Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6? - Page 2


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 126

Thread: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?

  1. #16
    Eddie Burdak Guest

    Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?

    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



  2. #17
    Jay King Guest

    Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?

    Yes I have done it, its more detailed but still possible non the less.
    "Tom Shelton" <tom@mtogden.com> wrote in message news:3d8fdff9@10.1.10.29...
    >
    > "Jay King" <nemopsj@aol.com> wrote in message

    news:3d8ec5b3$1@10.1.10.29...
    > > Its called API

    >
    > Have you actually tried to use the API for this? It isn't as easy as you
    > would seem to state here. In VB.NET is a simple matter of:
    >
    > Dim runner As New Thread(AddressOf MyThreadProc)
    > runner.Start()
    >
    > In VB6, you need to do all kinds of nasty lowlevel work to make sure you

    can
    > even start the thread... VB.NET is much better to work with if you need to
    > use threads... Believe me, this comes from a very recent, bitter, and
    > continuing ****...
    >
    > Tom Shelton
    >
    >




  3. #18
    Rune Bivrin Guest

    Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?

    Mike Mitchell <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
    news:l6d0pus56dpp3v7ii34jcm6m1lkkv0ihch@4ax.com:

    > 'Course, this ignores fact that VB devs "got by" for years without
    > worrying about threads, even managing to produce one or two useful
    > apps in the process...
    >
    > MM
    >


    So have COBOL programmers for decades. What's your point?

    --
    Rune Bivrin
    - OOP since 1989
    - SQL Server since 1990
    - VB since 1991


  4. #19
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?

    On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 22:11:47 -0600, "Tom Shelton" <tom@mtogden.com>
    wrote:

    >In VB6, you need to do all kinds of nasty lowlevel work to make sure you can
    >even start the thread... VB.NET is much better to work with if you need to
    >use threads... Believe me, this comes from a very recent, bitter, and
    >continuing ****...


    'Course, this ignores fact that VB devs "got by" for years without
    worrying about threads, even managing to produce one or two useful
    apps in the process...

    MM

  5. #20
    Mark Powell Guest

    Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?


    It's still possible to go home, put your oven gloves on and get baking if
    you fancy a muffin with your cup of coffee when you're out shopping on a
    Saturday afternoon. Personally I prefer to go and get one from a coffee
    shop that avoid me having to do all the ground-work myself though.


    "Jay King" <nemopsj@aol.com> wrote:
    >Yes I have done it, its more detailed but still possible non the less.
    >"Tom Shelton" <tom@mtogden.com> wrote in message news:3d8fdff9@10.1.10.29...
    >>
    >> "Jay King" <nemopsj@aol.com> wrote in message

    >news:3d8ec5b3$1@10.1.10.29...
    >> > Its called API

    >>
    >> Have you actually tried to use the API for this? It isn't as easy as

    you
    >> would seem to state here. In VB.NET is a simple matter of:
    >>
    >> Dim runner As New Thread(AddressOf MyThreadProc)
    >> runner.Start()
    >>
    >> In VB6, you need to do all kinds of nasty lowlevel work to make sure you

    >can
    >> even start the thread... VB.NET is much better to work with if you need

    to
    >> use threads... Believe me, this comes from a very recent, bitter, and
    >> continuing ****...
    >>
    >> Tom Shelton
    >>
    >>

    >
    >



  6. #21
    Mark Powell Guest

    Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?


    'Course, this ignores fact that some VB devs "got by" for years without
    worrying about threads, even managing to produce one or two shagnasty, unmaintainable
    apps in the process...


    Mike Mitchell <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
    >'Course, this ignores fact that VB devs "got by" for years without
    >worrying about threads, even managing to produce one or two useful
    >apps in the process...



  7. #22
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?

    On 24 Sep 2002 02:43:37 -0700, Rune Bivrin <rune@bivrin.com> wrote:

    >Mike Mitchell <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
    >news:l6d0pus56dpp3v7ii34jcm6m1lkkv0ihch@4ax.com:
    >
    >> 'Course, this ignores fact that VB devs "got by" for years without
    >> worrying about threads, even managing to produce one or two useful
    >> apps in the process...
    >>
    >> MM
    >>

    >
    >So have COBOL programmers for decades. What's your point?


    Better ask the .Netizens! They're the ones who keep talking up the
    threads issue.

    MM

  8. #23
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?

