Dan,

Dan Barclay wrote:

Some minor points.

>> VB6, and all its predecessors, were so tied in to Windows that any
>> major change to Windows broke the language.

>
> You have *got* to be kidding!


Bugger I missed that one. I wonder what major changes he was referring
to. My one and only VB3 Database program developed on a Win 3.1
machine runs very happily under 95, NT4 and XP. 98 and Me it wasn't
tried on as the wife gave up the librabry - NT3 and XP because someone
else took it up again.My non Database applications worked happily on
everything from 3.1 and upwards.

Perhaps he may be referring to use of the Win API- I could imagine
that causing some grief.

>> Look at VB4-16 to VB4-32. Out with
>> the VBX, in with the OCX.

>
> Absolutely wrong, with regard to most business code. What does VBX

or
> OCX have to do with Basic code? Nothing. Vendors that cared

created
> OCX's that worked the same way their VBX's worked such that zero
> effort was required in VB to upgrade.
>
> Most code is in raw Basic language syntax, using the various

component
> models for wrappers only. Moving from DOS to Win16, then Win16 to
> Win32 was accomplished fairly easily. Code itself could be written

in
> the earlier version in a way that let it work in the later version.


Then production of a .NET control is also quite simple from the
exisiting code for the OCX. Or is this extrapoloation not valid? If it
was valid then why doesn't .NET read in my pure VB control and convert
it? Instead this COM wrapper comes in bloating my .exe and now I need
..NET and VB6 on the same platform if I want to continue to support and
develop the ActiveX control. I really though that this would be
something "simple" to impliment but I suppose going into .NET in depth
would probably explain why it was not possible - but I dont want to go
under the hood - I want to use it as is.

>> WHICH GETS ME TO MY POINT:
>> VB.NET is a redesign, made to fit into the new world - in a way

that
>> VB6 cannot.

>
> ROTFLMAO!
>
>> When will that be? 5 years? 10 years? Who knows? But I do
>> believe that as long as .NET exists, VB.NET will be supported,
>> enhanced, and backward compatible.

>
> Oooowww... this is so funny it hurts! LOL!


Yes. I made the mistake in going VB route thinking it would be there
for eons to come. Thats probably the main reason why I'm reluctant on
..NET - knowing I have to scrap 95% of it and start all over again - do
"you" really want to do that. It appears that there are quite a few
folks here that would hive that an unequivocal yes

Eddie