|
VB6 is still quite used and maintained, to my horror. And yes, it's still the quickest way - VB6, it is. VB.NET has the same tools of C#, is more verbose and lacks a couple of features so it's really no longer useful, considering you can't directly port VB6 code onto .NET.
GCS d--(d+) s-/++ a C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
VB6 is used in some applications where you can't have .NET installed, it requires one! one dll to run and produces a proper binary unlike .NET... I have had issues with .NET apps not working on some embedded devices. I was just amazed to find BASIC in the wild making up proper applications.
|
|
|
|
|
VB6 is quite easy to interface with DLLs and Windows API, it has drawbacks (it is single thread for example) but all are easy to work around.
Also it is harder to disassemble and that may be desirable. If you think that one of the biggest X-ray inspection machine producers has the controller part of the software in VB6 and its customers are the major multinational food companies...
GCS d--(d+) s-/++ a C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
The thing is don't blame the tool, blame the tool using the tool! We all must have come across the classic C/C++ spaghetti that works, who know how. Having a code or editor that enforces a given style is just asking for trouble later when people move away from it...
|
|
|
|
|
den2k88 wrote: VB6 ... is single thread for example
That's simply not true at all.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, sorry, I've only worked on it for 6 years and a half each single day.
GCS d--(d+) s-/++ a C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
When I started using VB it was VB4, then I used VB5 or the entirety of its life, then I used VB6 for its entirety before moving to .net 1.0. I'm not sure if your comment was some kind of attempt to "pull rank", but if it was I prefer to argue with facts rather than personal credentials 
|
|
|
|
|
So you should know that VB6 is single thread. Each window, timer, event is processed sequentially.
GCS d--(d+) s-/++ a C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you've ever been touching a language with proper threading support built into the language from the very beginning design stage, you would completely reject the "multithreading support" that has been added to the C class of languages more like a cancerous growth; it is not at all any neatly integrated element of the language, as it ought to be. (You could say the same about e.g. exception handling.)
Those who bitch at VB, should have something better to come up with than C. (My first choice would be CHILL, but that language never made its way out of the telephone switches where it was born - which is a pity, because it had really nice thread handling and synchronization mechanisms, as well as very good exception handling mechanisms.)
|
|
|
|
|
I just created a WinForm app in .net, put a button with the click event taking 5 seconds to complete. When I click the button the GUI is non-responsive so I guess .net is single-threaded too.
|
|
|
|
|
den2k88 wrote: VB.NET has the same tools of C#, is more verbose and lacks a couple of features
There are also things VB.net does that c# doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: BASIC was seen as the go to language for kids in
VB.NET simply isn't so. You know, VB.NET coding is by far more similar to C# than to VB6.
|
|
|
|
|
That's why I went for C# instead VB when I moved to .NET. I had many years as a C programmer.
|
|
|
|
|
glennPattonWork wrote: BASIC was seen as the go to language for kids in my day I started with BBC Basic and C came with the Amiga... I was a little shocked to find BASIC being used in the wild...
That's just ignorance I'm afraid. Before .net, VB6 was the only real solution for Enterprise apps, and there was nothing wrong with using it. Almost all enterprise solutions from houses that used an MS stack ran on VB6. The fact that "B" stands for "BASIC" and you think "BASIC is for kids" is simply your opinion, it isn't reality.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: "BASIC is for kids" is simply your opinion, it isn't reality
It is neverthless, in my opinion too. And possibly in the ones of the language authors. The hint is in the acronym.
|
|
|
|
|
You're as equally entitled to your wrong opinion as the OP is
|
|
|
|
|
So you are. As matter of fact, your wrong opinion is more wrong than ours. 
|
|
|
|
|
My comments are not opinion though, I've been involved in many complex, high-performance enterprise applications built on VB6.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: high-performance enterprise applications built on VB6
I agree that can be done (and top developers did).
My comment applies to the (original) language name ('beginners' is there).
Then one might discuss on the mass of mediocre developers attracted by VB6, but that's just another topic.
|
|
|
|
|
CPallini wrote: Then one might discuss on the mass of mediocre developers attracted by VB6
Would love to talk about that but I'm busy in QA helping the mass of mediocre developers attracted by c#.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, C# is mainstream like VB6 was.
|
|
|
|
|
My point was that the users do not reflect the language.
|
|
|
|
|
That's the answer then. Users grow old and gray trying to see themselves in the mirror.
See me now!
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't mean to start a fight, BASIC is Beginners All purpose Symbolic Instruction Code, I heard all the way BASIC isn't used in the real world...
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
