Why VB 6.0??

Quote:

---

I still feel that if you know any of these products well enough

---

Obviously that can't be. As for my Encryption problem. Code worked in VB6 for years (in the IDE and compiled). Sometime within the past few months, something changed! When I issue the .Decrypt() command (part of capicom)
I pass it a string, and get 'BAD DATA'.

How much time should I spend on this? Sure, I'd like a solution, but it's far easier to disable the feature to have the app work (without a password for the setup function)

Not sure what you are using .NET for, but my application area is Accounting ERP Systems

The typical symptom I hear in Accounting Systems developed in .NET is the slowness of it all

Here are some very recent comments on the MS Accounting 2008 package (viz the users forum)

If Microsoft cant get it right, then what hope have we got ?

http://www.microsoft.com/office/comm...a-92d38428354b

If it takes 20 minutes to print 10 documents, we may as well go back to pencil and paper.

Now you will say - Oh, but the program has not been optimised properly or the server is not balanced ... blah blah

The point is ... if you have such a sensitive sytem that just gives up the ghost as it chooses, then where is the merit in using it for real production work.

I spent several months developing a new Accounting Application in VB.Net but in the end just gave up as it ran too slowly -

ie, User Experience - COMPLETE FRUSTRATION

At least with VB6 and most other languages / platforms, you know how its going to respond.

1) The referenced thread has NOTHING to do with .Net

2) An experienced developer knows EXACTLY what they will get regardless of language.

3) I have not seen a single instance (and have offered cash rewards) for performance differences (of a meaningful nature) directly attributable to an application written in .NET. In the vast majority of cases, the developer simply did not have a clue of what they were doing.

I often equate it to driving a car (VB6) vs. Flying a Plane (any .Net). Being qualified in one does not qualify you in the other (any more than being an expert Dartmouth Basic programmer will give you a clue about Visual Basic).

And it is definately true that there are things you can do with VB.Net that you can not do with VB6. But it is UNTRUE that there is a single thing that can be accomplished using VB6.0 that is impossible to accomplish using VB.Net.

ps: Remember the "B" in Basic stands for Beginner's :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheCPUWizard

And it is definately true that there are things you can do with VB.Net that you can not do with VB6. But it is UNTRUE that there is a single thing that can be accomplished using VB6.0 that is impossible to accomplish using VB.Net.

---

How about unmanaged code? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheCPUWizard

ps: Remember the "B" in Basic stands for Beginner's :p

---

That's bound to spark a few flames...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WizBang

How about unmanaged code? :D

---

Sure...I have won bets on this one a few times....carry to risk some cash?

But what I was referring to was more along the lines of "Write a program that will.....". In other words a functional type specification leaving the implementation details to the language.

Quote:

---

That's bound to spark a few flames...

---

While my intentions on this thread are serious, the above was intended to prevoke. ;)

BASIC
Beginners
All-purpose
Symbolic
Instruction
Code
.

Visual, Generaly indicates that it's windows based, IE. has a GUI (Graphic Users Interface)..

And i do see where CPU's concerns are ... Why start NEW Programmers in VB6.

If They dint know how to do something in .NET they still wont know how to do it in VB6.. so why teach VB6.. rather teach the Newb the .NET way from the start.. Also Job positions are now almost all .NET orientated.. VB6 gets you a nod but that is about all..

Gives the Newbs a fighting chance... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HanneSThEGreaT

Another poll option can be added, entitled, "Why Not ¿"

I'm using VB 6, VB 2003, 2005, 2008 on my Vista machine at home without any hassles. In anyone of them,

---

You didn't run into issues between 2003 and 2005? Are they installed where both are available at the same time?

I develop apps for handheld devices and what I ran into was that the ,net sdks for the devices would not show up in both. I would have the option to add the references in 2003 but not in 2005 and if I remember correctly when I installed 2005 I got a message telling me that I should uninstall 2003 first or some things may not work as expected.

So I am curious what configuration you have and if you have did anything with mobile devices Motorola and Symbol especially as those are the ones I ran into issues with.

I didn't hit that specific issue, as I developed a practice of using specific virtual machines for each project developement environment. Saves LOTS of hassles (and well worth the extra licenses). This is totally independant of the ".Net issues", just a stable programming practice...

Quote:

---

2) Why would anyone take the risk (as a developer or customer) of being in a totally unsupported position, when there are viable alternatives? Just knowing that on any given day, things could stop working, and the vendor could say "Yup...It does not work anymore, sorry we are not going to help you", would give me cause for concern....

---

Yes, there are better alternatives. It is called moving away from restriction and microsoft's support act. They probably will keep pulling support until they make everyone update.

I don't know why people would even want to learn the .net language because there are better alternatives like you said.

I would recommend c++ because you can compile it and it is faster than most languages.

I would recommend java before the .net because it is like c++ and it is more complete for easily development and for cross platform and it has proven itself.

Quote:

---

3) I have not seen a single instance (and have offered cash rewards) for performance differences (of a meaningful nature) directly attributable to an application written in .NET. In the vast majority of cases, the developer simply did not have a clue of what they were doing.

---

I am surprised because the .net is so simple..... and simple does come with a price against speed.

Quote:

---

And it is definitely true that there are things you can do with VB.Net that you can not do with VB6. But it is UNTRUE that there is a single thing that can be accomplished using VB6.0 that is impossible to accomplish using VB.Net.