    On 24 Sep 2002 03:31:51 -0700, "Mark Powell" <mark@nospam.com> wrote:

    >'Course, this ignores fact that some VB devs "got by" for years without
    >worrying about threads, even managing to produce one or two shagnasty, unmaintainable
    >apps in the process...


    Hey! Original thought! I like it!

    MM

  9. #24
    Ted Guest

    Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?


    >So have COBOL programmers for decades. What's your point?


    Here's a point - too bad VB didn't have threading in the past because now
    that VB.NET supports threading the VB devs I work with found a new toy.


    The truth is the VB devs (I work with ) think it is as simple as someone
    stated earlier:

    Dim runner As New Thread(AddressOf MyThreadProc)
    runner.Start()

    Unfortunately it's not that easy. Now they are tracking down us old C++
    dinosaurs to explain deadlock, race conditions, starvation, priortization,
    TLS, synchronization, and the list goes on. Oh and fix why my GUI doesn't
    respond now since I have started that thread.

    Here's a tip from grandpa -- if you don't know how to do threading stay away
    from it. As MM said earlier you guys have done without for so long right?
    And I really hate to agree with him.



  10. #25
    Kunle Odutola Guest

    Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?

    Ted wrote:

    > The truth is the VB devs (I work with ) think it is as simple as
    > someone stated earlier:
    >
    > Dim runner As New Thread(AddressOf MyThreadProc)
    > runner.Start()


    It is.

    > Unfortunately it's not that easy. Now they are tracking down us old
    > C++ dinosaurs to explain deadlock, race conditions, starvation,
    > priortization, TLS, synchronization, and the list goes on.


    Which you learned from a book (or asked a friend or maybe in a class) a
    while back right?.

    Newsflash: Just about anybody including VB devs can read and ask a question
    too.

    <SNIPPED-SANCTIMONIUS-CRAP/>

    Kunle



  11. #26
    Jay King Guest

    Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?

    ::claps:: well ya
    "Mark Powell" <mark@nospam.com> wrote in message
    news:3d903ebb$1@10.1.10.29...
    >
    > It's still possible to go home, put your oven gloves on and get baking if
    > you fancy a muffin with your cup of coffee when you're out shopping on a
    > Saturday afternoon. Personally I prefer to go and get one from a coffee
    > shop that avoid me having to do all the ground-work myself though.
    >
    >
    > "Jay King" <nemopsj@aol.com> wrote:
    > >Yes I have done it, its more detailed but still possible non the less.
    > >"Tom Shelton" <tom@mtogden.com> wrote in message

    news:3d8fdff9@10.1.10.29...
    > >>
    > >> "Jay King" <nemopsj@aol.com> wrote in message

    > >news:3d8ec5b3$1@10.1.10.29...
    > >> > Its called API
    > >>
    > >> Have you actually tried to use the API for this? It isn't as easy as

    > you
    > >> would seem to state here. In VB.NET is a simple matter of:
    > >>
    > >> Dim runner As New Thread(AddressOf MyThreadProc)
    > >> runner.Start()
    > >>
    > >> In VB6, you need to do all kinds of nasty lowlevel work to make sure

    you
    > >can
    > >> even start the thread... VB.NET is much better to work with if you need

    > to
    > >> use threads... Believe me, this comes from a very recent, bitter, and
    > >> continuing ****...
    > >>
    > >> Tom Shelton
    > >>
    > >>

    > >
    > >

    >




  12. #27
    Rune Bivrin Guest

    Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?

    Mike Mitchell <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
    news:b5q1puge7adksm6lojsg1675oas125pmqt@4ax.com:

    > On 24 Sep 2002 02:43:37 -0700, Rune Bivrin <rune@bivrin.com> wrote:
    >
    >>Mike Mitchell <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
    >>news:l6d0pus56dpp3v7ii34jcm6m1lkkv0ihch@4ax.com:
    >>
    >>> 'Course, this ignores fact that VB devs "got by" for years without
    >>> worrying about threads, even managing to produce one or two useful
    >>> apps in the process...
    >>>
    >>> MM
    >>>

    >>
    >>So have COBOL programmers for decades. What's your point?

    >
    > Better ask the .Netizens! They're the ones who keep talking up the
    > threads issue.
    >
    > MM
    >


    So the ".Netizens" should explain *your* point?

    Just because any programming problem can be solved without threads
    doesn't mean they're worthless. Just like just because you can survive
    without prawns/shrimp, that doesn't mean they should be removed from the
    table, right?

    --
    Rune Bivrin
    - OOP since 1989
    - SQL Server since 1990
    - VB since 1991


  13. #28
    Ted Guest

    Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?


    >> Dim runner As New Thread(AddressOf MyThreadProc)
    >> runner.Start()

    >
    >It is.


    I am sorry. To start a thread is very easy, you are correct. To write a
    multithreaded application, well once again you are WRONG!!! Threading seems
    to be something that VB couldn't make easy enough for VB developers. I think
    it was stated earlier in this thread how hard it was to do threading in VB
    in the past.
    >
    >> Unfortunately it's not that easy. Now they are tracking down us old
    >> C++ dinosaurs to explain deadlock, race conditions, starvation,
    >> priortization, TLS, synchronization, and the list goes on.

    >
    >Which you learned from a book (or asked a friend or maybe in a class) a
    >while back right?.
    >


    Oh then I'll just throw some books their way. Unfortunately there are no
    books that were written with VB and threading in mind, that I know of. Unfortunately
    Kunle, I didn't learn from a book or even a class and I **** sure know I
    didn't learn it from a VB developer. I have had to learn through trial and
    error because quite frankly there are no good books on multithreading( the
    right way ) on the market.

    I guess you could use articles like this:
    http://gethelp.devx.com/techtips/the...0min0201ma.asp

    This is just chock full of real world multithreading tips.


    >Newsflash: Just about anybody including VB devs can read and ask a question
    >too.

    Read the above article and we all can see just how easy it is. Meanwhile
    I will spending the next few hours of my day fixing some VB.NET code that
    began with:

    Dim runner As New Thread(AddressOf MyThreadProc)
    runner.Start()


    and ended up wi........................................................................................ .......................................................................................... .............................................

    Oh I am sorry we had a race condition that caused that line to go berzerk.

    Once again, thanks Kunle for your insight. I will go ahead now and update
    my resume to state that I now know multithreading in VB.NET.


  14. #29
    Tom Shelton Guest

    Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?


    "Ted" <ttt@ttt.net> wrote in message news:3d91ba67$1@10.1.10.29...

    [snip]

    > >Newsflash: Just about anybody including VB devs can read and ask a

    question
    > >too.

    > Read the above article and we all can see just how easy it is. Meanwhile
    > I will spending the next few hours of my day fixing some VB.NET code that
    > began with:
    >
    > Dim runner As New Thread(AddressOf MyThreadProc)
    > runner.Start()


    Ted just so you know, I wasn't saying that you didn't need to be concerned
    about thread issues - I assumed that was a given. The point was simply that
    because of the built in support for threading in VB.NET, you have less
    low-level work to do to make it work right. That's all. Have you seen the
    code necessary to make a thread work in VB6? It is actually easier in
    VB5...

    Tom Shelton



  15. #30
    Ted Guest

    Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?


    >Ted just so you know, I wasn't saying that you didn't need to be concerned
    >about thread issues - I assumed that was a given.


    I am sorry about the lashing out. I understood what you were saying and
    having talked with the VB guys here they have fully explained why they haven't
    done threading in the past due to what it took to accomplish it in VB6.
    Unfortunately, not only have they not done threading in VB, most have never
    done threading in any language short of the little console apps on MSDN.

    The point was simply that
    >because of the built in support for threading in VB.NET, you have less
    >low-level work to do to make it work right. That's all.


    Agreed. But for those who come back with comments like this:

    >> The truth is the VB devs (I work with ) think it is as simple as
    >> someone stated earlier:
    >>
    >> Dim runner As New Thread(AddressOf MyThreadProc)
    >> runner.Start()

    > It is.


    Well, for those who have done threading in a large project(or any project)
    know that "It's not".

    Have you seen the
    >code necessary to make a thread work in VB6? It is actually easier in
    >VB5...


    Unfortunately I have and it didn't look pretty. I understand that doing
    the plumbing to threading is easier with .NET as with any library, but having
    worked with libraries like Threads++, no matter how great the library and
    what it takes away you still have to know the issues involved with doing
    threaded work.

    Sorry about coming off that way.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
HTML5 Development Center
 
 
FAQ
Latest Articles
Java
.NET
XML
Database
Enterprise
Questions? Contact us.
C++
Web Development
Wireless
Latest Tips
Open Source


   Development Centers

   -- Android Development Center
   -- Cloud Development Project Center
   -- HTML5 Development Center
   -- Windows Mobile Development Center