual Basic 2005 is the offiical
name, VB.NET is commonly used for Visual Basic 2005 in many places and
probably including MS website. This makes it very hard to find information
which applies to Visual Basic 2005 (the current version of Visual Basic
included in the Visual Studio 2005).

Peter

"Rory Becker" wrote:
Officially, "VB.NET" only refers to the 2002 and 2003 releases of
Visual Basic. Visual Basic 2005 does away with the ".NET" extension as
part of the name.

Entirely true.

Those marketing guys just can't stop playing with anything.

I guess it helps them feel like they're doing something useful.

I wonder if they're the same people who thought up...

....WPF instead of Avalon...
....WCF instead of Indigo...

I forget the others :)

--
Rory

Jun 28 '07 #8

P: n/a
Peter wrote:
why do VB2005 and VB.NET are separated? It seems they are different.
The ".Net" moniker is "old-news" and Our Friends in Redmond want to
charge blindly onwards towards the Next Big Thing.

They've simply dropped the ".Net" term from the product name but it's
all built on top of the CLR, so it's still ".Net".

HTH,
Phill W.
Jul 2 '07 #9

P: n/a
On Jun 28, 3:39 pm, Rory Becker <RoryBec...@newsgroup.nospamwrote:
I have seen the terms Visual Basic 2005 and VB.NET. It seems that
sometimes they seem to be referring to the same thing but sometimes
they are not. I also run into terms like VB9 and VB10.

VB.Net is the general term for any version of the VB.net language after Vb
7.0.

Varoius versions of VB are suited to particular versions of Visual studio(
although you do not need VS to compile the code)

VB2002 has VB7.0
VB2003 has VB7.1
VB2005 has VB8.0
VB2008 has VB9.0 but is not out yet but in beta(codenamed Orcas)
VB20?? = VB10.0 = Future some time.

I hope this Helps
--
Rory
VB.Net is the general term for any version of the VB.net language after Vb
7.0.
I think you mean "after Vb 6.0"?

I (perhaps incorrectly) have always split the Visual Basic language
into two groups - Visual Basic Classic and Visual Basic .Net. In those
two groups I use the version number to distinguish between them -
versions 6.0 and lower are classic vb, 2002, 2003, 2005 are Visual
Basic .Net. Generally I try to avoid using VB7, VB8, and VB9 to refer
to the .Net versions as it seems to say that the .Net versions are
just an extension to classic Vb, and not an (almost) completely new
language.

Just my two cents...

Thanks,

Seth Rowe

Jul 2 '07 #10

P: n/a
>VB.Net is the general term for any version of the VB.net language
>after Vb 7.0.
I think you mean "after Vb 6.0"?
Oops :)

Yup absolutely

--
Rory
Jul 2 '07 #11

P: n/a
For those that are interested, the releases (RTM) of the .NET flavours of
Visual Studio (and therefore it's components) went as follows:

Visual Studio.NET - circa 2002 - .NET Framework 1.0 - Included VB.NET
(7.0)

Visual Studio 2003 - circa 2003 - .NET Framework 1.1 - Included VB 2003
(7.1)

Visual Studio 2005 - 7 November 2005 - .NET Framework 2.0 - Included VB
2005 (8.0)

It is clear that the naming convention for each version of the VB product
tallies with the name of it's parent product (group) and this, in my mind at
least, avoids any confusion.

The same naming convention held true pre .NET.
"rowe_newsgroups" <ro********@yahoo.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@k79g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...
On Jun 28, 3:39 pm, Rory Becker <RoryBec...@newsgroup.nospamwrote:
I have seen the terms Visual Basic 2005 and VB.NET. It seems that
sometimes they seem to be referring to the same thing but sometimes
they are not. I also run into terms like VB9 and VB10.

VB.Net is the general term for any version of the VB.net language after
Vb
7.0.

Varoius versions of VB are suited to particular versions of Visual
studio(
although you do not need VS to compile the code)

VB2002 has VB7.0
VB2003 has VB7.1
VB2005 has VB8.0
VB2008 has VB9.0 but is not out yet but in beta(codenamed Orcas)
VB20?? = VB10.0 = Future some time.

I hope this Helps
--
Rory

>VB.Net is the general term for any version of the VB.net language after
Vb
7.0.

I think you mean "after Vb 6.0"?

I (perhaps incorrectly) have always split the Visual Basic language
into two groups - Visual Basic Classic and Visual Basic .Net. In those
two groups I use the version number to distinguish between them -
versions 6.0 and lower are classic vb, 2002, 2003, 2005 are Visual
Basic .Net. Generally I try to avoid using VB7, VB8, and VB9 to refer
to the .Net versions as it seems to say that the .Net versions are
just an extension to classic Vb, and not an (almost) completely new
language.

Just my two cents...

Thanks,

Seth Rowe
Jul 2 '07 #12

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.