---

Oh really??? try to compile to machine code! oh you can't do that in vb.net... really?? duh!!!

Quote:

---

I wonder....

How many of the people here have ever written a secure (ie passing DoD standards and qualifications) program in their life???

How many people use Code Access Security when writing .Net Code?

How many people have even read "Writing Secure Code"? ISBN 0-7356-1722

How many people DRM encrypt their application prior to deployment and use Ring 0 security and authorization?

---

I don't need that since I don't use the .net.

Quote:

---

How many people think they have a (native) program that I could not tamer with to alter its Behavior?

---

Now I never said you can't alter its behavior, but that is a far cry from decompiling. I have made many things act different, but I never once looked at its source code. Major differences there. That isn't the same at all.

Also I didn't get into the .net because everytime I wanted to all the tutorials where split up from vs 2003, vs 2005 and vs 2008. They don't work with each other very well. Now what is so different now? They will continue this rampage.

Vb6 will work until vista is obsolete. If they do pull support to where it won't run on vista, I am going to be mad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BytePtr
Joeman

I agree with your two posts completely. I have nothing to add.
Very good answers.

---

Thank you for your support. I am glad someone shares the same opinion .

Why would you want to use .net?
Maybe because you don't know better?

I like vb6 because my code can't be decompiled.
There are way better programming languages out there that looks
nicer and runs faster.

For ex... Real basic it works on Mac, Linux and windows.
It compiles to machine code for each platform :D
and it is very close to vb6 and has a tool that will
covert your vb6 project for you.

I would tell all the newbies to start with vb6 or realbasic for
their first language before I would lead them down the wrong road
with the .net.

Here are some links if you would like to steal someone's souce code that
programmed in the .net http://www.netdecompiler.com/.

Here is a link where you don't need to download any software to decomplie
someone's source code. All you have to do is upload it and I don't think it
can get any easier than that http://www.remotesoft.com/salamander/.

I think the reason that the newbies are learning vb6 is because they
read about this stuff on forums and learn better than to use
the .net or maybe they have a brain in their head. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RealityIsForLocos

Why would you want to use .net?
Maybe because you don't know better?...snip...

---

I know things quite well thank you.

(Let's see 8000+ posts here (over 6000 of them on native C++ topics), A total of over 30,000 across public forums (80% not related to Microsoft products, 35+ years experience developing software, the president of one of only 3 independant consulting firms in all of New York City that has been in continous profitable operation since 1985)

It still amazes me though how many people truely are cluelss...

1) The book Writing Secure Code does not even MENTION .Net. except as a foot note in two chapters.

2) ALL .Net does ALWAYS compile 100% to native code. The default is to do it at first execution so it can be optimized for the current machine, but it can be done by the vendor.

3) The silly focus on de-compiling. NONE of the significant software vendors (who produce .Net based products) are even bothering to obsfucate. They realize that "Security by Obscurity" is nothing but Window Dressing, and that is ALL that a (normal) native applicaion does. Yes it will slow down a 3-5 year old, but to a professional, there is no significant difference in reverse engineering native C++ application than there is in reverse engineering a .Net application where the variables are in a language other than ones native tongue.

I didn't read the book and I know very well it doesn't compile to native for the exe. sorry I just won't believe. If you know asm, good for you, but asm is not going to be converted back to the original source code at all period.

VBA – which is a VB6 copycat – is still MS-Office’s primary language and it seems to me this will go on for many years to come. At least in my area, I realized, there is big market potentials for programmers who can bring information to customers’ desk directly from their network servers using MS Office.

A good command of VBA assures you a good slice of the market. A good command of VB6 is a good command of VBA.

VBA is a scripting language, not a programming lang..

VBA's runtime is office, and has evolved with office.

There are many simularities between VBA and VB6, however thats where it ends.

Even a good knowledge of VB.NET will assist in VBA ..

Gremmy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joeman

I didn't read the book and I know very well it doesn't compile to native for the exe. sorry I just won't believe. If you know asm, good for you, but asm is not going to be converted back to the original source code at all period.

---

Then kindly explain the following as the DEFAULT generated information...

Code:

---

--- C:\Src\AspenLawStudydesk 3.x.x.x\AspenLawStudyDesk.UnitTesting\ConsoleApplication1\Program.cs
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Text;

namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
    class Program
    {
        static void Main(string[] args)
        {
00000000  push        ebp 
00000001  mov        ebp,esp
00000003  push        edi 
00000004  push        esi 
00000005  push        ebx 
00000006  sub        esp,30h
00000009  xor        eax,eax
0000000b  mov        dword ptr [ebp-10h],eax
0000000e  xor        eax,eax
00000010  mov        dword ptr [ebp-1Ch],eax
00000013  mov        dword ptr [ebp-3Ch],ecx
00000016  cmp        dword ptr ds:[00918568h],0
0000001d  je          00000024
0000001f  call        794C717F
00000024  nop             
            Console.WriteLine("Hello World");
00000025  mov        ecx,dword ptr ds:[0228307Ch]
0000002b  call        78788B8C
00000030  nop             
        }
00000031  nop             
00000032  lea        esp,[ebp-0Ch]
00000035  pop        ebx 
00000036  pop        esi 
00000037  pop        edi 
00000038  pop        ebp 
00000039  ret

---

ps: Who ever cared about "original" source code. In fact how could you ever detect it? If I gave you two programs in any language that functioned exactly identically, what qualification would you use to determh was "origiinal"?