A good alternative if you don't like VB.NET

[Brent...]

Hi everyone,

I've been following the discussions about VB.Net and it reminds me of the
time we all moved from VB3 to VB4. I've been using VB since the day it was
released in May of 1991 and the changes to the language have been dramatic.
VB 6 to VB.Net is a dramatic shift but so was VB 3 to VB 4 and we all got
through that. I had just as many reservations as many in this group have
expressed because I manage an application that consists of 700 VB6 COM and
the thought of moving to VB.Net gave me nightmares. After using VB.Net to
build something new from scratch I'm sold. I really like this new platform
and definitely prefer working in VB.Net over VB 6. I don't even miss E & C
as much as I thought I would but I still want it back ASAP :-). For those
who haven't actually used VB.Net to actually build something substantial
please do so. You might be pleasantly surprised.

With that said I know many people are looking for an alternative. May I
suggest having a look at PowerBasic (www.PowerBasic.com). The new features
can be seen at http://www.powerbasic.com/products/pbdll32 . They just
released version 7 this week. It's still not a VB killer but it sure will
appeal to those that are into hard core 'Petzold' style coding and the API.
It compiles true native executables and Dlls with no dependencies (the
smallest I've ever seen) and it even supports COM now.

All you curmudgeons go have a look. Please!!! :-)

Brent...

[Dave Doknjas]

>All you curmudgeons go have a look. Please!!! :-)
>
Curmudgeon!?!? I resemble that remark!

[Brent...]

You'll notice from that link I posted that PowerBasic added
Try.Catch.Finally to the Basic language. Apparently it is breaking some
peoples code because these are now key words. Interestingly I can't find
anyone *****ing about it in the PowerBasic forums. Interesting ;-)

Brent...



"Brent..." <xxx@yyy.com> wrote in message news:3cf808d5$1@10.1.10.29...
> Hi everyone,
>
> I've been following the discussions about VB.Net and it reminds me of the
> time we all moved from VB3 to VB4. I've been using VB since the day it was
> released in May of 1991 and the changes to the language have been
dramatic.
> VB 6 to VB.Net is a dramatic shift but so was VB 3 to VB 4 and we all got
> through that. I had just as many reservations as many in this group have
> expressed because I manage an application that consists of 700 VB6 COM and
> the thought of moving to VB.Net gave me nightmares. After using VB.Net to
> build something new from scratch I'm sold. I really like this new platform
> and definitely prefer working in VB.Net over VB 6. I don't even miss E & C
> as much as I thought I would but I still want it back ASAP :-). For those
> who haven't actually used VB.Net to actually build something substantial
> please do so. You might be pleasantly surprised.
>
> With that said I know many people are looking for an alternative. May I
> suggest having a look at PowerBasic (www.PowerBasic.com). The new features
> can be seen at http://www.powerbasic.com/products/pbdll32 . They just
> released version 7 this week. It's still not a VB killer but it sure will
> appeal to those that are into hard core 'Petzold' style coding and the
API.
> It compiles true native executables and Dlls with no dependencies (the
> smallest I've ever seen) and it even supports COM now.
>
> All you curmudgeons go have a look. Please!!! :-)
>
> Brent...
>
>

[Bob Butler]

"Brent" <xxx@yyy.com> wrote in message news:3cf808d5$1@10.1.10.29
> Hi everyone,
>
> I've been following the discussions about VB.Net and it reminds me of
> the time we all moved from VB3 to VB4. I've been using VB since the
> day it was released in May of 1991 and the changes to the language
> have been dramatic. VB 6 to VB.Net is a dramatic shift but so was VB
> 3 to VB 4 and we all got through that.

VB3->VB4 was a realtively significant upgrade. It pales in comparison to
the VB6->VB.Net move.

> I had just as many
> reservations as many in this group have expressed because I manage an
> application that consists of 700 VB6 COM and the thought of moving to
> VB.Net gave me nightmares. After using VB.Net to build something new
> from scratch I'm sold.
<cut>

Starting a new app is a very different situation than maintaining an
existing app. There are many technical merits to VB.Net but that's not the
whole issue.

