|
|
The only reason for
me staying in VB6 is the time migrating to .net will
require, and the actual phase development/maintenance
don't permit to take this time.
Probably i won't, probably new projects will be developed
usin VB.net and the old projects will remain in VB6. |
US |
| I tried to migrate to .NET and I found that the wizard
is not good enough, it cannot generate something useful
and a lot of work was necesary to make something that
is ALREADY working to compile! |
US |
| .NET and VB.NET should also support
for Linux. |
US |
| I use both VB6 and .Net. New program i have written
in .NET |
US |
| As usual, the questions seek a very
pointed opinion and the flavor and significance seems
to be lost in the quest for brevity. The .Net Framework
and Visual Studio.net are just too important a tool
to be discussed in this manner. Most people have no
clue what it is and the kind of impact it could have
for them and their organization. I have never been an
evangelist but I am afraid that I am running the risk
of becoming one. I love the product, the concept and
I believe that Microsoft got it right this time. It
is only a matter of time before .Net becomes the de
facto standard for software development. |
US |
| I see no advantage in moving to .net - unless someone
can show me one, i doubt we'll ever change. |
US |
| Visual Basic 6 is a rapid application
development tool. I was using this version for the past
3 years. I find this version very user friendly. Since
I didnt get a chance to migrate to VB.Net, I am not
much aware of this new version. Any how, I would like
to work on this soon. |
US |
| I would have evolved to .NET but cannot make our project
from the scratch. The upgrading tool of .NET is the
worse thing made by microsoft. I know that VB6 is dying
and cannot do anything at the moment. |
US |
| THanking you for survey from other
countrying. Nice day having. |
US |
| At first glance, VB.NET presents a real issue of re-training.
|
US |
Question 3 is not clear, what do
you want to know:
When are we shipping product .NET to user or when do
we start developing using .NET. Our time to market is
approx 2 years |
US |
| just too busy to get up on the learning curve and
convert my projects otherwise I would have already converted
just for the OOP featues to wrap everything up |
US |
There is a lot of development in
our company, under government contract (and in the government
in general) being done with Visual Studio 6 (not .Net),
because that is how the project started and they did
not change the platform midway. I think it will eventually
become a problem.
My only problem with Microsoft's support is that MSDN
is not updated for Visual Studio 6. It's essentially
held at the Oct 2001 release. I have no idea if I can
expect more service packs for Visual Basic 6. |
US |
| Fear of the unknown is about the only barrier to taking
up .Net, once you dive in the water's lovelly ;-) |
US |
| There are many ways to accomplish
a programming task. .NET is just one more tool on the
bench. |
US |
| I'm not a big time programmer, but have enjoyed VB6
very much. It is unfortunate that VB.NOT was such a
huge departure from VB6. The VB.NET IDE seems to take
longer to startup (more bloated). I miss not being able
to step through my code, and dislike how many commands
have been replace (look how hard it is to draw a shape).
I've used VB Script for programming Windows CE devices
and it is no longer supported. I'm very disappointed.
|
US |
| use VB mostly for small applications
|
US |
| PLEASE add the capability to compile to machine code
in .NET Development platform. Interpreted code is simply
NOT secure enough, even with obfuscation. We will move
to it as soon as that is present. |
US |
| vb.net sucks the arse... May aswell
use a real lanuage if not using vb for its simplistic
approach... |
US |
| We have both VB.net and VB6 in my org. My org is <10%
of the entire company, so my answers pertain only to
my small area. |
US |
| dotNet is just a Bill Gates knee
jerk ego reaction to having lost the java kidnapping
court case. Everyone knows that dotNet in its final
form is just going to be VC++ with some good internet
classes. |
US |
| .net range of base classes and documentation are excellent. |
US |
| I expect our VB6 products will still
be shipping 5 years from now. |
US |
| I love VB. However, I am starting to do more c# programming. |
US |
I'm developing For Fun in my place....
i just love my pc ;) |
US |
| We develop standalone tools for our salesforce: .Net
is a bloated architecture that has not done any better
than java at overcoming the performance obstacles of
an interpreted UI. Ultimately processing power and inclusion
of the .Net Framework in the operating system may overcome
these problems, but there is a constant battle with
every other application to consume all available resources. |
US
Top |
| I use both VB6 for maintenance of
older projects and tweaking and VB.NET for new projects.
I prefer .NET as it's faster (now that I'm up to speed
with it) and also it can produce much more professional
looking results. |
US |
| the structure of this survey is very biased. You should
NOT limit the choices to a single item, on each question,
as several are equally applicable. |
US |
| I like VB6 because all you need
is the VB6 runtime to work. It is a reasonable language,
except that it does not do very well with classes and
objects. If it were totally object-oriented, it's perfect.
VB.NET is good because it is object-oriented. But there
is the fact that you need the .NET framework (and the
right version of it) on the machine to run the application,
and the application does run a bit slower. |
US |
Yes. I feel that Microsoft is still in the HYPE stage
of .NET and is not providing correct info on the % of
programmers that have moved to .NET technologies.
WE develop desktop stand alone financial planning applications
and do not see any intregal benifit from moving to VB.net.
However, we will probably be forced to the .NET technologies
because Microsoft will not be supporting VB6 forever
and interest in it will wain.
.NET iz impressive but has lost its RAD properties. |
US |
| I m new in this section, i did't
have any specialized tranining |
US |
| MS has not provided any understandable/useful knowledge
of .net, or its benefits to those not working on www
applications. I'm still trying to find MS or other info
on regular expressions Perl type scripting for VB6 database
type applications, the old Commodore, TRS80 type string
handling commands are limiting. Don't know if .net would
help. MS need to publicise the benefits of their .net
product better. |
US |
| I enjoy using VB, it is a simple,
straight forward language that allows quick results.
I personally have never found the lack or Object Orientation
to be a particular detriment. |
US |
| I would never go back to VB6! |
US |
| bad feature: the use of unmanaged
code, espacially String-conversion |
US |
| I use VB from time to time as a reasonably useful
RAD tool. I have no interest in VB.NET and see it primarily
as a move by Microsoft to force users to move to new,
incompatible technology. On balance, for the kind of
work we do, I much prefer Tcl/Tk, as it is just as simple
to use as VB, free, open and cross-platform. I would
urge developers disgruntled with Microsoft tools to
check it out. |
US |
| I am not yet sold on object oriented
programming. It seems like things that used to be easy
in VB are now extremely complicated and difficult in
.Net. |
US |
| I have heard a lot of horror stories from professional
programmers about the problems associated with converting
VB 6 applications to VB.Net. Microsoft's misrepresentations
about the ease of the task have not helped. Since all
of the applications I have developed are in VB 6, I
will not consider making the switch until we have a
new concept that would be designed from scratch with
VB.Net. And we will probably not be using any of the
new web-aware features of the language. |
US
Top
|
| We envisage to move away from VB6
(except for maintenance) and all new development will
be done in C# or Java, because the learning curve from
VB6 to VB.NET or C# is about the same. It's easy to
cross-skill developers between C# and Java and vice-versa.
