By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
457,633 Members | 1,394 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 457,633 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

speed issues

P: n/a
I'm trying to decide whether or not I need to move to a different
development tool and I'm told that VB6 code, when well written, can be ten
times faster than vb.net, but that if its badly written it can be ten times
slower. Is that correct?

I'm quite competent at writing code myself and so most of my code will be
quite well written, and I don't want to move to vb.net if well written VB6
code is ten times faster. Have I been told the truth? Or do I need to look
into this further?

Mike
Jun 27 '08 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
47 Replies


P: n/a
Hi Mike,

Great to see you considering VB.NET. Optimized code in VB.NEt will run
much a muchness with optimized code in VB6. The questions are how hard is
that to write and maintain and do you need extra functionality. These are
the reasons you should be looking at .NET.
Note: simple apps (single tier, few components) will have a larger startup
hit in .NET compared to VB6, but once past that initial load the .NET apps
typically allocate objects more efficiently. A typical example is a long
running server app, where .NET GC management makes it very robust and
scalable.
One other reason you might want to consider .NET is for 64 bit applications.

But as to actual speed, well when all is said and done, for simple
operations they both eventually become X86 operations. I have written VB6
apps that have been faster than C++ apps, that was until they let me fix
the C++ code ;) If you have performance critical code, you can do it in
equally in VB6 or .NET.
"Mike Williams" <mi***@whiskyandCoke.comwrote in message
news:eu**************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
I'm trying to decide whether or not I need to move to a different
development tool and I'm told that VB6 code, when well written, can be ten
times faster than vb.net, but that if its badly written it can be ten
times slower. Is that correct?

I'm quite competent at writing code myself and so most of my code will be
quite well written, and I don't want to move to vb.net if well written VB6
code is ten times faster. Have I been told the truth? Or do I need to look
into this further?

Mike

Jun 27 '08 #2

P: n/a
"Bill McCarthy" <Bi**@N0SPAM.comwrote in message
news:41**********************************@microsof t.com...
Hi Mike, Great to see you considering VB.NET. Optimized
code in VB.NEt will run much a muchness with optimized
code in VB6.
Okay. Thanks Bill. So would you say that the statement "well written VB6
code can run ten times faster than vb.net" to be a perfectly valid
statement, or would you consider it to be misleading?

It's just that I've been definitely told that by someone who reckons he
knows about these things and who has written programs in both tools and I'm
wondering if he is making a deliberately misleading statement? What do you
think? And what do others here think about it? Am I being misled?

Mike

Jun 27 '08 #3

P: n/a

"Mike Williams" <mi***@whiskyandCoke.comwrote in message
news:eG**************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
"Bill McCarthy" <Bi**@N0SPAM.comwrote in message
news:41**********************************@microsof t.com...
>Hi Mike, Great to see you considering VB.NET. Optimized
code in VB.NEt will run much a muchness with optimized
code in VB6.

Okay. Thanks Bill. So would you say that the statement "well written VB6
code can run ten times faster than vb.net" to be a perfectly valid
statement,
Well written code in either VB6 or .NET can run ten times faster than badly
written code. Both offer vast areas for performance tweaking.
There's probably corners of either of them where you can tweak things in
extremes.
or would you consider it to be misleading?
I would call it misleading if someone was to report only half the story or
statements. Such as if someone said Well written code can run ten times
faster and badly written code can run ten times slower, then if someone was
to only report half that statement, then yes that would be misleading.
It's just that I've been definitely told that by someone who reckons he
knows about these things and who has written programs in both tools and
I'm wondering if he is making a deliberately misleading statement?
Really ? Sure you didn't cut what they said in half ? If I read your post
in vb.general.discussion, it seems you did. Seems to me perhaps you are
just trying to be mischievous here, no ?
>
What do you think? And what do others here think about it? Am I being
misled?
Or are you being misleading ? ;)



Jun 27 '08 #4

P: n/a
"Bill McCarthy" <Bi**@N0SPAM.comwrote in message
news:80**********************************@microsof t.com...
I would call it misleading if someone was to report
only half the story or statements. Such as if someone
said Well written code can run ten times faster and
badly written code can run ten times slower, then if
someone was to only report half that statement, then
yes that would be misleading.
Right. Thanks. Can I take it then that you consider the statement "Well
written VB6 code can be ten times faster than vb.net code", but badly
written VB6 code can be ten times slower" to be a perfectly valid statement,
and the person who stated it was almost certainly not trying to mislead me?

You'll notice that the person did /not/ say well written VB6 code can be ten
times faster than badly written vb.net code. He said "well written VB6 code
can be ten times faster than vb.net code", without specifying whether the
vb.net code he was comparing or to was well or was badly written. It seemed
to me that he was comparing well written VB6 code with vb.net code in
general, and that to produce code in VB6 which was slower than vb.net you
would have to deliberately write it badly.

So you can see how confused that statement has left me. It's just that I
need to be sure about these things before I decide whether to make the move
or not. I don't want to end up using a tool (vb.net) that produces code
which is ten times slower than well written VB6 code. But you have told me
that telling that I wasn't being misled by that statement, so I'm assuming
that I've got to be very careful here.

The man says he has used both tools and that he currently uses VB6 and that
he was telling me nothing but the truth, but others have told me that his
statement was misleading, and quite probably deliberately so. At the moment,
in view of what I have been told about well written VB6 code being ten times
faster than vb.net code (without specifying whether the vb.net code it is
being compared to was well or badly written), it appears that I might be
making a bad decision if I were to move to vb.net.

Is there anyone here who has used both VB6 and vb.net and who can tell me
whether I am safe to move, or is the statement I was given misleading?

