Carl Franklin

The Windows 98 revolt is next. After that the Netcape 4.x revolt.

:)

I've said for years that the MVP's are revolting. They stink on ice. ;)

Carl:

You have touched upon an issue, the ramifications of which are significant. I admire your courage to take a stand and the levity that you bring to a heated situation.

I very much disagree with your position.

Bob

Hey Carl,

I don't want new enhancements, etc. to VB6. I'd just like to be able to work on it in the new IDE as I can't see myself being in a position to ONLY use VB.NET for quite some time.

And the reason I want that is so I'll still have "supported" tools to work on it with. Anyone with an extensive code base needs to do maintenance on it. No-one's going to fund a rewrite which is the alternative.

It's the same with SQL Server. SQL Server 7 doesn't work on Win2k3 server. People say "why would you want to use SQL Server 7 anymore?". Well, because I've got heaps of customers still using it and I have to support them. I can't generate a SQL Server 7 database with SQL Server 2000. At least I can use a VPC to get around that one but I sure don't want to do VB6 maintenance work only inside a VPC.

The Microsoft Word 2003 folk understand they still need to be able to exchange documents with older versions, etc.

Regards,

Greg

How 'bout this... We'll both start a database driven Desktop app at the same time. You use B# and I'll use VB. Absolutely no prewritten libs allowed. Who'll finish first?
How 'bout this... when we're both finished, we can see how long it takes for B# to populate 250 controls on the form with info from that database. Guess which platform will get that form filled faster... Now, let's deploy the app to a website and allow people to download and run it on a brand new OS. Which download will finish faster?
B#'s a real step forward eh? Gimme a break.

LOL!

> B#'s a real step forward eh? Gimme a break

What would you like me to break first? Your arm, perhaps? ;-)

People are acting as though on March 31st all of their VB6 apps will magically stop working. Losing support from MS? Who cares! Did you ever use Microsoft for VB6 support? Just hit google when you need help.

So you've got some apps written in VB6 and they work. Great! Let them do their job. Need to build a new system? Stop whining and learn the tools of the day.

Want to keep using VB6? Great! Keep using it. Need more IDE features? Why not start an open source IDE project for VB6? Don't look to Microsoft for innovation to products that they can't sell.

Move on guys, .net is great. I can think of any reason why I would want to load up VB6 when I have VB.NET
Maybe MS should get Quickbasic.net out ;)

By Edward G. Nilges book by Apress, and you CAN have quickbasic.NET.

I kid you not.

buy it even.

Carl,

I totally agree with your position as far as the future of VB is concerned. I thought most developers were aware that being a good developer meant constantly learning new things, and improving ones' skill set.

Fred,

>We'll both start a database driven Desktop app at the same time. You use B# and I'll use VB. Absolutely no prewritten libs allowed. Who'll finish first?

So let me get this straight... you're going to write a DB app in VB6 without ADO, or DAO? I hate to break this to you, but those are prewritten libraries.

F**k all that cr*p. Real men write binary!!! Now here I go 1011011100111011110000100001001111110110010101010010101010010111010011
Arggh crap it's all wrong. That's another 30 years of debugging!! Where did I leave my punch card?

Is this the result of a certain Mr.Grimes(http://www.ddj.com/documents/s=9211/ddj050201dnn/), the VB Grinch? Has he awaken the VB beast? Has he stole VB Christmas!!!?!!

=================
VB6 Forever!!!!!
=================
'You can kill the revolutionary but you can't kill the revolution.'

LOL. I can't believe some MVPs signed the petition, man. Have they programmed in VB .NET at all or any other .NET languages? If you have, you can't go back anymore, seriously.

I thought the reason for the MVP was to help the community. How is keeping VB6 around helping the community for the next 6 months? How about the next year? Now the next 5 years?

Let's assume for a minute that the support for VB6 will stay for the next year. Is it good for the community to keep using yesterdays technology? Or is it not better for the community to educate them about .NET and what .NET can do for them?