.NET projects tend to be easier to deploy. However,
prior to .NET, VB6 was the best tool to quickly develop
Windows-based applications. I personally use VB6, VB.NET
and C#. I prefer C# over VB.NET. |
US |
| everything about MS programming is good BUT hate the
way microsoft launches newer OS every now and then :( |
US |
| Spending a considerable amount of
time looking at .net and trying to get my head round
it. Not yet convinced about the benefits. Its bigger,
slower and much more complex, but not found much on
the plus side yet! |
US |
This questionnaire appears to be geared to determine
who is moving from VB6-->VB.NET. My path is VB6-->C#
and is not apparent from this questionnaire. A lot of
people are moving to C# as opposed to VB.NET and you're
going to miss them here (or maybe you're not really
intrested in .NET generally - just VB.NET???)
Also - The 'Benefits' section only allows 1 selection
- there are dozens of other good reasons to move to
.NET and associated tools.
You should also ask what percentage of time is spent
in VB4/5/6 etc
Generally this is a very, very poor questionnaire and
i'm not sure what 'real' statistics can be taken from
it and/or read from it. Still I'll click the Submit
button and see what happens! I guess this is just a
sales/marketing tool to meet your own ends?? |
US |
| I love VB6. I without the ability
to create apps without depending on the .NET framework,
I am not interested in VB.NET except for web-based development. |
US |
| We use both right now. But would prefer to be entirely
in .NET |
US |
| Again, the survey needs to have
more check boxes and less option buttons... some of
the questions had more than one answer. |
US |
| VB6 itself is a great modeling tool. .NET development
takes longer, and we are still having problems with
.NET instability. MS software in the past has been better.
I am not sure I understand the QC problems they are
now having. |
US |
| VB6 does all that my App which I
sell needs to do, so I see no reason to switch to .net |
US |
| I think VB is great! I have been using VB since version
3, have had most experience with version 6 but have
been moving to .NET over the past year. I can't knock
VB6 and in some respects it is more friendly to use
than .NET - but, .NET brings loads of exciting new developments
to the equation and in a couple of years I'm sure I
won't have any cause to be using VB6 again. |
US |
| I don't have enough time to spend
learning the .NET framework and have been fornced to
maintain my coed in VB6. We have to move to .NET soon,
so it will cause a complete work stoppage while we retool
the apps. Bad planning on Microsofts side, and I resent
their approach to VB. |
US |
| Regardning quick application development, I think
VB.NET is a step in the wrong direction. Nothing beats
the VB6 debugger tools. |
US |
| I think VB6 is the best VB ever
and I can't see why we need to go to .net just because
MS says it's great. There seems to be a lot of headaches
that will accompany that conversion and I'm not going
to jump into that. |
US |
Bugs present in VB4 are still there in VB6... and
some of them make your programs look un-professional.
VB should be able to deploy like RealBasic - WITH THE
.EXE FILE ONLY. All this .dll garbage is also very un-professional. |
US |
| I think the move up to the next
version or else model that Microsoft uses is causing
me to look more at Linux development. I do not like
to have my investment in money, time, and effort, made
obsolete. I am willing to advance, but do not like feeling
like I'm losing all of my effort if I don't go with
the latest and greatest bug. |
US |
| VB6 still alive ! |
US |
| I'm still using VB6 as well as .NET,
your survey needs to allow for the selection of both. |
US |
| VB 6.x very useful for small or midsize project. We
use VB 6.x only to support our projects that was developed
before appearance of Microsoft .NET. For current projects
we use Visual Studio .NET and C#. |
US |
| All our VB6 is legacy, but will
likely be around for a while since it is useful for
using old-style classic COM objects for some of our
legacy products. All our new development is C#. |
US |
| As a company we decided to move from VB completely
and make the transition to C#. We saw the power of C#
and the ease of development of .Net with Winforms and
decided to use C#. VB6 was a good tool however there
was many limitations such as OOP, specific keywords...
VB.Net was intruiging to us however we just thought
that C# was a better language and was a better fit with
.Net. The syntax is much more universal (similiar to
Java and somewhat C++). |
US
Top
|
| Look forward to a balanced result
not like most marketing gimmics. |
US |
| I wish that MS would update VB6 for those of us who
may not be able to go to VB.NET right away. I hope they
continue supporting it. |
US |
.Net is the absolute future. Look
at longhorn, I can´t see a software house survive without
.NET.
Development time in .NET is reduced - in proven cases
I´ve worked on - by at least 50%. I can develop an application
in .Net in one week, that would take at least a month
in VB6. |
US |
| .net is great. but the speed degradation for windows
applications is noticeable. requires all our users to
upgrade hardware to meet performance desired. not likely
anytime soon. and not every piece of software should
have to be managed, would like the option myself as
a developer. |
US |
| The main reason we are still on
VB 6 and haven't moved on is that we don't see that
the benefits justify the learning curve. |
US |
| I must very disappointed to hear that VB.net does
not support arrays of Controls; they're so powerful!
VB was built for easy GUI development; VB.net seems
like it's making GUI development MORE difficult. |
US |
I have dropped VB 5.0 in favor of
the PowerBasic compiler.
.NET concerns me because it seems that non-Microsoft
compilers
will be discouraged as development tools. The Windows
API, of which
I have spent much time learning may even become obsolete,
which means
valuable training and research may be wasted. |
US |
| Your survey doesn't provide for this but I use both
VB.NET and VB6 - currently doing projects in both. |
US |
| I've been using vb.net for over
a year and I've had no complaints. I haven't ported
much to .net though only new projects. After getting
past the learning curve .net is much easier to develop
with and being able to have a more true OO language
is welcomed. The only thing I miss is breaking and changing
code and then being able to continue without a totaly
rebuild. |
US |
| We're ready for VB7, however Microsoft continues on
the VB.NET tract, |
US |
| We decided to switch to C# as native
.Net language. The reason is that VB.NET doesn't resemble
VB6 at all, so mastering VB6 has no added value to moving
to VB.NET being an entirely new language. |
US |
| I would love to see MS make a VB6.5 to help the transition
to .Net |
US |
I have developed a development utility
which allows programmers familiar with generic 'Business
Basic' to convert these programs to Visual Basic 6.0.
The ability to emulate Business Basic verbs with Visual
Basic routines and syntax is very high...IF we stick
with VB6. Once we try to use VB.NET, the 'look-and-feel'
is not even close.
See http://www.kolafa.com/Downloads/ReadMe.txt (Note
2)
Don Kolafa |
US |
| VB 6 is still an excellent product and should be around
for a long time. |
US |
My main problems with .NET are:
1. I couldn't immediately see how scroll thru records
programatically in ADO.NET and know which record the
user is on.
2. There is no 'in line' bug fixing (while the prog
is running)
3. It is slow to compile the app. When 2 of those three
issues get addressed (and future faster hardware will
help) I will be willing to go thru the slow painful
process of re-learning everything in the new .NET world.