How long do you think VB6 apps will be viable as Windows versions change? I
expect it to be much shorter than ever before -- MS has already stated that
backward compatibility is lower priority than system security and that
support for VB6 apps under any 64-bit Windows will be secondary at best.
Keeping existing code in VB6 is only a short-term solution.

Given the total disregard shown for existing VB6 code, what do you expect
the compatibility to be between VB.Net 1.0 and VB.Net 2.0? Is there any
reason to believe that anything you write in VB.Net will be upgradeable in
future versions? Why would you commit to a language that the the vendor
obviously has no commitment to?

If existing VB6 apps have to be rewritten essentially from scratch why would
it make sense to set yourself up to do it again in a couple of years?

> With that said I know many people are looking for an alternative. May
> I suggest having a look at PowerBasic (www.PowerBasic.com). The new
> features can be seen at http://www.powerbasic.com/products/pbdll32 .
> They just released version 7 this week. It's still not a VB killer
> but it sure will appeal to those that are into hard core 'Petzold'
> style coding and the API.

It's not a love of 'Petzold' coding and the API, it's a business need to
have a stable, tested code base that can evolve as the business needs
dictate, not because somebody else thinks there's a better way to code it.

> It compiles true native executables and
> Dlls with no dependencies (the smallest I've ever seen)

Something that people have been asking for in VB for a long time. Something
that's another set of problems with the dotnet framework -- large runtimes
and the inability to distribute native EXE code, at least not without the IL
as well.

> and it even supports COM now.

A little late, considering MS is killing that off

[Bob Butler]

"Brent" <xxx@yyy.com> wrote in message news:3cf8287d$1@10.1.10.29
> You'll notice from that link I posted that PowerBasic added
> Try.Catch.Finally to the Basic language. Apparently it is breaking
> some peoples code because these are now key words. Interestingly I
> can't find anyone *****ing about it in the PowerBasic forums.
> Interesting ;-)

Probably because it's a relatively easy thing to find and change, resulting
in code that would compile and run in both versions. Change is inevitable
and some changes will require some recoding but smart vendors minimize the
effects as much as possible and do their best to provide reasonable upgrade
paths.

[Brent...]

see inline...

"Bob Butler" <butlerbob@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3cf82c38@10.1.10.29...
> "Brent" <xxx@yyy.com> wrote in message news:3cf8287d$1@10.1.10.29
> > You'll notice from that link I posted that PowerBasic added
> > Try.Catch.Finally to the Basic language. Apparently it is breaking
> > some peoples code because these are now key words. Interestingly I
> > can't find anyone *****ing about it in the PowerBasic forums.
> > Interesting ;-)
>
> A change like that is realtively easy to find and change in existing code
> such that the app will run correctly in either version. It may be a bit
of
> a pain, but it is nothing compared to the changes required to move to
VB.Net
> where it is just impossible to have code even remotely similar in the two
> versions.
>
> > "Brent..." <xxx@yyy.com> wrote in message
> > news:3cf808d5$1@10.1.10.29...
> >> Hi everyone,
> >>
> >> I've been following the discussions about VB.Net and it reminds me
> >> of the time we all moved from VB3 to VB4. I've been using VB since
> >> the day it was released in May of 1991 and the changes to the
> >> language have been dramatic. VB 6 to VB.Net is a dramatic shift but
> >> so was VB 3 to VB 4 and we all got through that.
> <cut>
>
> If you think the change from VB3 to VB4 was anything at all like the
change
> from VB6 to VB.Net you are nuts. There were many changes required to
handle
> the 16->32 bit change and to work around the way MS hosed the handling of
> binary data in strings but almost everything involved was relatively easy
to
> locate and update. It may have seemed like a big deal then but,
> comparatively, it was a walk in the park.
>

Sorry Bob but just don't agree with you on this one. Most of us who wrote
lots of code in VB1, VB2, and VB3 and then tried to port to VB4 and get
their heads around classes and objects had a very steep learning curve. Most
of us just take it for granted now but back then it was a dramatic change.
This is the type of thing that is very much a matter of opinion based on
everyone's personal experience so let's not continue this argument further.
YMMV.