So let's look at the facts, VB6 is going away at least in the next 2 years. Now if you don't want to be a prammer in 5 years this is fine. But if you do want your shefl life extended for more than 5 years think about how you can accomplish that.

I happen to have MCSD with Visual Studio 6. More particularly I took the VB6 exams. After moving to .NET and getting my MCAD, I would prefer to never look back at VB6. It's a terrible language compared to VB.NET.

I understand there are huge code bases written entirely in VB6 code and can't really be ported to VB.NET without a rewrite. Just because MS doesn't fully support VB6 doesn't mean you can't support your applications.

Why don't we use Vaccum tube in Computers today? It's easy, because IC's are way better. It's called advancement people, you have to move with the times.

I'm no VB guy, but my take on this is that most corporations have policies that require them to use technologies that are currently supported by their vendors. As Carl mentions, VB6 entering extended support does not change the current situation for most organisations. The critical date for most of them will be March 2008. So do companies need to redevelop applications from scratch just to be on a technology that is supported? In making that decision, I think that a company should simply ask itself the following question. How many support calls have we made to Microsoft for VB6? If that number is zero, then I would only port the applications if there was a genuine business need. Microsoft are not about to descend on businesses like cops on a drug dealer, and confiscate all the machines that have the VB6 dev tools installed on them.

Regards,

Bruce

Carl,

...get over it...

I couldn't agree more.

...use google...

It's like you're reading my mind dude!

Not to rub salt on an open wound, but it's ironic that it looks like Visual FoxPro (Visual Basics' bastard step brother) will outlast Visual Basic as far as support and new releases (none of which will be a .NET version)

Microsoft has been pushing the big .NET pill on VFP developers for years - it's about time that our VB6 siblings take dose.

All I can say is take the pill, it will make you feel good -- I promise.

-a reformed Visual FoxPro programmer, now a VB.NET junkie

From my blog entry on the matter:

"I've written a tonne of VB6 code and it's all still running just fine thank you very much. In fact, some DCOM stuff I did a while back even survived an upgrade of the OS from NT4 to Win2K and the database from SQL 6.5 to SQL 2000. In fact, it's actally running about 4 or 5 times faster on the same class of hardware. There's no need to port that code. IJW."

And it will continue to work. And just to be clear, that code didn't need any changes either. If you designed and implemented it right the first time, it will just keep working.

Some anonymous coward wrote:
"You can kill the revolutionary but you can't kill the revolution."

Ya, well, you can't kill cockroaches either but that doesn't mean they're particularly useful or relevant to the future.

BTW, I'm a Visual Developer.NET MVP. I am NOT revolting and I resent the fact that this issue is being portrayed by some (Scoble) as though all MVPs are up in arms over this. I'm pretty sure that the X-Box MVPs couldn't care less.

David, this is perhaps THE quote for this issue. To paraphrase:

"You can't kill cockroaches, but that doesn't mean they're particularly useful or relevant to the future."

Well said, man.

Bruce McLeod has emphasised the point that caused me to sign the petition. We have shareholders and or main application is VB6-based, running on Win98 computers in schools throughout Australia -- .NET is not an option for a few years yet.

If there is a bug/feature that we cannot fix, it is our directors who can be charged with negligence... So when Microsoft ends each type of support we have to strongly consider dropping a perfectly working product. "It's a trust thing."

Having read the Microsoft responses explaining that the VB6 runtime will be supported for XP timeframes and possibly longer is good, but if some XP service pack breaks the VB6 IDE we'll need to reinstall Win2k to maintain VB6 code, because the problem won't necessarily be fixed...

BTW I prefer VB.NET as a (compiled) .NET language, it just doesn't suit our customer base yet.

The more I read about this, the less sympathetic I feel. As a former VFP programmer, all I've heard for the past fours years is to learn .NET or become a IT manager. Since I'd rather put a bullet in my head than become a manager I choose to learn VB.NET.