BTW I have lots of apps out there with customers (in
maintenance) and a couple still under development. |
US |
| I'm happy with VB6. The reasons to want to upgrade
is two fold. Staying with VB6 long term would be like
remaining with DOS apps 10 years ago - have to change
to keep up. The main reason to look at changing earlier
is the drop of support for ActiveX components by many
3rd party component suppliers. Their .NET versions often
have new features they have no intention of adding to
their ActiveX equivalants. |
US |
| I still love working with VB6. There
was much excitement moving from VB5 to VB6 - but moving
from VB6 to VB.NET hasn't produced near the excitement.
We in IT know that we always have to continually learn
new technologies, but we also want to take comfort in
technologies that are getting the job done - like VB6.
Remember, VB6 soared when IT was the latest and greatest
career choice. That is one reason for the success of
VB6. Since the IT economy essentially flatlined after
the glory days of the 90's, programmers and companies
aren't near as qucik to invest time and money into new
technologies - like VB.NET. |
US |
| The whole concept behind the .NET development is superb.
The resulting software really empowers the stand alone
developer. This is the most exciting thing Microsoft
has ever done. It will result in a quantum leap in software
perfomance and reliability. |
US |
| vb6 needs some advanced programming
improvements but is stable, reliable, flexable and needs
little maintanance if 3rd party controls are not used. |
US |
| Microsoft is a marketing company, not a computer company.
They are introducing .NET mainly to create a whole new
business/income stream. |
US |
| I would love to use VB.Net but it
is extremely expensive for me. |
US |
| I love vb6 because it is so straight forward, but
because of the .net improvement in front end, I might
have to consider learnig newer language to migrate eventually,
....oh well, I guess it is a sign of the times...;( |
US |
| VB 6 is a greate language , but
lacking some certain areas , like inability inherit
, function overloading but i think .net have nicely
implemented those |
US |
| Move to C# |
US |
| I don't like VB.NET for it's debugger...
you could alter code during testing runs in VB6's debugger,
but no, Microsoft had to change that... Imagine the
complication of rebuilding a large project just to change
one variable behaviour... make it so 5-6 times per working
day and all you've been doing the whole day was rebuilding
the application. NET sux |
US |
VB is excellent language i have seen with lots of
supportive features.
I dont know about .NET as now am in testing. But 3 new
projects which started in our company were in .NET and
some Projects were rewritten in .NET
Hope .NET will have good feature too. |
US
Top
|
| We will be staying with VB6 until
such time it cannot do the job or our clients say we
should move to .net. |
US |
| Till VB.Net settles down I will stick with VB 6. |
US |
| Microsoft should rethink .net and
worry more about system integration issues with their
flagship products. |
US |
I am a doctor and an amateaur developer ( migrated
from Clipper some years ago) of VB6 applications running
on the
network at my hospital. At the moment I have 9 application
in use (some rather big) , but rather soon professional
softwares will take over most of my programs - so the
future for my hobby is threated. The other reason is
that I am 61 y - has invested quite a lot i VB6 books
and knowledge - so the inclination to learn something
new is not too great. |
US |
As we are a very small software
development company, we generally only operate on a
maximum of 2 projects at a time.
It took us a while to get used to .NET, but now we can
do the entire development phase in half the time as
was possible with VB6 or Borland C++ or Delphi. |
US |
We use and will continue to use both VB 6 and VB.NET
As a consultant I will recommend to most clients needing
standard EXE apps that VB 6 will meet their needs much
better than VB.NET ( VB 6 apps being faster and requiring
less memory on computer )
As a developer of components ( OCX and .NET ) we will
continue to develop, market and support OCX's for VB
6 as well as .NET components. |
US |
VB6 still fine for 3 tier client-server
to SQLServer - performance on todays PC is fine. ASP,
XML with Flash does web,
so .NET (= .TRAP for Microsoft) - prefer non-branded
solution. SOAP is also good for using VB middle tier
- swapping out the VB GUI layer. |
US |
| Is good if we can get rid of Deployment Tools and
across OS platform. |
US |
VB6 is a very good tool for windows
develop, and i like it , it is easy to use. and no need
much support system,
easy to use activeX componense |
US |
| vb.net is awesome |
US |
| VB.NET will be a long tortuous path,
for developers to follow. |
US |
í'm very interesting in upgrade to .net but we're
developing and having not time to learn the new version
now,
but i like to know the time spend aproximately in to
learn it. Sorry by my English I'm Chilean |
US |
well, for me althought we've been
trained on .NET but still there is resistance as to
the current requirements.
we need sometime to completely and totally moved to
.net as single tool for development. |
US |
Many bugs in the DB area.
When working with database must do loops and hoops to
overcome it. |
US |
| VB.Net only used for new developments.
Ongoing projects & maintenance with VB6. |
US |
| I think use several language in one project,please
introduce some experience about it,thanks! |
US |
Hope VB.NET has the convenience
of editing while debuging.
This is the key point we love VB and do not like to
loose it in .NET. |
US |
We are heavily vested in COM, RPC, SOAP, and ActiveX
Controls. Migrating to .Net
will be costly and time consuming in the short-run.
However, we are also investigating development in other
languages entirely |
US |
| I like VB6 and can do everthing
I need to do with VB6 |
US |
It's a darn shame Microsoft would just give up on
VB6 and leave everyone the way they did! VB6 has such
solid foundation, and so many users! I think they should
continue to maintain VB6 to support the millions of
applications that are already written in VB6.
Just because they come out with a new Dev Platform does
not not mean that it's the best thing for everyone else,
and I see it as MS turning it's back on what they started. |
US |
I'm finding many shortcomings in
.NET, but I'm still willing to use .NET occasionally,
when it is advantageous to do so,
otherwise, I still slam new projects out with VB6 or
Access, whatever my clients want. |
US |
| I also just updated an exising VB6 application, deciding
not to convert to .Net because of time constraints.
This was part of a large database project that my client
was using a lot of offshore people to program. They
were all still using VB6 with SQL Server. |
US
Top
|
| Not sure if I undrestand the central
question--.NET is not a language, it is a development/deployment
framework. VB is supported by the .NET framework, just
as are C++ and C#. .NET permits developers to use their
language of choice--again, .NET is not a language. |
US |
| I planned to upgrade to vb7 but it obviously never
came out. What happened? Is NET the vb7? Where can I
find out about NET? |
US |
| Creating DLL tools for ASP or Windows
is the easier alternative to deliver quick results.
|
US |
| I think for some of your questions, you should provide
the option to include more than 1 answer - e.g. #1,
I use both VB.NET and VB 6 for projects but given that
I only have one choice, I choosed VB.NET. Another question
I would be interested in would be reasons why they have
not migrated to .NET yet. |
US |
| Management are terrified of .Net.
The developers understand it, management does not (nor
do they need to, but that's another story), therefore
it does not get implemented, and is actively blocked. |
US |
| Microsoft should release VB 7.0 as a true descendant
to VB 6.0. Fix the bugs and finaly add true class inheritance.
Then I would have the best tool for maintaning and upgrading
my projects at Svenska Mätcenter. |
US |
| We are currently using VB 6.x on project because customers
still use this development tool for developing. Some
customers are using VB .Net, but not all of them. Also
customers using VB 6.x don't want to migrate to VB.
