From: Scott M. on 26 Sep 2009 11:08
Please don't post instructions on how to pirate Microsoft (or any other)
software here. Inappropriate doesn't begin to describe why it's not right.
"Ato_Zee" <ato_zee(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> Yes, going back to VB6 would be your best bet. It's still a very viable
>> language without all the silly .Nxt BS that is really irrelevant. I
>> probably hook you up with a free copy.
> At least one legit sealed VB6 authentic MS$ VB6 on eBay.
> Horror of horrors, but seriously, there are some copies of VB6
> offered on Pirate Bay.
> You may have to carefully choose the download, look at the
> comments and how many seeders, one looks a viable
> well seeded download. Virus scan it first with a good
> anti-virus. Use a spare machine to work on if you
> have one, for things off PB. There are many books on
> VB6 on eBay. VB6 is pretty easy to get up to speed on
> if you remember the old days of TRS Basic, GW Basic,
> BBC Basic, it uses much the same language and
> constructs with a few tweaks.
From: J.B. Moreno on 26 Sep 2009 13:04
> I am in a similar situation, except that the decision is made: VB.net
> will be used in future.
> Over the last 14 years, thousands of lines of VB3-6 code has been
> written, almost all of which is in use. I wonder how long it could
> take to recode and not convert all of that. I cannot work full time as
> a programmer. On the other hand, most of my VB6 code is relatively
> simple - no databases, no communications with other programs or too
> many APIs. There is just graphics, mostly plots of 4 kinds. Is
> recoding a feasible option? Any estimate on how many weeks, months or
> years it could take me? I wonder how many months it will take me to
> learn "enough" of VB.net.
Well, my experience has been that upgrading to .Net is not only
feasible, but relatively straightforward. I've done two apps, one with
just a single form, and one with a couple of dozen.
Biggest problem has been third party tools and some database type
Not having done anything with plots, I can't speak to that.
As for learning "enough" of VB.net it's less "VB" and more ".net" as in
the .Net Framework. While that's a large area, most of it you probably
won't need or need to learn.
I'd say go for it.
From: Mike Williams on 26 Sep 2009 13:54
"Scott M." <s-mar(a)nospam.nospam> wrote in message
> As I mentioned in an earler post VB .NET is a new
> language that runs on a completely different runtime than VB 6.0.
At last, an honest admission of something VB6 programmers have been saying
all along, and something that has been consistently denied by the various
dotnet trolls who from time to time infest the VB6 newsgroup in their
deliberate attempt to destroy it.
> But, because (on the surface) VB 6 can look similiar to
> VB .NET, many folks get the incorrect perception . . .
Nope. That's not the reason. The real reason people get the wrong impression
is because that's how Micro$oft have dishonestly marketed it. VB.Net was a
lie from the very beginning, and still is a lie.
From: Mike Williams on 26 Sep 2009 13:57
"Scott M." <s-mar(a)nospam.nospam> wrote in message
> [Addressed to Ato_Zee] Please don't post instructions on
> how to pirate Microsoft (or any other) software here.
Why not? Micro$oft pirate other people's stuff. They behave like a bunch of
From: C on 26 Sep 2009 15:32
Thanks a lot for this advice. Several respectable people have told me
to learn VB.net, so I have accepted their word and will learn it. I
cannot afford to do it full time, or spend much of my day time doing
that, so it will be slow. Some questions/comments below.
On 26 syys, 18:06, "Scott M." <s-...(a)nospam.nospam> wrote:
> I own and operate an IT training company and am faced with this question all
> the time. The fact is that VB 6 developers coming to .NET very often have a
> harder time, in some respects, than people who have no prior programming
I have realised this. I am not able to unlearn easily even though I
normally learn new things relatively well and fast.
> This is because of the incorrect impression that VB .NET is just VB 6, with
> new features. That's not the case at all. As I mentioned in an earler post
> VB .NET is a new language that runs on a completely different runtime than
> VB 6.0. But, because (on the surface) VB 6 can look similiar to VB .NET,
> many folks get the incorrect perception that they know enough VB 6.0 to just
> jump into VB .NET and get stuff done (and done correctly!). This is false.
Well, I know VB.net has too many things which are different, and the
OO thinking is different, but all my math code will remain the same.
> You should move to .NET because it's already got 8 years of a track record
> as the successor to VB 6 and because it is much more in line with other
> modern OO languages. Those who tell you that VB 6 still has its place for
> new application development, are just plain misinformed and/or uneducated
> about what .NET is all about.
> I can't tell you how long it would take you to "convert" your VB 6 apps.,
> becuase, in many cases, a complete rewrite would be necessary, in order to
> reap the full benefits of .NET.
> Take it from someone who has made the transition as well as teaches others
> how to make the transition, start learning .NET with your eyes wide open and
> don't assume that you know how somthing should be done or how something
> works because of your VB 6 experience. I can say that after 6 months of
> learning and practicing with VB .NET, you should begin to "get it" in terms
> of how .NET differs from VB 6 (and other forms of classic Windows and
> Internet) programming.
That would not be too bad.
> Take the time to learn .NET from the ground up and you'll never go back to
> VB 6 again.
Yes. I am just looking for the right material to read up, as another
post of mine this evening asked for. I found some good msdn material
which I have printed out, but will need a lot more of that.