|
While VB.NET is a respectable beast, prior versions of VB were not.
It was VB, and not the programmer.
There is a negative connotation to "VB Programmer" because of the well know VB issues.
But I thank MSFT for VB. Because it failed so miserably, I was forced to buy Delphi 1.0 and give it a try. wow, it was everything VB wanted to be. Rolled my own component that weekend (an extension of the TEdit), which had taken me a week to do as my first VBX project.
Never looked back. Fell in love with Delphi. So VB is like the quirky friend who throws one of his cheesy parties, and I ended up finding my soul mate...
Because we were a Microsoft Partner at the time, I did not tell anyone I was using Delphi. I rewrote the ENTIRE application in Delphi in like 2 weeks, released the "updated" version, and the users were THRILLED. Gone were the memory problems, and the slowness, the instability. The DLL Hell...
Within 9 months it made product of the year at a big trade show. (we won't talk about the fallout when one of the other programmers on a DIFFERENT product realized it was not VB, LOL)...
Ahhh, good memories!
PS: The product shipped on a Single 3.5" disk, and supported internet updates via http requests!!!
|
|
|
|
|
There is NO negative connotation to "VB Programmer". If VB.NET is such a respectable beast, why does VB6 has so many programmers in 2014 and VB.NET is practically invisible ?!
PS: By the simple fact that you wrote this comment, you looked back 
|
|
|
|
|
Honestly,
Because VB.net introduces complex concepts foreign to VB,
and new layout concepts.
Otherwise they would be here.
|
|
|
|
|
Nothing is foreign to VB6. VB6 already has many of the concepts you're talking about. How is this possible since is has not been updated for 15 years ?! Well, many of these concepts are made in VB6 and are stored inside classes designed by different VB6 programmers (these are open source and anyone can use them). If you are more specific I can give you some examples.
PS: Ask yourself how often do you use these "great", "complex" and "modern" VB.NET concepts (which are implemented in VB6 too, by us, the VB6 programmers).
Thanks for the reply,
Best regards,
ISpliter
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, Delphi was a revelation. I could not understand why developers stuck with VB when Delphi was a better, easier-to-use, faster alternative. It was obvious at many Microsoft presentations that they had a real respect for Delphi. Tellingly, the tutorial that came with VB3 was written in Delphi (it would have been slow and clunky in VB3).
Compared with Delphi, I was unimpressed with VB6. All that changed with VB.NET - at last BASIC was a real OO language. C# was also impressive - it looked like Java but smelled like Delphi - the ascendancy of Delphi was over. (Although, in those early days of .NET, if you wanted to run a basic, performance-driven desktop application outside of the managed environment, what would you use? C++, Delphi, VB6?)
|
|
|
|
|
Should I mention that Anders made BC++ and Delphi interoperate (sharing objects in a binary format!).
Ideas I believe HE HELPED carry into .NET when he transitioned over to microsoft.
I still use Delphi to this day, although I am many years behind being current... Stability first.
Back in the day, C++ took too long to get something off the ground, and VB was near impossible to support.
But MAYBE VB6 could have been used. I made the switch way before VB6, so I cannot speak to it as much.
All good memories...
I always thought Java would do better. Always wanted a Delphi-Like Java IDE, but as I develop more, and longer,
I realize the issues with COMPONENTS that install into the IDE are really tough for builds, etc... Eventually I
think they will get it worked out... I feel spoiled
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: I can understand why we don't get many VB developers on CodeProject
oh, we're here. we just never say anything. Trust me, we think all you VB bashers only do it because you've never actually TOUCHED a decent VB.NET program, but feel like you have to 'bash' to fit in.
probably my one and only post... but wanted to get my 2¢ in
|
|
|
|
|
I found VB6 to be quite useful, and used VB since version 1. (I still have the original 5 1/4" disk but no machine to read it.) I used it extensively where I worked, tying into various databases the company used (Informix, SQL Server, Oracle). I was able to use the VB knowledge in VBA and VBScript as well. It's still a great language for quick-and-dirty stuff.
That said, I refused to learn VB.Net, because I already knew C/C++ and C# was easier to learn and using both VB6 and VB.Net was confusing when the syntax changed so much.
|
|
|
|
|
It was possible to do in VB6 almost anything that could be done in C -- just easier and quicker.
VB still lives. VBA is currently VB7.
|
|
|
|
|
Its the lack of ";". There is serious problems for languages that lack it.
|
|
|
|
|
So true, the VB6 articles do not occur often on Code Project (although not the case in 2014) because there is always a small group that has bad words splashing the article without basis of any kind. I am convinced that many VB6 programmers have lived with the same impression.
I met some "serious" developers (C++, Java) myself and I was surprised that in their lives they did nothing complex in the languages they prefer. Then suddenly I woke up to reality, I understood that they were only storytellers.
A typical VB6 article should look like this:
Compilers Demystified: Function Pointers in Visual Basic 6.0[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Well said.
I have had many years of happy VB6 programming - and still use it. It has 'issues' - name me a language that doesn't (on second thoughts don't). VB6 is good at some things - bad at lots of others. If you are in its sweet spot it can be very productive.
|
|
|
|
|
It says something if a language, unchanged from the original spec is still in use 14 years after it came out. People just want something simple. Sometimes I look at the C++ or C# or Java or Javascript code and think why have they made everything so complex. It is nice to go back to languages like VB6 or VBA or VBScript.
|
|
|
|
|
DNALab ?! Any connection with the research in genetics ?!
|
|
|
|
|
No! It's a name made by Microsoft. Distributed Network Application === DNA...
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Option Strict Off. That is enough for me to hate it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Then you can't like the dynamic keyword in C#.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh I don't like it. Too much typing. And I have seen some use it just because they can with no real purpose. Same treatment that var gets mostly.
|
|
|
|
|
d@nish wrote: Oh I don't like it. Too much No typing.
FTFY 
The report of my death was an exaggeration - Mark Twain
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
I'm on-line therefore I am.
JimmyRopes
|
|
|
|
|
Whenever I see var I have trouble dissociating it from the dreaded variant in the subject language, it still makes me shudder.
Some silly bugger used a GoTo in a stored proc the other day, the reaction was not pretty.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes wrote: Some silly bugger used a GoTo in a stored proc the other day,
Almost forgivable. We have some in our C# code.
|
|
|
|
|
Shirley that's VB.net, VB6 had the wonderful Option Explicit. Where I used to work it was hanging offence to not include that one.
|
|
|
|
|
Don't forget Option Base[^], just to mess with anyone who tries to understand your arrays.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