Thanks for you responses so far.

Mike

Jun 27 '08 #5

P: n/a

"Mike Williams" <mi***@whiskyandCoke.comwrote in message
news:e1**************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
So you can see how confused that statement has left me.
No I can't. It looks to me like you are deliberately trying to twist a
statement. If someone says to me code can run ten times faster or ten times
slower, then I take that as meaning much of a muchness. But in your
statements, you quoted only the ten times faster which gives it a completely
different meaning.

Jun 27 '08 #6

P: n/a
On 2008-04-24, Mike Williams <mi***@whiskyandCoke.comwrote:
I'm trying to decide whether or not I need to move to a different
development tool and I'm told that VB6 code, when well written, can be ten
times faster than vb.net, but that if its badly written it can be ten times
slower. Is that correct?

I'm quite competent at writing code myself and so most of my code will be
quite well written, and I don't want to move to vb.net if well written VB6
code is ten times faster. Have I been told the truth? Or do I need to look
into this further?

Mike

Mike, good to see you over here! Of course, I don't believe for a
second that you have any real intention of moving anything to .NET :)
But, let me take a stab at replying to your concerns over speed...

First, I believe, that on average - given equal quality code bases,
VB6 code is going to have slight (no way do I buy into a factor of 10),
speed advantage.

That being said - there are other factors to consider that may outweigh
whatever small speed gain you may get by using VB6 over VB.NET. Isn't
it true, that for some kinds of applications that C++ is faster the VB6?
Yet, you chose VB6 over C++ as your language of choice? Why? You
couldn't have based that decision purely on the speed of execution, or
you would be writing all your code in hand optimized assembly....

That is not to imply that speed is not a factor in choosing a
development environment - of course it is, but there is a balance
between speed and developer productivity.

--
Tom Shelton
Jun 27 '08 #7

P: n/a
Is there anyone here who has used both VB6 and vb.net and who can tell me
whether I am safe to move, or is the statement I was given misleading?
It is 'safe to move'. Some things you do will run slower than you think
they should, and with experience, you will overcome these problems. A
profiler is a big time saver. The statement was misleading, and it sounds
like the speaker is not spun up on .net or maybe he has an ax to grind. I
think vb.net programs perform just fine.

Jun 27 '08 #8

P: n/a
"Tom Shelton" <to*********@YOUKNOWTHEDRILLcomcast.netwrote in message
news:OS**************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
First, I believe, that on average - given equal quality code
bases, VB6 code is going to have slight (no way do I buy
into a factor of 10), speed advantage.
So may I take it that you think the statement, "well written VB6 code can be
ten times faster than vb.net" is a misleading statement?

Mike

Jun 27 '08 #9

P: n/a
"AMercer" <AM*****@discussions.microsoft.comwrote in message
news:58**********************************@microsof t.com...
It is 'safe to move'. Some things you do will run slower than
you think they should, and with experience, you will overcome
these problems. A profiler is a big time saver. The statement
was misleading, and it sounds like the speaker is not spun up
on .net or maybe he has an ax to grind.
Thank you. In fact that's what I thought myself. The problem is that Bill
McCarthy told me that such a statement was perfectly valid and that he does
not believe it is in any way misleading and, knowing that McCarthy is a
regular contributor here, I actually believed him. Thanks for pointing out
your belief that the statement is actually misleading. At least I know now
that I can safely make the move and that Bill McCarthy is wrong. Thank you.

Mike

Jun 27 '08 #10

P: n/a
On 2008-04-24, Mike Williams <mi***@whiskyandCoke.comwrote:
"Tom Shelton" <to*********@YOUKNOWTHEDRILLcomcast.netwrote in message
news:OS**************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>First, I believe, that on average - given equal quality code
bases, VB6 code is going to have slight (no way do I buy
into a factor of 10), speed advantage.

So may I take it that you think the statement, "well written VB6 code can be
ten times faster than vb.net" is a misleading statement?
On average yes - I would say that is a misleading statement. There may
be some corner cases where this statement maybe true, but overall - it's
false.

--
Tom Shelton
Jun 27 '08 #11

P: n/a
On Apr 24, 11:53*am, "Mike Williams" <mi...@whiskyandCoke.comwrote:
I'm trying to decide whether or not I need to move to a different
development tool and I'm told that VB6 code, when well written, can be ten
times faster than vb.net, but that if its badly written it can be ten times
slower. Is that correct?

I'm quite competent at writing code myself and so most of my code will be
quite well written, and I don't want to move to vb.net if well written VB6
code is ten times faster. Have I been told the truth? Or do I need to look
into this further?

Mike
Hi Mike. I'm having a hard time buying that. In fact, I would have
thought the opposite, except not by a factor of 10. One advantage of
VB.NET over VB6 is the JIT compiler which can optimize the code for a
specific processor. That's one concrete example of how VB.NET "could"
be faster than VB6. I'll have to do some tests to see what scenarios
perform better in each language.

It sounds like you're already aware of this, but the main thing that
effects performance is the programmer. For example, there's no
language or CPU architecture that's going to keep up with a O(n^2)
algorithm when a O(n*log(n)) can do the same job. A skilled
programmer can make a VB6 program run circles around an unskilled
programers C++ equivalent.
Jun 27 '08 #12

P: n/a
On Apr 24, 3:18*pm, "Mike Williams" <mi...@whiskyandCoke.comwrote:
"Tom Shelton" <tom_shel...@YOUKNOWTHEDRILLcomcast.netwrote in message

news:OS**************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
First, I believe, that on average - given equal quality code
bases, VB6 code is going to have slight (no way do I buy
into a factor of 10), speed advantage.