The whole rational that millions of programmers will be 'stranded' because of the so called learning curve of VB.NET is just not true - they will become stranded because they choose not to progress their careers.

I've also heard the whole argument that porting a VB6 application to VB.NET is difficult - Having never doen it myself, can someone comment on it? From what I can gather, the major obstacle in porting is that the conversion tools require that some level of dicipline was used in creating the VB6 application. Since VB6 is a hobbyist language, I see that this could be a problem, and going back to my first statement, a reason why poeple are finding VB.NET harder to learn. Another thought is that the gazillions of third-party tools and componets for VB6 may not work under a .NET environment - is that true?

The bottom line is that our trade is evolving and will continue to evolve - 10 years from today there will be another revolt from the .NET MVP's when Microsoft introduces the next wave of developer tools. Juat as 10 year ago there was a revolt from 'DOS Programmers' that did not want to learn OOP. If you don't want to grow than great, it's your choice - but don't complain about it. Microsoft has given all of us more than enough warning to prepare and has poured millions into helping those who wish to help themselves.


Let me ask you this - What's going to happen when Blackcomb, the next verion of Windows after Longhorn? It's been speculated that COM will not be allowed to run on those machines.

Hey,

if you want Microsoft to listen, tell them your all swithing to Java!!

I think that VB6 folks would have just as hard time learning Java. If you listen to the current episode of DNR, Carl mentions something that sum up what I said ealier - lack of discipline - "You didn't write business objects when everyone told you to?"

Hi, this is Ed Nilges, author of Build Your Own .Net Language and Compiler, which presents the source code for a compiler and interpreter for a significant part of QuickBasic (Apress 2004).

My two cents on the VB-6 revolt: grow up.

Microsoft has, uh, already, uh, done, uh, what the VB-6 revolutionaries are demanding and produced: Visual Basic .Net.

(Ta da).

It even caved in March 2001 to massive demonstrations in Bellevue and Redmond :-) and now compiles And and Or the wrong way, while providing those of us with a few brain cells AndAlso and OrElse, with the result that every time I have to code AndAlso, I have a flashmack to my days an altar boy, when I had to reply "and also to you" to Father O'Shaughnessy, in Latin.

Incompatible? Good. Look, Visual Basic 6 doesn't even communicate properly the very idea that a Form is something with weight that exists in the Real World, and instead mystifies the Form, making it a shadowy and ultimately uncomprehended Platonism, if you will pardon my French (un objet de Platon d'ombre tenebreuse chic alors, and death of me life).

Which in practice results in Silly Rules in the real world of VB-6, such as "any creation by a programer of an object without authorization is a termination offense".

I am NOT making this up. Visual Basic so hides the fact that a Snark is a Boojum and a Form is just code, a species in fact of a Control, that vast "enterprise systems" are written in VB-6 with code repeated in many different places.

In fine, don't use my book to reinvent Visual Basic 6. It's MUCH more difficult to do so than to convert all your applications to VB.Net.

These retro revolutions remind me of fabricated political events where people are manipulated to call alternatively for a return to chaos or to chains.

I am not saying "follow without question the correct thinking of Chairman Bill". I am not saying (to continue in the retro political register) "death to running dog counter-revolutionary ghost-monster agents of the international capitalist conspiracy to return to VB-3".

I am saying, MUST CHILL.

Visual Basic 6 is (rather painfully) Turing complete. But so is VB.Net. Which means that all programs that can be written in VB-6 can be written in, or converted to, VB.Net.

In the words of my supervisor at Encyclopedia Britannica a number of years ago, "don't do me any favors, do your job".

Visual Basic programmers of the world unite, but not for a return to the past.

My first thing to say to the VB Revolters is "Get over it and move on" Let's not sit back and pine for the good ole days of stone knives and bearskins.

MS is going to provide support for VB6 out to 2008. I think this is more than reasonable. Additionally MS listened when the VB community wanted numerous changes to VB.NET Back in 2001. Personally I think they cowtowed to them too much.

