Re: VB6, VB2005, or Something Else?

Tech-Archive recommends: Fix windows errors by optimizing your registry

Dan Barclay wrote:
"Andre Kaufmann" <andre.kaufmann.bei@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:%23ijW3ajPGHA.3888@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ralph wrote:
"Robin" <Robin@.com> wrote in message

Thanks, for feedback.

The really, really interesting feature of Delphi's .Net Stuff is that it
well illustrates what MS could have, might have, done with VB if they had
wanted to.
Yes. They could have done that. But IMHO it wouldn't have been that simple as it has been for the Delphi group. VB6 is very COM centric and

Whaaaa??? VB is COM under the hood but it is *not* COM to the developer.

!!! Only to prevent religious wars - the following should not be a "pro" statement for what has happened to VB6 !!!

A variable that changes automatically it's type is not (like) COM to the developer ? Reference counted resource management is not like COM ?
I admit that I don't know VB6 that well, but my VB code calling to C++ code and vice versa has been very COM centric - regarding the C++ side.

And even if it is only COM under the hood, the memory management is quite different to .NET. Reference counting and garbage collection. In Delphi the delete calls are mapped to Dispose calls. I wonder how this would be accomplished by a VB6.NET, if there aren't such calls ? Basic code would be simply portable between VB6 and .NET, no doubt, but there would be issues with large applications.


The language itself, along with the product as a whole existed quite nicely before it was COM. It didn't become COM until VB4.

I only stated that VB wouldn't have been that "easily" portable as Delphi has been. The language yes, but not all aspects. Doesn't mean that it was a simple task for the Delphi crew. They did a quite good job, no doubt.

Delphi code dealing heavily with pointers isn't that portable either.

Hell, much of the language moved forward nicely since CP/M. We thought we had some problems at VB1 and VB4... until our recent recalibration on the definition of "problem".
Dan

To sum it up, the VB6 code itself would have been portable to .NET without language changes, not 100% but at a much higher percentage than VB.NET. I only stated that it wouldn't have been so simple like in Delphi. Delphi and C# and .NET have been designed by the same developer, so they have more in common than VB and .NET.

Andre

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: VB6, VB2005, or Something Else?
    ... Do not confuse language issues with implementation issues. ... Had you called your C++ code from the DOS Basics you'd find that the VB code ... The same would be true for those who heavily used pointers in Delphi. ... statement for what has happened to VB6!!! ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)
  • Re: Microsoft MVPs Say They Want Old VB Back
    ... >without the catostrophic break that occured with VB6 to vb.net. ... Delphi was designed from the ground up to be an OO language. ... >>using VB6 or even that a VB.COM would increase a VB6 programmers ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb)
  • Re: Microsoft MVPs Say They Want Old VB Back
    ... >>without the catostrophic break that occured with VB6 to vb.net. ... Delphi was designed from the ground up to be an OO language. ... >>>using VB6 or even that a VB.COM would increase a VB6 programmers ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb)
  • Re: Turbo Basic Explorer
    ... At least for now, VB6 still works. ... Do you have non-speculative numbers of VB6ers that have moved to Delphi, ... You'd have to speculate VB.Net numbers from that, ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: Delphi? Futureproof re vb!
    ... .NET side of things over the older syntax side. ... Delphi experience will be along to address these issues. ... Apparently dot net express is an attempt by Microsoft to get back ... to the vb6 concept which they should never have left! ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)