So may I take it that you think the statement, "well written VB6 code can be
ten times faster than vb.net" is a misleading statement?

Mike
I think it is misleading as well.
Jun 27 '08 #13

P: n/a
On 2008-04-24, Brian Gideon <br*********@yahoo.comwrote:
On Apr 24, 11:53*am, "Mike Williams" <mi...@whiskyandCoke.comwrote:
>I'm trying to decide whether or not I need to move to a different
development tool and I'm told that VB6 code, when well written, can be ten
times faster than vb.net, but that if its badly written it can be ten times
slower. Is that correct?

I'm quite competent at writing code myself and so most of my code will be
quite well written, and I don't want to move to vb.net if well written VB6
code is ten times faster. Have I been told the truth? Or do I need to look
into this further?

Mike

Hi Mike. I'm having a hard time buying that. In fact, I would have
thought the opposite, except not by a factor of 10. One advantage of
VB.NET over VB6 is the JIT compiler which can optimize the code for a
specific processor. That's one concrete example of how VB.NET "could"
be faster than VB6. I'll have to do some tests to see what scenarios
perform better in each language.
While the JIT compiler does present an area of potential benifit on the
..NET side - there are runtime checks that offset this at least somewhat.
The runtime security involves walking the stack to make sure that any calls
(such as API calls, etc) are valid in the current security context.
This imposes some overhead.

Of course, moving forward into 64-bit land - the .NET app may have a
considerable advantage over a VB6 app. Also, with multi-core processors
becoming the norm, it's easier to take advantage of this with a .NET app.
It sounds like you're already aware of this, but the main thing that
effects performance is the programmer. For example, there's no
language or CPU architecture that's going to keep up with a O(n^2)
algorithm when a O(n*log(n)) can do the same job. A skilled
programmer can make a VB6 program run circles around an unskilled
programers C++ equivalent.
And this is defintaely true.
--
Tom Shelton
Jun 27 '08 #14

P: n/a

"AMercer" <AM*****@discussions.microsoft.comwrote in message
news:58**********************************@microsof t.com...
>Is there anyone here who has used both VB6 and vb.net and who can tell me
whether I am safe to move, or is the statement I was given misleading?

It is 'safe to move'. Some things you do will run slower than you think
they should, and with experience, you will overcome these problems. A
profiler is a big time saver. The statement was misleading, and it sounds
like the speaker is not spun up on .net or maybe he has an ax to grind. I
think vb.net programs perform just fine.
In my personal opinion, marshaling is the speed killer in vb.net.

I have a vb6 app that gets short burst's of data, repeatedly, from a USB
device. Normally a USB device is used to get large chunks of data.

In vb6 the USB dll is called directly.

I have stepped through the net code and it goes all over the place before it
actually gets to the USB dll.

Galen
Jun 27 '08 #15

P: n/a

"Mike Williams" <mi***@whiskyandCoke.comwrote in message
news:Oh**************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
"AMercer" <AM*****@discussions.microsoft.comwrote in message
news:58**********************************@microsof t.com...
>It is 'safe to move'. Some things you do will run slower than
you think they should, and with experience, you will overcome
these problems. A profiler is a big time saver. The statement
was misleading, and it sounds like the speaker is not spun up
on .net or maybe he has an ax to grind.

Thank you. In fact that's what I thought myself. The problem is that Bill
McCarthy told me that such a statement was perfectly valid and that he
does not believe it is in any way misleading and, knowing that McCarthy is
a regular contributor here, I actually believed him. Thanks for pointing
out your belief that the statement is actually misleading. At least I know
now that I can safely make the move and that Bill McCarthy is wrong. Thank
you.
Oh Mike, you're still trolling here. If you read what I said, was that I
expect VB.NET and Vb6 to be the same. You're trying to put words in my
mouth I never said. What I did say was your deliberate misquoting of
someone else, only reporting half the story is misleading.

Jun 27 '08 #16

P: n/a
On 2008-04-24, Galen Somerville <ga***@community.nospamwrote:
>
"AMercer" <AM*****@discussions.microsoft.comwrote in message
news:58**********************************@microsof t.com...
>>Is there anyone here who has used both VB6 and vb.net and who can tell me
whether I am safe to move, or is the statement I was given misleading?

It is 'safe to move'. Some things you do will run slower than you think
they should, and with experience, you will overcome these problems. A
profiler is a big time saver. The statement was misleading, and it sounds
like the speaker is not spun up on .net or maybe he has an ax to grind. I
think vb.net programs perform just fine.

In my personal opinion, marshaling is the speed killer in vb.net.

I have a vb6 app that gets short burst's of data, repeatedly, from a USB
device. Normally a USB device is used to get large chunks of data.

In vb6 the USB dll is called directly.

I have stepped through the net code and it goes all over the place before it
actually gets to the USB dll.

Galen
Are you using COM interop for this? My guess is yes, because there are
definately issues with that - especially if your making lots of calls.

--
Tom Shelton
Jun 27 '08 #17

P: n/a
On 2008-04-24, Galen Somerville <ga***@community.nospamwrote:
>
"AMercer" <AM*****@discussions.microsoft.comwrote in message
news:58**********************************@microsof t.com...
>>Is there anyone here who has used both VB6 and vb.net and who can tell me
whether I am safe to move, or is the statement I was given misleading?

It is 'safe to move'. Some things you do will run slower than you think
they should, and with experience, you will overcome these problems. A
profiler is a big time saver. The statement was misleading, and it sounds
like the speaker is not spun up on .net or maybe he has an ax to grind. I
think vb.net programs perform just fine.

