Re: VB and professional application
- From: "YYZ" <matt.dawdy@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 4 Nov 2005 13:54:47 -0800
Sorry, hit send before I was done.
I've written a very fast takeoff tool for Drywall and Acoustical
Estimating. It beat the pants off (speed wise) the leading product on
the market that was written in C++. I'm not saying VB6 is faster than
C++, just that, between the 2, I think that what you program matters
more than what you program IN.
I've written numerous cgi executables in straight VB6 with very few API
calls, and they are still in operation on a few somewhat high profile
sites. I don't have the ability to check anymore to see if my VB
programs are still running on those sites, and so obviously haven't
been back to measure the performace of them, but I do remember shortly
after launching the first site, my program, running on a WinNT 4
server, was able to serve over 200,000 hits in a couple of hours with
no discernable slowdowns or dropped connections or anything. All
worked great. I did those apps in a fraction of the time that I could
have done them in C++, and it isn't interpreted like perl or other cgi
scripts. Nothing wrong with those, either, but VB is just so damn
friendly and easy to work in.
The cgi programs I've written have run under IIS and Apache on WinNT 4,
2000, XP, and Advanced Server 2003.
In contrast (and seriously, NOT to start a flamewar, but I think it
deserves to be said) all of the apps on my computer right now
(shrink-wrap software that our company bought...not ones that I've
made) that have been written in .Net take FOREVER to startup, and seem
to freeze in odd places for no discernable reasons.
If...and this is a big if...MS would promise that VB 6 apps would run
completely unchanged on the next 3 versions of operating systems, then
I'd do it in VB6.
Matt
.
- References:
- VB and professional application
- From: Maileen
- VB and professional application
- Prev by Date: Re: Loop de Loop
- Next by Date: Re: Do Loop error ?
- Previous by thread: Re: VB and professional application
- Next by thread: Re: Separate Double into Bytes
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|