One thing I think MS has misjudged is that in the real world people don't just go out and re-write applications just because the technology is cool and easier for programmers. Like VB many folks have put a hugh investment in COM. We have a customer that has a large object model in COM that talks through ADO (PRE .NET) to Oracle. They have alot of VB and VC++ with MFC front ends. We have had significant problems changing the UIs to .NET and talking to COM with ADO. (The COM Objects abstract the Database operations and business rules). There is great support for COM but many areas are lacking. Especially with ADO. In some cases we have had to put and not go through the object model to do updates. This means that we have to implement the business rules outside in .NET rather than our COM Object model. When we have called the premium tech support at MS they have literally told us that we should re-write the COM Model in .NET. They did not seem to understand that this was a commercial product and re-doing everything in .NET is Not realisitc. Companies just do not throw away hundreds of thousands of lines of code because MS came out with the latest and greatest. Same thing is true of Servers. We still have enterpise customers on NT 4.0 and 98.

Don't get me wrong. I Love MS and the support they give developers. When I think of programming with X-Windows & Motif and that twenty book library, as compared to MSDN with the tools & information I have at my disposal today, I thank god for Bill Gates and all the hard working folks at MS.

I'm a C++ guy so the C# was a natural transition. .NET is so much easier, but it does have some ramp up in learning the Framework. ASP.NET is light years better than regular ASP. I cringe everytime I have to open up the spagetti code in ASP. VB has never impressed me but I know it is just another tool in my toolbox and i do use it. Including VB6. When the support dies off, I will do well and people will pay us for our expertise to migrate to .NET or whatever is the latest and greatest.

Technology Changes. If you got a problem with that you might want to look at another career.

Really good topic, I hope your give me more iformation about this topic.Thanks!
http://kids.998guide.com/ kids
http://pets.998guide.com/ pets
http://shopping.998guide.com/ shopping
http://auto.998guide.com/ auto
http://watches.998guide.com/ watches
http://airlines.998guide.com/">http://airlines.998guide.com/ airlines
http://airlinetickets.998guide.com/ airline tickets
http://cerebralpalsy.998guide.com/ cerebral palsy
http://depression.998guide.com/ depression
http://diabetes.998guide.com/ diabetes
http://game.soudown.net/ game
http://jobsearch.998guide.com/ job search
http://flash.soudown.net/ Flash
http://airlines.998guide.com/">http://airlines.998guide.com/ airlines
http://www.998guide.com/ Home Loan
http://annuity.998guide.com/ annuity sell
http://assurance.998guide.com/ assurance quality

VB.Net, ASP.Net, C#, .NET Framework ….. Were to start ….. Junk …. The .Net mess looks to me like a very vain attempt to make a MS version of Java. Let’s take a hard look at all of the .NET … stuff.

First it is a interpreted language.

Second it is not a programming language.

People who use .NET aren’t programmers they are scripter’s.

.NET has a HUGE overhead.

.NET ISN’T portable … MS said it would be.

It is much faster to write “include stdio.h” or “Declare winapi.dll” than it is to write

“Using .something” then write “Hello.Iam.A.Really.Long.Something.Add.Two.Plus.Two”

Programmers by nature want a true compiler not an interpreter.

IMS should fire the person who came up with this “brilliant” idea for a so called NexGen Programming tool. If people haven’t noticed Java never took over the world and neither will .NET.

Take a lesson from the Mac people. They are a third rate computer company because they wanted so much control over there programming tools. MS opened there software to the world and then gave people the tools to create programs any way they wanted. The result was 10,000,000,000 programs for windows and 23.5 for Apple. So, when people went shopping for a computer they made sure it had MS OS.

Now MS wants to relegate all of the programmers to C/C++ and use mindless drones with the .NET.

I love VB6 and wish they would make a VB7. If I want to use a scripting language and become a mindless drone I’ll use Java not .NET.

I do believe the time has come to take a good look at Linux and Xwindows.

So much more to rant about but I’ll save it for another day……..