Re: Back to VB6 and .NET

On Feb 1, 9:52 am, "Harvey Triana" <eslender2...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If you want to use new technology, use C#, not VB.NET. VB.NET is an elegant
pampering of C#, not more. Today I development production software using C#
and VB6 (real Visual Basic).

Oh please, there is little real difference between VB.NET and C#. If
you are used to working with VB6 and want to work with .NET then use
VB.NET.

Technical difference aside the reason I like VB.NET over C# is the
fact it is more verbose and easier to read way after you do the
initial coding. This always been an advantage of the BASIC family of
language.

The main difference between C# and VB.NET is C# has the ability to use
unsafe code i.e. code that directly access memory and ports, and
VB.NET method of using delegates and declaring event handlers (used in
making forms) takes a lot less code. Aside from that both language s
march in lock step in terms of features. Also remember that .NET is
language neutral so anything you can't do in one language (like unsafe
code) can be done in the other and wrapped up in an assembly that is
callable by the other language.

Again the problem of .NET these days is solely with the lack of
backwards compatibility not due to any technical issues. Also .NET has
open source equivalents in the form of C# and VB.NET compliers
developed under Mono. There is a world class IDE alternative in the
form of SharpDevelop. So you can avoid Microsoft and still reap the
advantages of .NET if that your wish.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Tool to mark code which has been executed
    ... a external party where all coders are C# coders ... They are all VB6 developers and management ... why move them to another language. ... VB6 program while we're doing the VB.NET upgrade. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb)
  • Re: MS, Enough is Enough!
    ... translation of VB6 would result in a messy difficult to maintain .NET ... It would have been possible to keep the existing language, but extend it to make it fully OO, and add the ability to access the .NET framework. ... There is no reason why MS could not have made VB7, which would have compiled existing VB6 code but was also fully OO. ... That doesn't stop my .NET apps being slower than my C++/VB6 native apps, or mean that my existing VB6 code-base can move forward to take advantage of the .NET framework. ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)
  • Re: Is my Control a cotrol array ??
    ... lower bound because the language makes using 0 more "natural". ... There would be literally hundreds of restrictions that full vb6 ... in VB6 so requiring the full syntax would not have been a code-breaking ... DOS apps still run on XP. ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.controls)
  • Re: Is my Control a cotrol array ??
    ... lower bound because the language makes using 0 more "natural". ... You don't need to gut existing syntax to ... There would be literally hundreds of restrictions that full vb6 ... DOS apps still run on XP. ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.controls)
  • Re: vb6 -v- Net!
    ... windows and the apps look comparably the same. ... language is nicer, I'll agree, but nicer doesn't get me where I want to go. ... VB Programmer make Database Frontend using Crystal Reports to generate ... And guess what the one VB6 upgrade path .NET supports? ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)
Loading