In my personal opinion, marshaling is the speed killer in vb.net.

I have a vb6 app that gets short burst's of data, repeatedly, from a USB
device. Normally a USB device is used to get large chunks of data.

In vb6 the USB dll is called directly.

I have stepped through the net code and it goes all over the place before it
actually gets to the USB dll.

Galen
By the way, have you considered using a .NET based USB library? I
haven't tested it or used it, but over at icsharpcode.net there is a
#usblib :)

--
Tom Shelton
Jun 27 '08 #18

P: n/a

"Galen Somerville" <ga***@community.nospamwrote in message
news:uO*************@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
"AMercer" <AM*****@discussions.microsoft.comwrote in message
news:58**********************************@microsof t.com...
>>Is there anyone here who has used both VB6 and vb.net and who can tell
me
whether I am safe to move, or is the statement I was given misleading?

It is 'safe to move'. Some things you do will run slower than you think
they should, and with experience, you will overcome these problems. A
profiler is a big time saver. The statement was misleading, and it
sounds
like the speaker is not spun up on .net or maybe he has an ax to grind.
I
think vb.net programs perform just fine.

In my personal opinion, marshaling is the speed killer in vb.net.

I have a vb6 app that gets short burst's of data, repeatedly, from a USB
device. Normally a USB device is used to get large chunks of data.

In vb6 the USB dll is called directly.
What do you mean by directly ? It is a COM based dll ?

I have stepped through the net code and it goes all over the place before
it actually gets to the USB dll.
Sure there can be some, and there is also marshalling in VB6 as well, just
you don't see it. What format is the data in ?





Jun 27 '08 #19

P: n/a
"Bill McCarthy" <Bi**@N0SPAM.comwrote in message
news:57**********************************@microsof t.com...
If you read what I said, was that I expect VB.NET
and Vb6 to be the same. You're trying to put words
in my mouth I never said.
No I'm not. I suggested that the statement made by Cor Ligthert on 22 April
was at best intentionally misleading and at worst deliberately inflammatory
when he said about vb.net code [comparing it to VB6 code]:

"When well done it can be about 10 times quicker"
"When bad done it can be about 10 times slower."

Ligthert was deliberately trying to suggest that a well coded vb.net program
would run ten times faster than a similar VB6 program, which is definitely
NOT the case. Both programs would in fact run at approximately the same
speed, with perhaps the odd difference here and there and Ligthert's
statement was a deliberate attempt to pretend that vb.net is faster than
VB6, which it is NOT. Any programming language can run ten times slower than
any other programming langauge if the code is badly written, whatever those
languages are, so that statement conveys no useful information at all. But
the statement that well done vb.net can be about ten times quicker than VB6
is clearly intended to persuade people that a well done vb.net program is
ten times quicker than a well done VB6 program (otherwise the comparision
has no validity at all). Therefore Ligthert was deliberately trying to be
provovative and was effectively telling lies.You told me that his statement
was /not/ misleading, when in fact it very clearly was, as is evidenced by
the fact that other people here on this vb.net group have since told me that
virtually the exact same statement, but with VB6 and vb.net reversed, was
deliberately misleading and was probably written by someone with "an axe to
grind".

You did later make a statement that in your view both programs would run at
about the same speed, but you made that statement simply because you were
attempting to defend your failure to condemn Ligthert's deliberately
inflammatory statement while at the same time you spend half of your life
spamming and trolling the VB6 newsgroup and jumping on anybody who makes
even the slightest remark about vb.net.

You are trolling the VB6 group and you are upsetting a lot of people. I
suggest that if you prefer vb.net that you stay in the vb.net group and that
you stop deliberately spamming and trolling the VB6 group. Stay away from
your trolling of the VB6 group and we will not follow you here! You are a
spammer and a troll.

Mike

Jun 27 '08 #20

P: n/a

"Mike Williams" <mi***@whiskyandCoke.comwrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
"Bill McCarthy" <Bi**@N0SPAM.comwrote in message
news:57**********************************@microsof t.com...
>If you read what I said, was that I expect VB.NET
and Vb6 to be the same. You're trying to put words
in my mouth I never said.

No I'm not.
Actually you are.
>
You are trolling the VB6 group and you are upsetting a lot of people.
I suggest you stop attacking folks in there too Mike. Everytime a dotnet
newby posts to the VB6 group by mistake you attack. Yesterday's outbursts
by you were particularly un-warranted. If you don't like people responding
to your attacks, I suggest you stop attacking people in the first place.

You've now also made your intent here publicly known, so folks know to add
you to their blocked sender list.

Jun 27 '08 #21

P: n/a
Hi Mike,

Mike Williams schrieb:
I'm trying to decide whether or not I need to move to a different
development tool and I'm told that VB6 code, when well written, can
be ten times faster than vb.net, but that if its badly written it can
be ten times slower. Is that correct?
Misleading, because badly written VB6 code can also be 10 times slower
that well written ;-)

There may be exceptions, but I would say even not so very well written
VB.NET code executes faster than well written VB6 code in nearly every
case. Plus it's easier to do things well in VB.NET. I'll clarify that in
the next paragraph...
I'm quite competent at writing code myself and so most of my code
will be quite well written, and I don't want to move to vb.net if
well written VB6 code is ten times faster. Have I been told the
truth? Or do I need to look into this further?
I have also migrated myself from brain 6.0 to brain.net. I found that
many things, especially performance critical parts of my old VB6
applications, where quite easier to achieve in .NET - because many of
them were already available as classes in the .NET Framework instead of
forcing me to find "speedy workarounds" using API functions.

