From: Bob Butler on

"sloan" <sloan(a)> wrote in message
> Good luck. It's 2010. It's time to move forward.

I'd love to move forward, but dotnet doesn't take me in that direction.

From: Nobody on
<bitshifter(a)> wrote in message
> What do you think ?

KBasic is the closest to VB6 out there, but I am not sure how many are using
it now. It's 100% VB6 code compatible according to the author. It's written
in VC 2008. It uses Qt as GUI kit and it's multi platform open source, and
can create EXE's without dependency on any runtime. It will probably replace
VB6 after many start to use it or contribute to it's development. Because it
uses Qt as GUI, the hard part is converting VB6 forms. I haven't installed
it, so I don't know how easy to develop with it.

The site seems to be down at the moment, so here is the Internet Archive

From: Tom Shelton on
On 2010-02-15, mayayana <mayayana(a)nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> I came up with RealBasic, Delphi (though I heard it's on the way out),
>> maybe C# (but I would try to keep away from M$ stuff), and not Java.
> Why maybe C# and not Java? C# was designed
> to compete with Java. They're both semi-sandboxed,
> OO, JIT-compiled systems running on a VM and
> designed for server-side/intranet applets.
> Isn't the question, really, whether you want to go
> along with a sandboxed OS -- Microsoft's planned future
> of software as a service? Maybe a future where you
> might shortly have to buy webhosting on Azure and
> get approval in order for your software to run on
> Windows? One can be for or against that, but it
> seems important to go into it with eyes open. .Nxt
> is the Java-fying of the Windows API. It's a radical
> new direction.
> There have been several discussions of various
> 3rd-party Basics here in the past. I can never
> keep track of them all, and most (including the
> Linux-based attempts) seem to have the fatal flaw
> that they see all Basic coders as glorified scripters
> who need everything encased in safe wrappers. They
> equate verbose code with stupidity. (What I like
> to think of as "Perl syndrome". :)
> I think Nobody posted a comprehensive list at
> one point. Maybe he'll share that again.

Tom Shelton
From: Tom Shelton on
On 2010-02-15, sloan <sloan(a)> wrote:
> VB.NET is easiest pick. VB.NET is not VB(classic).
> HOWEVER, I have found benefit from making a "clean break", and instead of
> accidentally bringing any bad vb6 practices with you, going to C# is my
> suggestion.
> 2 reasons. Reason 1 is that most msdn code samples are in and c#.
> So your famaliarity with vb will make seeing the C# sample "pop out" to you,
> because you'll usually have the sitting right above it.
> Reason 2 is that most microsoft internal development is done in C# now.
> If you've ever attending TechEd or any other Microsoft event, you are hard
> pressed to find any example in the presentations.
> Check this:
> Do I agree 100% of it, maybe not. However it is a good read to do as you
> make YOUR decision on what to do.
> Criticism's of the article are fine (from other posters). But picking one
> point and saying "that's stupid, disregard the entire article" is the ole
> throw the baby out with the bath water. I think the article above is a good
> read to ~~assist you in making your decision, but not to make the decision
> for you.

Yeah... Especially since as of C#4 (supported in VS2010) adds

1) easier earlier binding via the dynamic keyword
2) optional parameters (grrrrr!) - I've already updated our
internal coding standards to disallow them in public interces

VS2008sp1 added background compilation for C# - the funny thing though is that it
doesn't seem to actually slow the C# ide down nearly as much as the vb

Tom Shelton
From: mayayana on
> --
> Tom Shelton

Do you realize how often you post nothing?
I'm never sure whether it's meant to be some
sort of Zennie trip, or whether you just get
so worked up that you forget to paste your
post. :)