Net. |
US |
| I feel there is no proper easy support
for interfacing low level machines via LPT/COM/USB ports
or need to write codes in C! means no use of VB migration
to .NET |
US |
I use VB/Delphi/Alpha 5 for small apps to do specific
jobs.
I have long been thinking that these tools are getting
too complicated and there is too much overhead.
I long for something that is quick and easy, some database
facilities, etc
I shall NOT be using .NET instead i shall be looking
for tools ahat are uncomplicated and easy to use.
Now where did i put my copy of ObjectVision |
US |
| I see no real benefit in using MS
tools at all. I used to be a VB6 man, using MS Access
as a database. Now I use Java, MySQL, PHP - all free,
open-source and OS-independent - Microsoft VB6 come
in handy only to show my client how to things can be
done (as a GUI, non working sample...) |
US |
| Thank you |
US |
| we're gradually moving components
to c#, which has found great favor among our developers
(for expressiveness, syntax). we'll migrate some of
our vb6 components to vb.net to allow easier integration
with our ASP.Net site. All of us are glad to escape
VB's frustrating limitations. |
US |
| I am currently using both VB 6 and VB .NET. I admit
that my education in .NET has been been a slow one. |
US |
We are in the printing solutions
business. We have no driving need to move to .Net as
our customers do not use it or the overhead baggage
that is required to run it. VB works fine for 95% of
our projects and in fact we use MicroFocus Cobol in
a 'Dos Box' for some projects. This may sound ridicules
to some but we are not in business to follow trends.
We do have some ASP products that may benefit from .NET
but there is no driving force to migrate these products
at this time. The biggest improvements we might see
are user interface enhancements versus the clunky style
of ASP and HTML.
We provide solutions and answers that's how we stay
in business. I have yet to encounter a customer that
demands .Net. But don't get me wrong. Depending on what
business you are in .Net may certainly be needed. For
back end production work we have not yet encountered
the demand. Maybe one day we will and as we see that
curve develop we will migrate to it as it probably is
inevitable as MS continues development. Following the
latest trend sometimes has no place in production, efficiency
and profitability.
As for the trade press you are right, you would never
know VB is still used. But that media doesn’t get out
on sales calls and sell solutions. It’s market is the
techno junkie. There is a need as technology moves on
though. Customers for the most part don’t care at all
if this object can do this or that and this is a topic
a lot will disagree with me on. The bottom line is the
techno junkie is paid by sales and customers have a
business to run.
|
US |
| I'd like to see more develo0pment with Access and
VBA |
US |
| Hate to see VB 6 going away but
it's not upto us to decide. However, not every company
is planning to completely migrate their business to
dot net and that's a good news for now for all VB6 developers
all arround the world. |
US |
| I used to use version 6 because of school, but now
that i'm graduated i got my own version of vb.net |
US |
| I love it I love it I love it I
love it I love it |
US |
The superior about the VB generation is the ability
for a programmer to create applications in no time.
This means that the developing-time from getting an
idea to creating it is so much smaller than if you had
been using c++ or another language.
I'm working at making some electronic game and by using
10-20 min developing it in VB first I can quickly judge
which features that are necessary in order to make the
game work proper. |
US
Top
|
| Other than the new stuff they offer
in re .net technologies, I don't see any reason to move
to the new versions of VB; perhaps my biggest draw is
philosophical, because now they offer true oob in the
language. |
US |
| Our software program must run on all versions of Windows
all the way back to Win 95. Therefore we can never convert
it to VB.Net which only works on the later releases.
Also the conversion process is famous for not going
smoothly. Our program is very large and it will be a
big task to convert it. See our website for more information
on our program. www.servicelife.co.uk |
US |
| Although we still use VB6, we are
migrating to VB.NET as we upgrade our obselete systems.
Developing web applications with .NET has allowed us
to develop robust client/server programs utilizing a
web browser, ending the deployment of applications on
client machines. |
US |
| The .Net Framework has many troubles with dll function
calls. IDE works very slow. No Edit & Continue in current
vetsion. Good luck! |
US |
| It would be nice to have VB6 going
for a few more years. |
US |
| Having a million or so lines of code (just a guess
but we have been creating / extending / maintaining
this product (Printcost) for over 20 years) the cost
of converting to another language is astronomical There
are some fundamental changes that affect us in a major
way - like using indexed controls. |
US |
| VB is a great tool for rapid development.
Now as far as new technology is concern everyone is
goin for globilization and the use of internet. for
that purpose we have to switch to .net or any other
internet related technologies. |
US |
| The report designer is the worst thing in VB 6.0,
microsoft did not concentrate on building a powerful
report designer in vb 6.0, crystal reports maybe better. |
US |
| Microsoft developed a very good
application with VB6 and are now moving to web based,
My company only use VB for small interim developments
to fill gaps in the larger systems and so web based
is nice, but by far not essential. The cost of developement
for VB is very small and hence we develope systems on
OPEX without the need for projects. I doubt very much
.NET would allow us to develope quicker and cheaper.. |
US |
| We will be running our VB6 projects at client sites
for at least another 5 to 10 years, but new clients
are not interested in the VB6 products anymore - we
are only selling dot Net stuff |
US |
| We are currently working on several
projects. New ones are developed in .NET. Existing ones
are maintained with VB6 |
US |
| VB6, excellent development tool both in the Visual
Basic and VBA environment |
US |
| I think we all had better learn
vb.net fast! And it's not that hard. |
US |
| I don't think Microsoft understand that not all companies
have the resources available to constantly be migrating
platforms. We have spend 4 years on-going development
with the systems we run and to migrate everything to
.NET is an insumountable task. We will have no choice
but to continue to develop and maintain our systems
in VB 6 with or without Microsoft support. |
US |
| When is VB 7 coming out? Why not
buy out Power basic and make VB programs not dependent
on runtimes? |
US |
| I use both VB6 and .Net VB6 for small in house apps
and C# (.Net) for webpages |
US |
| have not yet uesed any of the above
tools. |
US |
| Why migrate when there is little benefit. The cost
of retrainnig and the cost of the tool itself does little
to provide any added value to the customer or to my
business |
US |
| VB6 is still the most productive
tool balancing ease of deployment |
US |
| The additional programability found in VB.NET would
be nice to use in VB 6.x, but I would not want the .NET
framework, as it seems to be a limiting factor. |
US |
| I have decided not to go through
another Microsoft update cycle. I have enough invested
in VB6 enough challenges in using it that upgrading
to VB.net seems too expensive and painful. I would rather
switch to Java. I believe Java is not marketed this
way. |
US |
| Do not give my email address to anyone .. do not need
any more spam! |
US |
Most of our work is in Access VBA.
I studied like crazy to get up to speed on .net-- but
we just aren't moving into it.
If there was a customizeable accounting package in .Net
that we could do VAR stuff with, then we might have
options, but the package we currently support still
hasn't rolled out their dot net version.