One example is string concatenation. You can do var1 & var2 in VB6 as
well as in .NET, I didn't measure it, but I feel even here .NET is faster.

If you want to really speed it up in VB6, you'd have to use API /
another "third-party" class, called "FastString class" in this case
(Google for it). If you want to speed it up in .NET, you simply use the
builtin StringBuilder class. Usage of both feels quite the same - but
the difference is, that it's instantly available in .NET and you can be
quite sure Microsoft made a robust implementation, giving you well
defined errors instead of crashes if something goes wrong.

PS: You won't have to learn VB.NET. If you decide to ".NET", you'll
mainly have to learn all those Framework classes and their
possibilities, because they are the same in *every* .NET language. The
differences are merely just the syntax like all those case sensitivity
and semicolons in C#...yuck! ;-)
Best regards,

Mathias Wuehrmann
Jun 27 '08 #22

P: n/a
Mike,

This is turning my words around and you did not read what others (by
instance Michel) wrote, on what I had not anything to add.

"Bad" written code in VB.Net can be 10 times slower then "good" written code
in VB6
And Bad written code in VB6 can be 10 times slower then "good" written in
VB.Net

However, VB6 does not give you all the tools and optimizing VB.Net gives you
and therefore you are not able to make a program in VB6 that is as effective
as in VB.Net (as it is more than a simple console application)

However 10*10 will not be remarable quicker in VB.Net than in VB6 as they
both support that.

And other point is that you are able to build more solid solutions with VB
for Net because it is based on OOP principles and VB6 is not like that.

Cor

Jun 27 '08 #23

P: n/a
Mike

Probably my misunderstanding of the by you used English
>
"When well done it can be about 10 times quicker"
"When bad done it can be about 10 times slower."
In my English "can be" is something different than "is".

However in your language it seems to be the same.

If "is" = the same in your language as "can be" then my message is
misleading.

I thought that I have often used it in England however maybe there are
differences in it.

Cor

Jun 27 '08 #24

P: n/a
Cor Ligthert[MVP] wrote:
In my English "can be" is something different than "is".
You are correct.

Andrew
Jun 27 '08 #25

P: n/a
"Mike Williams" <mi***@whiskyandCoke.comschrieb
Is that correct?
There is no general answer. This is correct.
Armin
Jun 27 '08 #26

P: n/a
On Apr 24, 6:08 pm, "Mike Williams" <mi...@whiskyandCoke.comwrote:
"Bill McCarthy" <B...@N0SPAM.comwrote in message

news:57**********************************@microsof t.com...
If you read what I said, was that I expect VB.NET
and Vb6 to be the same. You're trying to put words
in my mouth I never said.

No I'm not. I suggested that the statement made by Cor Ligthert on 22 April
was at best intentionally misleading and at worst deliberately inflammatory
when he said about vb.net code [comparing it to VB6 code]:

"When well done it can be about 10 times quicker"
"When bad done it can be about 10 times slower."

Ligthert was deliberately trying to suggest that a well coded vb.net program
would run ten times faster than a similar VB6 program, which is definitely
NOT the case. Both programs would in fact run at approximately the same
speed, with perhaps the odd difference here and there and Ligthert's
statement was a deliberate attempt to pretend that vb.net is faster than
VB6, which it is NOT. Any programming language can run ten times slower than
any other programming langauge if the code is badly written, whatever those
languages are, so that statement conveys no useful information at all. But
the statement that well done vb.net can be about ten times quicker than VB6
is clearly intended to persuade people that a well done vb.net program is
ten times quicker than a well done VB6 program (otherwise the comparision
has no validity at all). Therefore Ligthert was deliberately trying to be
provovative and was effectively telling lies.You told me that his statement
was /not/ misleading, when in fact it very clearly was, as is evidenced by
the fact that other people here on this vb.net group have since told me that
virtually the exact same statement, but with VB6 and vb.net reversed, was
deliberately misleading and was probably written by someone with "an axe to
grind".

You did later make a statement that in your view both programs would run at
about the same speed, but you made that statement simply because you were
attempting to defend your failure to condemn Ligthert's deliberately
inflammatory statement while at the same time you spend half of your life
spamming and trolling the VB6 newsgroup and jumping on anybody who makes
even the slightest remark about vb.net.

You are trolling the VB6 group and you are upsetting a lot of people. I
suggest that if you prefer vb.net that you stay in the vb.net group and that
you stop deliberately spamming and trolling the VB6 group. Stay away from
your trolling of the VB6 group and we will not follow you here! You are a
spammer and a troll.

Mike
This was the statement I was waiting for - the end to your long setup
for trolling.

What I find most interesting is how you don't bring up the issue in
the thread that Cor's possible misleading statement was in. Yes, you
said "Rubbish!" but then shortly after you start this thread, purely
for trolling.

If you want to start a serious discussion of the speed difference than
do it, but don't try to be misleading yourself and troll others into a
reputation bashing.

Thanks,

Seth Rowe [MVP]
Jun 27 '08 #27

P: n/a
"Bill McCarthy" <Bi**@N0SPAM.comwrote in message
news:D8**********************************@microsof t.com...
I suggest you stop attacking folks in there too Mike.
I'm not attacking anybody. I'm just telling them the truth. VB6 is NOT
vb.net and in general any responses written in VB6 code will NOT run in
vb.net, and I then ask them to post their vb.net questions to a dotnet
group. Sounds okay to me. I came here merely to ask you to stop spamming and
trolling the VB6 group, in the hope that you might listen to me here because
so far you have failed to listen to the dozens of people on the VB6 group
who have asked you to stop trolling it. You are a troll, McCarthy, and you
are annoying a lot of people on the VB6 group. Please desist.