I guess my point is that we just won't see major advances in a platform
unless we are willing to accept some dramatic shifts occasionally. I for one
am glad that VB will participate in the new .Net platform as an equal member
(generally) . C# is also a very nice language and with the amount of sample
source and also product source becoming available it's important to learn it
also.

I encourage you to have a look at PowerBasic. Really. Bob Zale is the owner
of PowerBasic and he takes backwards compatibility very seriously. If you
remember back quite a few years to TurboBasic from Borland that was Bob's
program. He eventually took it back from Borland when they decided too get
out of the Basic compiler business. These guys write everything in assembler
and it shows. Their compiler produces the smallest and fastest dlls and exes
I've ever seen and since they have NO dependencies other than the OS itself
your components are safe for many years. I use this compiler for small apps
and utilities that I don't want to have to ever worry about again. It's a
great complement to VB6 and VB.Net applications. I think Karl Petersen even
gave a complimentary review a few years back in VBPJ and that was before all
the new stuff.

Frankly my programs under .Net have also been small, fast, stable and very
easy to install and uninstall (XCopy) which is why I like the new .Net
platform. As soon as MS can get the runtime onto many more machines this
platform will really shine.

Brent...

[Phil Weber]

> Given the total disregard shown for existing VB6 code, what
> do you expect the compatibility to be between VB.NET 1.0 and
> VB.NET 2.0? Is there any reason to believe that anything you
> write in VB.NET will be upgradeable in future versions? Why
> would you commit to a language that the the vendor obviously
> has no commitment to?

Bob: I don't think it's reasonable to conclude, based on the fact that
Microsoft broke compatibility between VB6 and VB.NET, that VB.NET 2.0 will
be incompatible with 1.0, or that Microsoft has no commitment to VB.NET.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that VB has been relatively stable for the
past 10 years. Based on that history, it seems more reasonable to predict
that VB.NET will be similarly stable for at least the next 10 years.

I would be more inclined to question Microsoft's commitment to the language
if MS HADN'T gone to the considerable effort and expense to create a version
of VB for .NET (see: Visual FoxPro). Since they have, I'm confident that MS
intends for VB.NET to have a long and productive life.
---
Phil Weber

[W.E.(Bill) Goodrich, PhD]

In article <3cf8497b$1@10.1.10.29>,
"Phil Weber" <pweber@nospam.fawcette.com> writes:

> > Given the total disregard shown for existing VB6 code, what
> > do you expect the compatibility to be between VB.NET 1.0 and
> > VB.NET 2.0? Is there any reason to believe that anything you
> > write in VB.NET will be upgradeable in future versions? Why
> > would you commit to a language that the the vendor obviously
> > has no commitment to?

> Bob: I don't think it's reasonable to conclude, based on the
> fact that Microsoft broke compatibility between VB6 and VB.NET,
> that VB.NET 2.0 will be incompatible with 1.0, or that Microsoft
> has no commitment to VB.NET.

OTOH, many others consider such a conclusion quite reasonable.

> You seem to be ignoring the fact that VB has been relatively stable
> for the past 10 years.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that "backward compatibility" was a
major talking point for Micro$oft through that decade, whereas
"breaking compatibility" is popping up now in everything from the
Court case to discussions of the Trustworthy Computing initiative.

> Based on that history, it seems more reasonable to predict
> that VB.NET will be similarly stable for at least the next 10 years.

Only if you ignore that shift in values. And that shift is exemplified
in the VB.NET break.

> I would be more inclined to question Microsoft's commitment to the
> language if MS HADN'T gone to the considerable effort and expense to
> create a version of VB for .NET

And yet, they did it in such a way that the programs will not run
under the ECMA standard version of the CLR. What does that say about
their commitment to the language?

> (see: Visual FoxPro). Since they have, I'm confident that MS
> intends for VB.NET to have a long and productive life.

And since they have established the precedent with the VB6 to VB.NET
break - and spent so much time talking about more breaks in
compatibility - I do not share your confidence.