It bothers me that we are in this situation when MS
has been saying for years that all new development needs
to be done in .Net. We do have an in-house project in
.Net and also an ASP.Net project we did, but there is
no interest in our mgt. to try to do more. |
US |
| VB is a great language, the best for me, is simple
and powerful for my job, and it's not create fool programs!.
Unfortunately, someday Microsoft will retire the support
to the developer community and we must migrate to .Net |
US |
VB6 is very useful. It can stay
as VB6 and it will do find. I treat it as an another
language in it self to use for Rapid Application Development;
not as a version of a computer language.
VB6 will be here forever because its not .Net dependent,
the language is easy to use, and because you can create
high caliber software in faster time than any other
language. VB6 will be use as a language of choice.
When you see people donate real good and innovative
programs and codes, they are usually in VB6. Microsoft
have missed the point with .NET, they have neglected
to respect VB6 itself as a platform.
If some how MS is able to allow VB6 code to run as it
is on .NET without any code changes, then maybe people
will view it as real 'improvement'.
I have seen and used VB.NET, its cumbersome and time
consuming to use. If I want to accomplish something
on a code for a program, I usually can find and understand
an answer/sample use for VB6 than for VB.NET. Thats
the case because many people can understand VB6 easily
and get on track to write good code. Not .NET.
MS can only capitalize on VB6 if they only understand
and produce software development program that provide
the tolerance for imperfect code and the high probability
of running code effectively like VB6 and its IDE does.
But I doubt they will do the right thing. |
US |
| We actually use both VB 6.0 and VB.NET. New applications
are developed in .NET but migrating older applications
is somewhat difficult and are being developed in VB
6. |
US |
| We like VB V6 a lot and hope Microsoft
continue to support it for a few years |
US |
| My projects are decidedly small for local small businesses
that cannot afford the huge and expensive programs similar
in content to MS Office Pro. Suites of that type are
a waste of their finances because they contain too much
that is not required by these people. |
US |
| We have multiple VB projects. The
only VB.NET projects are for in-house only at this time.
All of our projects developed for customers are only
being developed in VB6. |
US
Top
|
| Thanks... no more |
US |
| Your survey should use a spell checker,
and questions should 1 and 9 be multiple choice. There
are good business cases for VB6 and .NET. The issue
should be which one best fits the project's needs. |
US |
| VB.Net ROCKS ! |
US |
| We currently use StarTeam for version
control- it is a much better product than VSS. |
US |
| I do VB6 programming for our personal household. .NET
seems pretty complex for what I need. I do significant
projects (85 KLOC, 11 KLOC), both VB6 standalone and
MS Office coding [excel, word, access]. What I've looked
at for .NET seems overwhelming. It might be useful for
business use, but I STILL want something robust for
home use. I don't quite need industrial strength. VB6
is quite good - except for needing better (more packaged)
facilities to get to Windows system information and
features. |
US |
| One of the major problems I see
in upgrading from VB6 to VB.NET is the code and component
conversion. My OCX's I used in VB6 won't work in VB.NET
and code conversion is not automatic. I like that VB.NET
doesn't suppose to need DLL's, but even C++ needs MFC
DLLs, so will that make my VB.NET distribution much
larger than in VB6? Who knows. I can find very few answers
to these questions, and when I do, they're not ones
I want to accept. |
US |
| One of the major problems I see in upgrading from
VB6 to VB.NET is the code and component conversion.
My OCX's I used in VB6 won't work in VB.NET and code
conversion is not automatic. I like that VB.NET doesn't
suppose to need DLL's, but even C++ needs MFC DLLs,
so will that make my VB.NET distribution much larger
than in VB6? Who knows. I can find very few answers
to these questions, and when I do, they're not ones
I want to accept. |
US |
| microsoft's biggest mistake is dropping
VB6 for VB.NET. compare today's environment to that
of 2008 and you'll see. |
US |
| VB 6 is still a very viable tool for small business
development, VB.NET is too complicated and over kill
for that niche. |
US |
| VB.net is great, but its deployment
side is a bit heavy due to the framework that you need
to install. Overall more productive than VB6. |
US |
| VB.NET component developers are slow in providing
ALL the shipped vb6 functions in their released .NET
components. They have ruched to market with incomplete
products and poor documentation. It is very frustrating
providing the same functions in the .NET part of the
program as we do in the VB6 part of the porogram. We
ship a joint VB6/VB.NET package. All new development
is in the .NET module and as current functions are added
to the .NET part, they are removed from the VB6 module.
Duplicate menu pages send the user to the correct module
and utility. |
US |
| I'm not a professional programmer.
I just use VB to make a few programs for my computer.
My last version was VB4 which I used on 1996 computer.
I now have a newer 2002 computer and figured I had better
get the latest VB version for it and so bought .NET |
US |
| I still USE VB6 for some kind of projects which are
mostly based on my exising framework library developped
till the date. Use this is faster to develop new project
and offers fewer testing/development cycle. If it is
brand new project then I use the VB.NET. And ofcource
afer 1-2 years .NET will only be my development language
as my framework is virtually ready for every new project.
I realy imppressed with the fewture exist in the VS.NET
IDE. |
US |
| I'm an occasional programmer and
VB.NET is just to expensive and difficult to make it
worthwhile to change from VB6. I’m looking at some other
language/framework (REALbasic??) maybe I’ll just stick
to VB6 until it’s no longer viable? |
US |
| I think development in VB is quicker than NET, at
least for small-medium proyects. |
US |
| Your survey is not flexible enough
to reflect my actual usage. I work as a consultant in
a group doing Microsoft-based custom application development
and systems integration for multiple clients. My colleagues
and I actively use VB6 and .NET (VB.Net, C#, and ASP.NET;
.NET Framework 1.0 and 1.1; Visual Studio 7.0 and 7.1).
Furthermore, I find clients are also using VB6 for support
and extension of legacy COM+ as well as doing new development
in VB.Net, C# or even J2EE. |
US |
| It is like I have heard from a lot of people that
used VB6 extensively: Why would you use VB.NET when
you have Java? VB6 filled a niche - there was nothing
else like it. Sure it did not have classes, overloading,
and so on - but if anyone was and is going to need objects,
we have and will use a true OO language, like Java or
even C++ |
US |
| I think MS is making a mistake 'forcing'
developers into the .Net corner. It might cause their
'loyal' developers to junk VB and go with Java. If I
need to learn a 'new' VB, I might as well learn Java. |
US |
| We will probably try to migrate to VB .Net later this
year. If it wasn't so steep a learning curve, we would
try to move to it for my current project. |
US |
| I haven't switched to VB.net since
I don't work in a multi-member development team which
VB.net seems to have an advantage. Using VB6 in a single
developer environment allows me to produce significant
windows programs in a very short period of time. |
US
Top
|
| We cannot justify the man months to upgrade our app
to vb.net. We need the ability to run VB6 code directly
in vb.net...fat chance! |
US |
VB.NET offers limited benefits given:
1. cost of re-training
2. effort to rewrite existing base
3. effort to support dual platforms with one platform
constantly changing
Why won't MS take a VFP type approach (enhancements
w/compatibility) to VB vs. huge change? VB.NET is just
C# with a different syntax. Let VB be VB (hint: the
B stands for BASIC). MS missed or is missing marketplace
for development tools for average (hint: BASIC) development
previously held by VB. I understand and appreciate all
the cool VB.NET technical features - BUT!!!! - where's
the real world ROI? For small and medium businesses
I just don't see it.