Mike

Jun 27 '08 #28

P: n/a
"Cor Ligthert[MVP]" <no************@planet.nlwrote in message
news:BC**********************************@microsof t.com...
> "When well done it can be about 10 times quicker"
"When bad done it can be about 10 times slower."
In my English "can be" is something different than "is".
Yes, of course. The phrase "can be" is different from "is", but your
statement was clearly intended to confuse people and ti imply something that
is not true. The following statement is true, so why didn't you make it? If
you want the truth then tell all the truth:

Well written VB6 code can be about 10 times quicker than vb.net

Mike

Jun 27 '08 #29

P: n/a
"rowe_newsgroups" <ro********@yahoo.comwrote in message
news:5f**********************************@b1g2000h sg.googlegroups.com...
What I find most interesting is how you don't bring up
the issue in the thread that Cor's possible misleading
statement was in. Yes, you said "Rubbish!" but then
shortly after you start this thread, purely for trolling.
No. I started this thread to discover why McCarthy refuses to condemn
inflammatory remarks in this group when he spends half his life spamming and
trolling the VB6 group and condemning almost everybody he comes across.
Also, I wan ted to ask McCarthy on his "home ground" to stop trolling the
VB6 group, because lots of people on the VB6 group have asked him to stop
trolling it there and so far he has not taken any notice of them.
If you want to start a serious discussion of the
speed difference than do it
I'm more interested in truth than in speed, and in finding out why McCarthy
refuses to condemn people in this group for doing exactly the same kind of
things that he condemns them for in the VB6 group. He is a troll, and he has
been trolling the VB6 group for many, many months.

Mike

Jun 27 '08 #30

P: n/a

"Mike Williams" <mi***@whiskyandCoke.comwrote in message
news:OJ**************@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
"Bill McCarthy" <Bi**@N0SPAM.comwrote in message
news:D8**********************************@microsof t.com...
>I suggest you stop attacking folks in there too Mike.

I'm not attacking anybody.
Nonsense. You attacked Earl just the other day, someone who clearly said
they hadn't programmed in 12 years, and **BANG**, Mike Williams attacks him.

I'm just telling them the truth.

No you add lost of anti-dotnet and anti Microsoft rhetoric, or as you seem
fond of writing Micro$oft [sic]

and I then ask them to post their vb.net questions to a dotnet group.
Sounds okay to me.

Well that's strange becuase a LOT fo folks have told you your behaviour is
flaming.
I came here merely to ask you to stop spamming and trolling the VB6 group,
No you didn't. You came here to troll and to make a dishonest
representation of what someone else had said, deliberately mis-quoting them.

You are a troll, McCarthy, and you are annoying a lot of people on the VB6
group. Please desist.
Again Mike, all you are doing is trolling here and name calling, yet again.
If you have problems with my responses to your attacks on dotnet or people
in the Vb6 groups, again I suggest you stop attacking. Likewise I suggest
if you don't want this to continue even more, you stop trolling in here.

Good day to you Mr Williams.




Jun 27 '08 #31

P: n/a

"Mike Williams" <mi***@whiskyandCoke.comwrote in message
news:O8**************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
"Cor Ligthert[MVP]" <no************@planet.nlwrote in message
news:BC**********************************@microsof t.com...
>> "When well done it can be about 10 times quicker"
"When bad done it can be about 10 times slower."
In my English "can be" is something different than "is".

Yes, of course. The phrase "can be" is different from "is", but your
statement was clearly intended to confuse people and ti imply something
that is not true. The following statement is true, so why didn't you make
it? If you want the truth then tell all the truth:

Well written VB6 code can be about 10 times quicker than vb.net

Mike Williams, this has been answered by numerous people here already. Your
clearly just trolling. Please desist.

Jun 27 '08 #32

P: n/a
"Tom Shelton" <to*********@YOUKNOWTHEDRILLcomcast.netwrote in message
news:u2**************@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>So may I take it that you think the statement, "well
written VB6 code can be ten times faster than vb.net"
is a misleading statement?

On average yes - I would say that is a misleading statement.
There may be some corner cases where this statement maybe
true, but overall - it's false.
Good. That is my own opinion as well. Thank you for confirming it. And, of
course, the following ststement is /also/ misleading and is /also/ false:

"well written vb.net code can be ten times faster than VB6"

But that is the stament made by someone here in this vb.net group and Bill
McCarthy, who spends half his life trolling the VB6 group and condemning
almost everybody in it, refuses to condemn that statement. So, as well as
being a troll who has been trolling the VB6 group for months, McCarthy is
also duplicit and dishonest. Thank you.

Mike
Jun 27 '08 #33

P: n/a
"Brian Gideon" <br*********@yahoo.comwrote in message
news:ed**********************************@p25g2000 hsf.googlegroups.com...
So may I take it that you think the statement, "well
written VB6 code can be ten times faster than vb.net"
is a misleading statement?

I think it is misleading as well.
Thank you. And so do I. And, of course, the statement "well written vb.net
code can be ten times faster than VB6" is also similarly misleading, which
leaves me wondering why Bill McCarthy, who is a participant in this group
and who has also been trolling the VB6 group for months, refuses to condemn
it and refusing to admit that it is misleading, even though he constantly
condemns people on the VB6 group for saying anything that he believes is
even remotely inaccurate or misleading. Perhaps McCarthy is duplicit and
dishonest, as well as being an annoying troll? Yes, that will be the answer.
Thank you.

