Re: Should Access VBA programmer move to VB .NET?


"David Anderson" <DavidAnderson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:9E1B1CA1-09F9-41D7-8E55-4A37E4A3F43D@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> I seem to have stumbled into the proverbial hornet's nest with my original
> post! I didn't realise that this topic is a source of so much controversy.
> All the contributions so far are much appreciated and have helped to
clarify
> many of the issues for me.
>
> Some more comments follow the quotes below.
>
>
> "Gerald Hernandez" wrote:
>
> > Well, first re-coding things into full VB6 would be quite a bit of
> > work. Are there potential benefits? Yes. You can build very robust
> > interfaces and numerous other things. Additionally, VB6 can compile to
> > Native Code, which can provide significant performance improvement and
opens
> > usable memory wide open.
> > Hitting the database itself may or may not be faster or slower. For this
you
> > would need to familiarize yourself with the options, specifically ADO
vs.
> > DAO. I think at this point it would be good to point out the obvious
> > differences between "Access" and "Jet". Access is the "front end" while
> > "Jet" is the "back end" database engine. DAO offers the best possible
> > performance on the database itself, and is what Access uses I believe.
ADO
> > is more generic, but fairly ubiquitous in VB6.
>
> I don't generally have a problem with the 'robustness' of my Access
> interfaces but anything that improves performance in an application that
> links to large JPEG files (my current development project) is certainly of
> interest.
>
> I'm not enough of a techie to understand the difference between the code
> generated by compiling VBA within Access and the 'native code' that you
> mention. Please clarify. Also, can you give me any idea of how much
> performance benefit VB6 might offer? I suspect that it may be impossible
to
> provide a simple answer but some ball park estimate would be better than
> nothing.
>
>
> "Ralph" wrote:
>
> > If you have at least a grand to spend and want to join the parade and be
> > really "IN", then VS 2005 and Office 2003 is the way to go. (Wait - make
> > that $4k+. As you will also want to upgrade to XP and buy a faster box
to
> > make up for the performance loss.)
>
> Thanks for making it clear that the .Net route to wider horizons and a
more
> beautiful body comes with a performance penalty. That was one of the key
> facts I wanted to elicit from this discussion.
>
> By the way, I'm too old and bald a bird to be much interested in following
> the latest fashions. Since it's my own money I'd be spending, I prefer to
> upgrade hardware or software only when the benefits are obvious. Of
course,
> when I have persuaded myself that upgrades are desirable, I then have to
> persuade my wife ........
>
>

lol

That clarifies it rather well.

Spend your money on a fast box, XP Pro (perhaps the media edition) and
upgrade to Office 2003. Ignore the developer or programming packages (vb6,
VS.Net, &etc).

I am lucky, as my wife is computer-phobic, but does like her occasional
Internet browsing and email. Whenever I feel the need for something new, I
just turn off cookies, change screen colors, etc. When she notices or
complains, I tell her something must have broke and I need to buy a new
'Widget-Klatten'.

I think she is getting suspicious though, she has started locking up her
laptop.

-ralph


.

Loading