Speaking as CTO of a 15 year software development firm,
MS needs a VB 7.0 that builds a BRIDGE to VB.NET vs.
the huge chasm they've created between VB 6.0 and VB.NET.
Happy to discuss my thoughts further.
Malcolm Greene, CTO
Brooks-Durham Software
mgreene@bdurham.com |
US |
| If only VB.NET wasn't so incredibly different for
the kinds of projects we need to create, we would have
converted already. We use Crystal Reports integration
heavily, and many of our projects are 1-3 day custom
reports/utilities for customers. I develop many products
as well, that range in size/complexity. |
US |
| I would like to hear the advantages
of moving to .net. |
US |
| I hate .net!! There is too much stuff and it takes
too long to create a simple project! It is also hard
to make sure it works on other servers. I will go to
another product before I go to .Net. |
US |
| we are currenlty using both vb6
and vb.net, that should be an option for the survey |
US |
| Our projects usually involve interfacing computer
systems running VB programs to industrial sensors/measuring
systems. These require little in the way of internet
capability. |
US |
| We do new development in VB.Net
but it is not feasible to move our entire suite of applications
developed in VB6. Lack of complete migration tools hampers
our efforts. |
US |
| I use both VB6 & VB.Net, I still like VB6 very much. |
US |
| Yes dotnet is the future but vb6
is the present |
US |
| Pretty much for network intensive projects, we find
PowerBasic's built in networking functions, which support
both inline and callback (object oriented) network models,
is superior to any other language. It also supports
in-line Assembly and of course, like other languages,
has no problem allowing direct API/SDK access. And it
usually compiles to smaller binaries than any high-level
language. |
US |
| Would love to learn .NET but time
is scarce |
US |
VB6 is now a very old programming language, but if
you use
Win32 API and a little hooking and subclassing, you
can achieve almost anything - when programming Windows
based applications. The embedded ActiveX controls are
a little outdateted, but with just a little work one
could make superior controls in no time.
So, you see, I have no real need to move on to .NET,
or anything else for that matter. Since I am still working
on some applications for Win95/98, I don't think those
old machines could chew something as robust as the Framework. |
US |
Why does your survey assume you
only can use one type of VB.
Personally I presently use VB6 and VB.net.
If section 9 you ask about VB projects, however the
third question assumes you only have one project. I
have projects I am maintaining and other projects that
I am actively developing.
I must say this is the worst survey I've ever written. |
US |
I typically write small interfaces that allow companies
to configure embedded products that I design. I want
to wrap these up in a few hours. I don't want to get
too involved in using the macros required to talk to
the comm port in vb.net.
I have used .NET and found it cumbersome for doing applications
that talk either over usb or the comm port to configure
devices.
I am avoiding the pain of moving right now. |
US |
| No plans to move to .NET at this
time. Little benifits for our applications. The amount
of work required to port VB6 to .NET would be extensive. |
US |
| Personally, I think that the .NET Network is nice,
however I think that Microsoft needs to re-think it
over a bit in some areas... This is VB we are talking
about, not C++, why should we have to worry about having
a master thread... Also, it would be really nice if
Microsoft bundled the .NET Framework with its OS's,
they don't at the moment!!! So for these reasons, although
I do use .NET, I will still continue to use VB6 for
some time to come... |
US |
| I wish I had more class in VB. |
US |
| The main reason I am not using .net in my current
project is it is discouraged by BCA Systems. I am learning
.net on my own but must wait for the political winds
to change before implementing a project with .net technology. |
US
Top
|
| It is easy to tell that the C guru's
prevailed over at MicroSoft |
US |
We at winops.com support, and are in constant evoultion
for approx. 500,000 lines of vb6 source to keep the
nations waterways clear and other projects like the
new Narrows Bridge in Tacoma WA. We hav no plans to
port to net at this time. It looks like a major amount
of work.
Linux? C++? |
US |
We at winops.com support, and are
in constant evoultion for approx. 500,000 lines of vb6
source to keep the nations waterways clear and other
projects like the new Narrows Bridge in Tacoma WA. We
hav no plans to port to net at this time. It looks like
a major amount of work.
Linux? C++?
Lyman Burk
206 291 6860 |
US |
| VB .Net is cool to play with, but each time I try
to use it, I end up going back to VB6 because I can
get my work done quicker. Too many things were changed
w/ .NET to make the transition to it from VB6 easy. |
US |
| VB6 will continue to be used to
support and upgrade existing software. Many Corporates
are still using NT4 and W2K and are not ready to deploy
.NET |
US |
| I think MS support for VB use to be very good, now
you have to really dig around for anything VB6. Thank
god for usenet groups. |
US |
| Too much overhead for .NET, no 95
support.. |
US |
| I use both VB6 and .NET, I am currently updating everything
for .NET only. I develop CLIENT/SERVER apps using Sockets
and SQL databases. |
US |
| I tried to migrate existing vb6
APP to vb.NET and it turned out we have to rewrite 80%
of the App and the Cost is very high for my boss so
he refused to do it! and Istill have many VB 6 apps
that can be upgraded but the Cost of upgrading is very
high and we don't have enough resources so I'm stuck
in VB 6 |
US |
| Thanks to you and to Microsoft but real is when we
feel that we are running development of VB projects
well, Microsoft thinks to export a new and more powerful
tech. again and you konw this makes us really tired
of learning it (fun) ! |
US |
| We use many versions of VB across
the organisation, but the long term strategy is to move
to C#. However we still have new applications being
written in VB6. |
US |
| Our project cannot be converted to .net Without a
complete reWrite.Wish there was a Intermmidaite approach
Smothing which will make it VB.net ready First... |
US |
| After 4 years of VB development,
went to University last year to get a foundation in
C++, C#, Java, and ASP.Net. Having worked with C#, I
feel that it will become the prefered programming language. |
US |
| VB 6 has suited me well for a long period of time.
I am annoyed that the impending change to VB.Net will
require getting used to a new environment, and basically
a new language, simply to do what I always have done. |
US |
I'm the sole developer at my company,
and I'm currently juggling 3 different projects - two
vb6 and one asp.net.
This survey assumes that your only working on one project
at the time, which could be the case at a larger company
- but it is not the case for me! |
US |
| As there are no significant benefits or environmental
changes, no reason to migrate to VB.NET for me. |
US |
| Vb 6 is a superior product for software
development for small business. |
US |
I have no knowledge of how many developers there are
in The Plus Group or what languages they use. I work
on a contract to Sandia National Labs on a project for
which I am the only developer and I am always involved
in several (aka all) projects so a couple of your questions
are not accurately answerable.
My move to Visual Studio.Net is driven by our voice
recognition project, otherwise I have no need of it.