Mike

Jun 27 '08 #34

P: n/a
On 2008-04-25, Mike Williams <mi***@whiskyandCoke.comwrote:
"Bill McCarthy" <Bi**@N0SPAM.comwrote in message
news:D8**********************************@microsof t.com...
>I suggest you stop attacking folks in there too Mike.

I'm not attacking anybody. I'm just telling them the truth. VB6 is NOT
vb.net and in general any responses written in VB6 code will NOT run in
vb.net,
Not true, Mike. You don't tell them vb6 is not vb.net - you generally
tell them that vb.net is not visual basic. And then launch into a
tirade about how dishonest Microsoft marketing labeled an imposter as
Visual Basic and charges twice as much for Vista in the UK.

This is what I believe people are mostly reacting to. Stop attacking,
and just ignore or redirect and all will be well.

--
Tom Shelton
Jun 27 '08 #35

P: n/a
"Mathias Wührmann" <us****@flexact.dewrote in message
news:Op**************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
There may be exceptions, but I would say even not
so very well written VB.NET code executes faster
than well written VB6 code in nearly every case.
That is a ridiculous statement, and totally incorrect!
Plus it's easier to do things well in VB.NET.
Actually I asked about speed, not ease of use. It was the inflammatory and
deliberately misleading statement made by someone in this group that I asked
your opinion on. But you are of course correct when you say that lots of
things are easier to do in vb.net, because vb.net does a lot more "hand
holding" for you and it provides lots of functions, particularly graphics
functions, natively whereas in those cases you need to write a lot of code
in VB6 to achieve the same effect. If you use the newly provided net
graphics classes for example you can often achieve good results in vb.net
without needing to be a good programmer, whereas in VB6 you need to be a
good programmer to achieve similar results. So, it is sometimes easier, but
is is /not/ faster! Check out the various "challanges" that were thrown into
the ring on the VB6 group by a "netter" some time ago when it was suggested
that it was impossible to write code in VB6 to perform some specific
manipulation of a bitmap on a pixel by pixel basis that was anywhere near as
fast as the code using dotnet's built in fast graphics classes would be. The
result was that VB6 code was written that performed the task almost as fast
as C# code in net. There was no significant difference between VB6 and net's
C#, although of course C# just had the edge. So, the statement that "well
written vb.net code can be 10 times faster than VB6 code" is a totally
misleading statement.
If you want to really speed it up in VB6, you'd have
to use API / another "third-party" class, called
"FastString class" in this case (Google for it). If you
want to speed it up in .NET, you simply use the builtin StringBuilder
class.
Yes, but you're talking about ease of use for certain specific functions. I
would not argue that vb.net provides lots of functions that are easier to
use, and of course many that are harder to use. But that is not the question
I asked. I asked about speed and the fact is that well written vb.net code
is */NOT/* ten times faster than well written VB6 code. In fact in general
it is */NOT/* faster at all, and in many cases it is slower. Obviously it
takes a lot more code in VB6 to produce, for example, the sort of things
that the vb.net graphics functions provide as built in classes, but when
such VB6 code is written it is every bit as fast as the equivalent vb.net
code.

The statement "well written vb.net code can be 10 times faster than VB6
code" is misleading and inflammatory.

Mike

Jun 27 '08 #36

P: n/a
"Cor Ligthert[MVP]" <no************@planet.nlwrote in message
news:52**********************************@microsof t.com...
However, VB6 does not give you all the tools and
optimizing VB.Net gives you . . .
Correct.
. . . and therefore you are not able to make a
program in VB6 that is as effective as in VB.Net
Rubbish!

Mike
Jun 27 '08 #37

P: n/a
10X is a silly generalization.

I have programs that have a "real-time" issue, and those seem to execute
about 30% slower in .NET. I haven't done any real speed tests, but the 30%
estimate seems close. I suspect that you will find other (types of)
programs that execute even more slowly in .NET, while I'm sure there are
programs that could be found to execute more quickly in .NET.

--
Richard Grier, MVP
Hard & Software
Author of Visual Basic Programmer's Guide to Serial Communications, Fourth
Edition,
ISBN 1-890422-28-2 (391 pages, includes CD-ROM). July 2004, Revised March
2006.
See www.hardandsoftware.net for details and contact information.
Jun 27 '08 #38

P: n/a
Not just misleading. Just wrong (unless for some special case).

--
Richard Grier, MVP
Hard & Software
Author of Visual Basic Programmer's Guide to Serial Communications, Fourth
Edition,
ISBN 1-890422-28-2 (391 pages, includes CD-ROM). July 2004, Revised March
2006.
See www.hardandsoftware.net for details and contact information.
Jun 27 '08 #39

P: n/a
Hey Dick,

"Dick Grier" <dick_grierNOSPAM@.msn.comwrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
I have programs that have a "real-time" issue, and those seem to execute
about 30% slower in .NET. I haven't done any real speed tests, but the
30% estimate seems close.
Have you looked at what the issues are ? Is this in drivers you've written,
COM dll's or win32 API etc ?

Jun 27 '08 #40

P: n/a
>> "When well done it can be about 10 times quicker"
>> "When bad done it can be about 10 times slower."
In my English "can be" is something different than "is".

Yes, of course. The phrase "can be" is different from "is", but your
statement was clearly intended to confuse people and ti imply something
that is not true. The following statement is true, so why didn't you make
it? If you want the truth then tell all the truth:

Well written VB6 code can be about 10 times quicker than vb.net
ROFL

Jun 27 '08 #41

P: n/a
"Cor Ligthert[MVP]" <no************@planet.nlwrote in message
news:6E**********************************@microsof t.com...

