|
You wanna put the joke icon on that one - people who know you might think you have turned to the dark side...or is that the dumb side? 
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
I come from teh dark side. My mission is completed. VB6 shall rule all of you in sometime. We will conquer you all. BWA HA HA
|
|
|
|
|
"All your CODZZZ are belong to us"
"URGNTZZZZZ!!!!!" probably.
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
|
It wasn't a bad language. If it was a bad language, there wouldn't have been such a demand for it in the business community. It did exactly what it set out to do - make developing business applications quick.
|
|
|
|
|
Demand doesn't make something "not bad" - see cigarettes, the first generation Fiat Panda, and Sharknado 2.
|
|
|
|
|
Perfect argument!
Case closed! 
"I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability!"
Ron White, Comedian
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: make developing business applications quick.
That what you say - but in 1999 when we went to Microsoft they sold us VB6 to develop the new version of our ERP. It was catastrophic...
It was a group - so-called - specialist in distributed network applications (they called it DNALab), and they almost ruined our reputation with that suggestion...
So the fact that even Microsoft didn't know for what VB is good, but they tried it on everyone without mercy... 
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
|
|
|
|
|
Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter wrote: in 1999 when we went to Microsoft they sold us VB6 to develop the new version of our ERP
In 1999 Microsoft was selling VB6 for any business problem. It was their language of the day. 
The report of my death was an exaggeration - Mark Twain
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
I'm on-line therefore I am.
JimmyRopes
|
|
|
|
|
So the problem was the people and not the language. MS fell victim to the same mentality as many large consultancies and tried body shopping where they'd drop a star programmer in to win the bid and, as soon as they had got the work, they'd drag that poor sap off to repeat the same process in other companies. It's known as bait and switch. You cannot blame the language for poor management practice. I've seen many fine programs written in VB6, in just the same was as I've seen many poor ones.
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: So the problem was the people and not the language.
It more was like Juno - two faced problem. People that try to sell you something that does not fit...
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure the language would have fit. As I said, it's having people who don't know what they are doing that is generally the problem. There have been many ERP implementations that used VB6 and they seemed to be able to cope admirably. The problem is, it's easy to knock VB because it's looked down on and derided as a toy language by "serious" developers, and this is just a crass attitude. Unfortunately, this infantile behaviour has carried over from VB6 through to the VB.NET world and I can understand why we don't get many VB developers on CodeProject - because we have a self styled elite pouring scorn on them.
|
|
|
|
|
I can't agree more about that 'elite' behavior around - !
Also about VB6 and VB.NET - they are a different...
But believe me! I went to Microsoft every day for over 6 months. Their professionals worked with me all day long to build the base of our new system - it doesn't worked out - and in that case it was because of VB6...
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