As we transition all of our IVR projects to MS Voice
Server, I will stop using VB at all and will shift to
Java for any non-voice development. |
US
Top
|
| I will NOT move to .NET until the
IDE is as good as VB6 |
US |
| VB.net is a huge mental shift from VB6 - and I think
many developers already know the answers in VB6 so they
don't think VB.net is worth looking at. Personally,
the .net framework is a huge leap forward and I hope
this framework endures for a long time (rather than
being replaced). |
US |
| I am no longer actively developing
with VB as I was a one man shop. I still use VB 6/VC++
6 for my projects. |
US |
| MS will force us to migrate anyways! Hey, they are
the ones in control of the underlying operating system. |
US |
| VB6 is still a valuable high performance
development tool. The problem of MS withdrawing support
will not only affect new development but deeply affects
current product maintenance. Availability is currently
causing issues. |
US |
| Microsoft has made their mark on the computing world
by maintaining backwards compatability (DOS programs
written in the 80's still work on latest version of
windows), yet they have managed to cut-off the largest
base of programmers ever in the world (VB) by making
VB.NET so highly incompatible with standing VB6 code.
Most VB6 shops I've discussed with have decided not
to use any proprietary languages from Microsoft in the
future because of the threat of this happening again. |
US |
| i do not use VB, but i want learn
it. where i can find complete tutorials or manuals in
spanish? thank you |
US |
| VB is very simple to program!!! |
US |
| In my group we are not converting
any existing applications. Any new application will
be developed in .net to take advantage of the new ado.net |
US |
| If I could just incorporate .Net into my projects
it would be fine - No satisfactory literature to learn
on my own - where are the good old MS manuals? |
US |
| Keep things stream-lined. Feature-creep
is a disaster. |
US |
| I still argue for VB against so many technologies
and languages including VB.net for one simple reason
and that is IT IS THE BEST RAPID APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT
TOOL (OR LANGUAGE) |
US |
| Plan to delay .NET as long as possible
because the platform provides no advantage over current
VB5. |
US |
After using VB 6 for a few years and with projects
currently under development the migration to .net will
be a slow one. However it is one of our long term goals,
largely due to it's benefits with ASP.net
Best Regards |
US |
| hacer mas compatible vb6 con .net,
pero una compatibilidad real... |
US |
| think that more problem related to visual basic are
not goodly supported at micorsoft! |
US |
| .net specially vb.net still some
bug for debuger, we can't stop and continue as vb6,
when we can do that. |
US |
Prefer more widely accepted languages. Can use Borland
tools for RAD far more effectively, and can leverage
skills of professional developers to put together applications
quickly.
.NET is too top-heavy, and again, locked into a single
platform. Prefer Java approach, although Java's performance
leaves a lot to be desired. |
US |
| There are many literature with significant
errors about developing in VB. One case, the ones who
recommend to use Data Control for DB management. It
is low efficiently, and it is a wrong way to do the
things. |
US |
| I'm a simple amateur using learning edition. Previous
experience on QB4. Only writing simple programms for
personal use. No netconnection whatsoever required. |
US |
| Since .NET is a different platform
from VB6, and so we will have to learn all the tricks
from scratch, we are currently considering other alternatives
(Java, php, ...) |
US |
| Still happy with VB6. Quiet performant, comparing
to .NET... |
US |
I work for a consultancy and so
the projects I work on depend on what our clients want.
Therefore it is highly unlikely that any projects currently
written in VB6 will be migrated as the client simply
won't pay for it.
In edition some work is Access VBA which admittedly
is not strictly speaking VB6 but is has many similarities.
Where a client wants an all in one Access system it
is not possible to use .NET (even though I'd like to
never have to use Access again ever 8-()
However all future projects where the technologys to
use are completely my or my companies choice we will
use .NET languages, primarily VB.NET, but also C# for
developers who previously wrote C++. |
US
Top
|
| VB.Net should be much better, and already used by
me, if they implemented the old User Data Type (fixed
length strings and vectors inside the UDT) is some way
and if there was a better way than today to use UDT
in binary files in the same way as you can in VB6. |
US |
Good idea this review.
I would like to know how many years VB 6 will be still
supported by Microsoft, If you have the answer, this
will be fine to send me a mittle memo with the answer.
Thanks |
US |
| We are investigating VB.NET intensively for developing
WinForms projects. We have found that it is virtually
impossible to create 'quite and dirty' solutions using
it as the structure is so much more complex than VB6.
In fact ADO.NET is a nightmare compared with 'good old'
ADO. All the elegant ease of functionality of ADO has
been buried under a welter of datasets, dataadaptors
and all the rest. As for the datagrid in .NET, it has
taken weeks to master its manipulation. In my opinion,
Microsoft should have taken VB6 forward in parallel
with .NET, with changes 'under the hood' to bring in
new functionality, but retaining the RAD features that
have made it such a godsend to developers the world
over. They should NOT pull the plug on it, though if
they do, no doubt there are plenty of VB6 experts out
there than can assume the support role currently provided
by Microsoft. It is however crucial that future versions
of Windows support applications developed in VB6 seamlessly
for perhaps decades to come. |
US |
| Tell me what do you need in Application
and in 95% of the case I'll do it with VB 6.0! |
US |
| Many project done in VB6 cannot easily be converted
over to VB.net. VB.net is not an upgrade but a completely
new language |
US |
| For product work that is not easy
to reverse engineer, I prefer VB6 |
US |
| VB has always been an easy way to build simple programs.
However, it's never been good for real oo, reuse, execution
speed, etc. But it's very easy for non-programmers to
use and call themselves programmers. I'm disappointed
even that vb.net exists. If people are going to program,
I'd like them to use a real language. I'm happy it's
going away, but sad that all these developers are going
to have to rewrite all these programs if they want to
maintain Microsoft's support past 2006. |
US |
.net has become overly complicated
for the small gains
as trends shift, so will our focus, but not out of want |
US |
| Whoever is still using VB 6.0 is making a major mistake.
Unless some constraints, really it is a serious waste.
I have used VB since version 1.0, and just nothing compare
to the upgrate to .NET. Yet painful for the migration,
but truly, no pain no gain, and beleive me, gain you
get... |
US |
| We just think we'll use VB.NET only
for new projects and keep using VB6 for currently active
projects. |
US |
| VB.NET is too bloated to use and deploy. No one has
.Net framework installed. |
US |
Proffesional multithreaded, concurrent,
networked app design needs good old C/C++ at the server
side an GUI clients written in Java or C/C++ using good
X-windows toolkit(gtk+/Qt). Perhaps CORBA to glue the
things together.