--

W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD

*-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*
* CHANGE YOUR SEXUALITY * http://www.nyx.net/~bgoodric/ctg.html *
* * *
* Without Aversive * ctgcentral@earthlink.net *
* Behavior Modification * Creative Technology Group *
* or Drugs * PO Box 286 *
* * Englewood, CO 80151-0286 *
*-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*

[Karl E. Peterson]

Hi Brent --

> You'll notice from that link I posted that PowerBasic added
> Try.Catch.Finally to the Basic language. Apparently it is breaking some
> peoples code because these are now key words. Interestingly I can't find
> anyone *****ing about it in the PowerBasic forums. Interesting ;-)

New keywords aren't an issue. That's evolution.

Redefined and recycled keywords are evil, however. HTH!

Later... Karl
--
[Microsoft Basic: 1976-2001, RIP]

[Dan Barclay]

On Fri, 31 May 2002 21:32:44 -0700, "Phil Weber"
<pweber@nospam.fawcette.com> wrote:

> > Given the total disregard shown for existing VB6 code, what
> > do you expect the compatibility to be between VB.NET 1.0 and
> > VB.NET 2.0? Is there any reason to believe that anything you
> > write in VB.NET will be upgradeable in future versions? Why
> > would you commit to a language that the the vendor obviously
> > has no commitment to?
>
>Bob: I don't think it's reasonable to conclude, based on the fact that
>Microsoft broke compatibility between VB6 and VB.NET, that VB.NET 2.0 will
>be incompatible with 1.0,

OK, make that VB.net 3.0 or VB.net 4.0. I give it 5 years tops based
on demonstrated performance.

> or that Microsoft has no commitment to VB.NET.

You have *got* to be kidding.

>You seem to be ignoring the fact that VB has been relatively stable for the
>past 10 years. Based on that history, it seems more reasonable to predict
>that VB.NET will be similarly stable for at least the next 10 years.

Say *what*? We've had this discussion before.

Oh, you said "relative". "Relative" to VB.net I suppose that's true.

>I would be more inclined to question Microsoft's commitment to the language
>if MS HADN'T gone to the considerable effort and expense to create a version
>of VB for .NET (see: Visual FoxPro). Since they have, I'm confident that MS
>intends for VB.NET to have a long and productive life.

You're really in a stretch here, Phil. They had a commitment to the
name VB for marketeering purposes. They have no commitment to the
language. As you have pointed out many times: it's a new language.

Dan
Language Stability is a *feature* I wish VB had!
(#6)
Error 51
Error 3
Error 9
....

[Tom Bennet]

Phil,

It was not reasonable for MS to break backward compatibility with what is
arguably the most successful development tool ever created is it?

**** no, it's irresponsible!

If we were dealing with a rational organization here I may agree with you.

Tom

"Phil Weber" <pweber@nospam.fawcette.com> wrote:

>Bob: I don't think it's reasonable to conclude, based on the fact that
>Microsoft broke compatibility between VB6 and VB.NET, that VB.NET 2.0 will
>be incompatible with 1.0, or that Microsoft has no commitment to VB.NET.
>
>You seem to be ignoring the fact that VB has been relatively stable for
the
>past 10 years. Based on that history, it seems more reasonable to predict
>that VB.NET will be similarly stable for at least the next 10 years.
>
>I would be more inclined to question Microsoft's commitment to the language
>if MS HADN'T gone to the considerable effort and expense to create a version
>of VB for .NET (see: Visual FoxPro). Since they have, I'm confident that
MS
>intends for VB.NET to have a long and productive life.
>---
>Phil Weber
>
>

[Mike Mitchell]

On 3 Jun 2002 18:45:06 -0800, "Tom Bennet" <fdfds@fdfs.com> wrote:

>If we were dealing with a rational organization here I may agree with you.

Ooh! What a sting in the tail that word "rational" implies...!

MM

[Kunle Odutola]

"W.E.(Bill) Goodrich, PhD" <bgoodric@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:3CF87E11.8275E073@netzero.net...

> > I would be more inclined to question Microsoft's commitment to the
> > language if MS HADN'T gone to the considerable effort and expense to
> > create a version of VB for .NET
>
> And yet, they did it in such a way that the programs will not run
> under the ECMA standard version of the CLR. What does that say about
> their commitment to the language?

What issues have you experienced in this regards PhD -- apart from the
additional frameworks classes?

Kunle