> Well written VB6 code can be about 10 times quicker than vb.net
ROFL
Exactly. It's laughable. Just like your own statement that "vb.net code can
be about 10 timer quicker than vb.net" is also laughable! That's why I
posted it! Can you really not see the stupidity of your statement?

Mike
Jun 27 '08 #42

P: n/a
"Tom Shelton" <to*********@YOUKNOWTHEDRILLcomcast.netwrote in message
news:O%****************@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
Not true, Mike. You don't tell them vb6 is not vb.net
Yes I do.
- you generally tell them that vb.net is not visual basic.
Yes. I tell them that as well. vb.net is /not/ Visual Basic. It is an
imposter, and a deliberately dishonest Micro$oft marketing scam. I'm not
saying there is anything wrong with vb.net itself as a development tool . .
.. it is just /not/ Visual Basic, and pretending that it is Visual Basic and
labelling it as such simply because Micro$oft own the trademark is outright
trickery.
And then launch into a tirade about how dishonest
Microsoft marketing labeled an imposter as Visual
Basic
Yes. That's correct. I'm glad you agree about it being an imposter. It is an
imposter which Micro$oft are being thoroughly dishonest about. Bunch of
grinning fairground gypsies, if you ask me.
and charges twice as much for Vista in the UK.
Yes. They do that as well, and they also make under the counter deals with
people like Amazon in an attempt to prevent me from purchasing the US
version from Amazon.com. They try to force me into buying the UK version
from Amazon.co.uk which costs twice as much and which is not even a UK
version. Micro$oft do not even make a UK version of Vista!!! They want to
sell me the US version, pretending that it is a UK version, and they want to
charge me an extra $300 for it!!! Micro$oft are a thoroughly dishonest and
disreputable company, as you will see if you check out their nasty gangster
like activities in certain parts of the developing world, where they think
they can get away with their disgusting activities, Africa in particular.
Shameful business.

Mike
Jun 27 '08 #43

P: n/a
On 2008-04-25, Mike Williams <mi***@whiskyandCoke.comwrote:
"Tom Shelton" <to*********@YOUKNOWTHEDRILLcomcast.netwrote in message
news:O%****************@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>Not true, Mike. You don't tell them vb6 is not vb.net

Yes I do.
>- you generally tell them that vb.net is not visual basic.

Yes. I tell them that as well. vb.net is /not/ Visual Basic. It is an
imposter, and a deliberately dishonest Micro$oft marketing scam. I'm not
saying there is anything wrong with vb.net itself as a development tool . .
. it is just /not/ Visual Basic, and pretending that it is Visual Basic and
labelling it as such simply because Micro$oft own the trademark is outright
trickery.
>And then launch into a tirade about how dishonest
Microsoft marketing labeled an imposter as Visual
Basic

Yes. That's correct. I'm glad you agree about it being an imposter. It is an
imposter which Micro$oft are being thoroughly dishonest about. Bunch of
grinning fairground gypsies, if you ask me.
I don't agree. Not in the slightest. Neither do a lot of folks, and
that is what causes the arguments. Like I said, bite your lip and
redirect or ignore - and all will be well.

<snip rant>
--
Tom Shelton
Jun 27 '08 #44

P: n/a
"Dick Grier" <dick_grierNOSPAM@.msn.comwrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
10X is a silly generalization.
Exactly! That's the point I was making. I was responding to Cor Ligtherts
silly and deliberately misleading statement in which he said that a well
written vb.net program was up to 10 times faster than VB6. I'm glad you
agree that he is silly.

Mike

Jun 27 '08 #45

P: n/a
"Tom Shelton" <to*********@YOUKNOWTHEDRILLcomcast.netwrote in message
news:en**************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
I don't agree. Not in the slightest. Neither do a lot
of folks, and that is what causes the arguments.
You don't agree with what? Can you be more specific?

Mike

Jun 27 '08 #46

P: n/a
On 2008-04-25, Mike Williams <mi***@whiskyandCoke.comwrote:
"Tom Shelton" <to*********@YOUKNOWTHEDRILLcomcast.netwrote in message
news:en**************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I don't agree. Not in the slightest. Neither do a lot
of folks, and that is what causes the arguments.

You don't agree with what? Can you be more specific?
That VB.NET is not Visual Basic. We don't agree with your
characterization of it as an imposter. Sure, it's not VB6 - but it is
Visual Basic. I don't want to get into this anymore. I already agreed
not to argue this anymore on the other forum, and I'm not about to here.

--
Tom Shelton
Jun 27 '08 #47

P: n/a

"Mike Williams" <mi***@whiskyandCoke.comwrote in message
news:Oe**************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
<snip>
In fact despite its problems vb.net and the net framework generally
provides a very much richer programming environment than VB6 ever did,
Yes, indeed it does. It provides many of the things we Visual Basic users
asked for, including multi threading, inheritance, strong typing etc.
>but vb.net is NOT Visual Basic
Yes it is. It's Visual Basic on the .NET paltform as distinct from Visual
basic on a COM/OLE platform. It's also a much more powerful and flexible
version of Visual Basic with lots of new features.

>If Micro$oft had marketed vb.net (and the various other .net tools) as
something completely new and different then I might have included them in
my list of possibilities, along with lots of other development tools from
various other companies, for when I am looking for a replacement for VB6.
But I'm not going to do so now.

So if you aren't using VB.NET and have no intentions of using it, what are
you doing posting to a vb.net forum ? Most folks would consider your
actions trolling. In fact, didn't even your wife tell you stop this
trolling ?

I do not like the fact that Micro$oft lied to me.

Cite ? I think you might want to think that, but in fact Microsoft has been
very open about the issues involved in migrating from VB6 to .NET.



Jun 27 '08 #48

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.