(Link to AcmlmWiki) Offline: thank ||bass
Register | Login
Views: 13,040,846
 Main | Memberlist | Active users | Calendar | Chat | Online users
Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album 		09-28-24 12:23 AM
0 users currently in Hardware / Software.
Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - Hardware / Software - VB studio 2005 express New poll | |
Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread
User Post
Sukasa

Birdo
Not quite as active as before.
Xkeeper supporter
Xk > ||bass
I IP Banned myself! Twice!








Since: 11-17-05
From: Somewhere over there

Last post: 6432 days
Last view: 6431 days
Posted on 05-12-06 06:22 PM Link | Quote
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...
  • Creating standard .exes
  • Creating new ActiveX Controls (*.ocx)
  • Resource editor add-in
  • Working with files
  • Support for advanced VB6 code


I'd like to know, because I'm used to VB6 professional edition, which is what my school has.
Rom Manic









Since: 12-18-05
From: Detroit, WHAT?!

Last post: 6431 days
Last view: 6431 days
Posted on 05-13-06 02:42 AM Link | Quote
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.
dcahrakos

490


 





Since: 11-17-05

Last post: 6648 days
Last view: 6648 days
Posted on 05-14-06 08:45 PM Link | Quote
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
Dan

Purple Leever


 





Since: 11-18-05

Last post: 6440 days
Last view: 6431 days
Posted on 05-16-06 01:08 PM Link | Quote
Originally posted by Sukasa +
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...
  • Creating standard .exes
  • Creating new ActiveX Controls (*.ocx)
  • Resource editor add-in
  • Working with files
  • Support for advanced VB6 code


I'd like to know, because I'm used to VB6 professional edition, which is what my school has.


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.
leileilol









Since: 05-15-06
From: PRC

Last post: 6471 days
Last view: 6431 days
Posted on 05-16-06 01:15 PM Link | Quote
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.
Darkness

Goomba


 





Since: 05-09-06

Last post: 6650 days
Last view: 6650 days
Posted on 06-30-06 04:38 PM Link | Quote
Originally posted by Dan
.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.


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.
Dan

Purple Leever


 





Since: 11-18-05

Last post: 6440 days
Last view: 6431 days
Posted on 07-01-06 08:05 AM Link | Quote
Originally posted by Darkness
Originally posted by Dan
.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.


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.

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.
Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread
Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - Hardware / Software - VB studio 2005 express |


ABII

Acmlmboard 1.92.999, 9/17/2006
©2000-2006 Acmlm, Emuz, Blades, Xkeeper

Page rendered in 0.008 seconds; used 382.30 kB (max 464.92 kB)