The new Visual Basic.NET 2008 is so much better than 6 that you shouldn't waste your time trying to get it to work.
|
The new Visual Basic.NET 2008 is so much better than 6 that you shouldn't waste your time trying to get it to work.
|
Incidentally, I just discovered that Microsoft has continued support for VB6 until the 31st of march this year. They initially terminated support back in 2005, there is obvioulsy still a considerable amount of programmers developing in it. Also, all of the latest operating systems come shipped with VB6 run times! (bet ya didn't know that) This includes Vista.
Expect to be able to run all of your VB.com applications on operating systems well into the next decade! VB6 is far from finished.
|
Painful transition from VB.com to VB.net
It's a very painful transition from VB.com to VB.net, particularly for programmers with 10+ years background with .com (like learning to walk all over again) and a lot of people are refusing to exchange their expertise for a "start from scratch experience", because that's pretty much what it is.Originally Posted by tenaja
|
lol ..
VB6 pro sells for upwards of AU $250 on eBay while .net goes for as little as $75.
|
VB6 Pro US $229
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Microsoft-Vis...sid=p1638.m122
VB.net 2003 $79
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/MICROSOFT-VIS...sid=p1638.m122
Both obsolete products which are officially no longer produced. VB6 was released in 97, so that's 6 years between the two, yet VB6 is worth more than 3 times as much. I have actually seen VB6 going for much more than this, as high as US $1,000
Makes you wonder huh?
|
Well, probably because there's a lot of free version like EXpress and people just don't buy .NET ?
On the other side, there's probably more .NET to sale than VB6.. but more code in VB6 available for free...
Steve
It's not a bug, it's a random feature.
There's no problem, only learning opportunities.
|
Thats plus I think Microsoft hit a serious "keynote" with VB6 that they just haven't been able to replicate since.
|
Microsoft have forced OOP onto everyone with their .net frame work
I think if you're going to use .net then you might as well go with C++ or C# (C sharp) I say this because all .net languages are object orientated, and there's really not much more involved with modern versions of C. So I guess the question is, is VB.net really a RAD (rapid application development) language like its predecessor? Would a professional C++ programmer like this person http://www.planet-source-code.com/vb...68164&lngWId=1 ever trade off C++ .net for VB.net like he did with C++.com? He claims that his high-tech calculator would have taken 3 times longer to develop in C++ than it did to do it in VB.
The problem is, unlike with VB6, not everyone is going to be a programmer. Sure, I've gotten my head around OOP (object orientated programming), but it has taken 2 university units to get there.
Last edited by T.Jackson; - 25th March 2008 at 15:48.
Members who have read this thread : 0You do not have permission to view the list of names.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks