 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in Hardware / Software. |
| User | Post |
| Dan Posts: 181/219 |
Originally posted by DarknessOriginally posted by Dan Actually, it's not a lie, it's my opinion. I've used both for a long while, and in my experience VB .NET is a million times better. Less graphical support? VB's inbuilt graphics support is ridiculously poor (PSet, pft). You have to use Win32 API calls to get decent speed. VB .NET's support (system.drawing) is a million times better in comparison. The runtime argument is the same old one that's been trotted out since day 1 of .NET. 22 megabytes isn't that large a download anymore. Even a 56k modem owner could download it in less than a couple of hours. Besides, the benefits for developers in using .NET are enormous. There's a lot of useful things contained in the .NET framework. Take cryptography, for example. In my work, I needed to generate an MD5 checksum of a string. Using the .NET framework, I could do it in about 6 lines. Using standard VB, I had to run off to the internet and download an module, modify it to meet my needs, then I could use it. It took me longer to do that than to find the .NET class. COM is something I've never really messed around with, so I can't comment on that, but .NET does have support for it. As for VB6 doing anything that VB .NET can do, that's not the issue. It's how long that it takes to do the VB6 equivalent of something in VB .NET. Finding hacky ways to do things that are only half as good as the .NET equivalent is not in my opinion a good use of time. |
| Darkness Posts: 8/20 |
Originally posted by Dan VB6 might be old, but it is most certainly not crappy. And to say VB.NET is better then VB6 is a lie. VB.NET code is actually slower, contains less graphical support, contains poorly supported interop code for COM, and requires a 22 MB runtime. Although VB.NET might contain more features, I bet VB6 can do anything that VB.NET can do. Only thing VB6 is lacking is some of the OOP features found in .NET. |
| leileilol Posts: 11/64 |
Too bad the express editions forces your app to require the .net framework even when you're not using or including any of it at all. |
| Dan Posts: 147/219 |
Originally posted by Sukasa + VB Studio 2005 is for VB.NET. So that rules out creating standard exes, creating new activeX controls, and support for advanced VB6 code. Personally, I'd go with it, but if you don't feel like learning a new language/framework, stick with VB6. .NET has a really good class library, and the new language features of VB .net make it about a zillion times better than crappy old VB6.  |
| dcahrakos Posts: 422/499 |
I know for sure you can make standard exe's, but im not sure about ocx's or the rest, I use Visual Studio 2005 Pro  |
| Rom Manic Posts: 171/557 |
I haven't used Visual Basic in full yet, but from what I can see of all them, there is full functionality with all versions. I myself have only used Visual C# thus far, but my cousin has Visual Studio 6 so he took a look.
Apparently things are just easier for you to code with the Express Editions. |
| Sukasa Posts: 797/2068 |
I looked this up and it's actually free from Microsoft (Incredibly surprising), but I'm wondering, does it support any of the following features that I'm used to using? If not, I'm going to save up for a version that does...
I'd like to know, because I'm used to VB6 professional edition, which is what my school has. |