VB is a kids play - perhaps appropriate to create an
user-friendly wrapper over SQL queries. |
US |
I spent a year trying to upgrade our flagship program
from VB6 to VB .Net and abandoned it when I realized
that
1. almost no one has the .Net framework
2. It runs far slower then VB6
3. There was no clear and compelling reason to migrate |
US |
| We use both .NET and VB6 in our
projects. Mostly because many clients still use win9x
or WinNT clients. Sometimes also use VB6 for small applications
that need to be built and delpoyed fast. The question
about migrating to VB.net is hard to answer because
it depends on our clients. |
US |
| VB6 is not going away for me anytime soon! |
US |
| Over the past 30 year I have worked
with many differernt programming languages. By far VB
6 has been the easiest to use, faster to develop in,
and friendlies to debug in. |
US |
| I think VB6 is not dead - we had the only .NET project
in last two years! Also VB6 takes less time to install
and it doesn't need very strong PC in comparation with
.NET :-))) |
US |
Several of the radio choices above
should be checkboxes, as different projects I am involved
in are in more than one of the options - and I suspect
that is true for almoist every developer out there.
VB.NET is excellent because of it's object orientation,
as well as the fact you can make it interact, in a variety
of ways, with other tools. VB6 often gave only one choice.
web services also enable us to do a lot of things just
not possible before. |
US |
| As VB6 does just about everything I need to do, I
see no reason to migrate to .NET |
US |
| I have never heard of any of ost
of the items in question 10. |
US |
| The only thing I do in VB6 now is legacy stuff. |
US |
| Tried .NET and went back to VB6.
We are more concerned with stand-alone rather than web
applications. |
US |
| Our company does not do VB6 development but migrations
for customers. We migrate VB6 apps into VB.NET |
US |
| I aim to phase out VB as far as
possible and use Java in the future. |
US |
| Math modeling is my area of interest in programming. |
US |
| Like VB the way it is. |
US |
| I only wish that VB.NET gets more friendly to import
the current VB6 projects. It won't be easy to move 2
years of work in VB.NET right now with the constant
additions and support of new features every month. |
US
Top
|
| A service pack to fix bugs on VB
6 would be very welcome. I use VB.NET for new developments,
but need to maintain and develop add-on functionality
for an existing VB 6 project. Migrating to VB.NET is
not an option, it is just too much work without return. |
US |
| The biggest issue is that is is very difficult to
migrate large VB6 projects to VB.NET. The cost is likely
to match the riginal development cost. Fundamentally,
VB6 has achieved the status of COBOL in the mainframe
world. While it would be nice to move hundreds of thousands
of lines of working code to newer technology, nobody
can justify the cost. Microsoft has to be prepared to
support its products for decades, not years. |
US |
| I am also interested to know why
should we migrate to .net? |
US |
There is a little mistake in the countries, I miss
the Netherlands.
Furthermore, I'm interested in the results. |
US |
| VB.NET was the reason I started
to dislike Microsoft. VB6 was my dream come true. |
US |
I hope Microsoft can find a way to develop a wizard
to convert vb6 code so it will run on a Mac or Linux.
I hope .Net will incorporate Java and compile to all
platforms.
I just purchased Borland JBuilder so I can develop to
all operating systems. |
US |
| VB6 is still a great product for
Rapid Application Developement, Sure C#, ASP.Net, VB.Net
will accomplish the same application(and smarter), but
I believe the overhead of knowledge needed to rapidly
develop a C# application by developers without the time
or insight into object oriented design will be a crutch.
I have on my team several developers married with children,
and not enough time to comit to learn a new language,
a new way of modeling a program and a new way of interacting
with win32. I believe Microsoft should support VB6 for
a very long time to come, it will turn into COBOL and
many people will continue to develop with it far into
the future. |
US |
| Many of our customers still use Windows 95. We use
VB6 so we don't leave them behind. Most new projects
that do not have this limitation are done in C# |
US |
| I am programming with VB6,C# WinForms
and .NET Compact Framework; and planning o move vb6
projects to .NET this year |
US |
| Our shop will not use MS products (except for Windows
NT) because of stability and security concerns. We are
migrating our apps to the Web, using Java, Struts, JSps,
JSTL, CCS, etc. |
US |
| .Net: The best thing happened to
Programming yet! |
US |
| Migration to VB.NET will occur with Whidbey version
which is claimed to restore the powerful edit-and-continue
capability of VB6. This is the most important RAD aspect
of VB6. |
US |
| VB.Net for the Pocket PC is GREAT!
ADO.net is terrible! |
US |
| The move to VB.Net is not that great - we did it on
one project in 6 months. Now it is just so much easier
and quicker to develop an application. My advice is
to plan out when you can move on, and then eventually
leave VB6 behind. It can never do all the great things
that VB.Net does. Just my 2 cents. |
US |
| Until VB.NET reinstates core functionality
- such as user-definable array lower bounds, C-compatible
structure mapping including embedded strings, and provides
full COM interoperability as opposed to the current
crippled support, VB.NET is a no-go for us. |
US |
| Whilst all new applications we develop will be vb.net
we do have several VB6 projects which will NOT be converted
to VB.NET simply because of the cost.We have found conversion
from vb6 to vb.NET to be very time consuming and so
further development of our vb6 projects will be in vb6. |
US |
| You forgot the need for a better
debugger. |
US |
| We are in tertiary education, offering National Diplomas
and Degrees across a broad spectrum including IT. We
try to train for industry/ corporate requirements. In
IT we have been teaching VB for years starting with
VB3! At the moment we are teaching VB6 and .NET and
are under pressure to drop VB6 as old, but it seems
to us that VB6 is still more used in industry than .NET
so still need to put students on the job market with
VB6 skills. It is difficult to tell when would be a
good time to switch completely to .NET |
US
Top
|
| I tried .net and didn't like it.
None of my old software would convert properly, and
what company would waste more time and effort trying
to convert the old stuff to fit .net? I gave it a go
and took it back off and put VB 6 back on. .net is NOT
basic, it is based on basic, but it should not be advertised
as being basic. I felt I was mislead by the advertising,
which assured me that all my old VB6 stuff would convert,
when in fact none of it did! Verdict on .net: Shite!
Note that my answers to Q 7,8 is related to VB 6 and
not .net. |
US |
| It's nice to know about the purpose of this survey. |
US |
New projects will be/are written
in VB.NET and ASP.NET.
The first years existing VB6 projects will not be migrated
and adaptions/improvements will still be made in VB6. |
US |
| Visual Basic does not have a Grid Control for Master
Transaction Entry Form, we have to depend on third-party
control like Sheridian,Videosoft Flex Grid etc..But
the most important thing I like is the Rapid Devlopment
and Robust De-bugging tools. |
US |
| VisualBasic is still good programming
Language |
US |
| vb is a good tool |
US |
| The roadblock to use of VB.NEt in
windows application is the distribution of the .NET
framework. Often I am developing small programs to run
on mamy clint computers and cannot justify forcing the
.NET installation, so I continue to use VB6 for those
applications. |
US |
| I am sure there must be other .NET programmers in
ADP. I am the only one that I know of in our department.
My major focus is developing applicaitons for the compact
framework (Pocket PC). |
US |
| Personal information/email should
not matter. Only the answers should. Shame on you for
trying to force us into giving that info. |
US |
i think that the main disadvantage of VB.NET is the
learning curve, the fact that almost everything which
we use in our every day work with VB6 don't exist in
VB.NET (ie there are no real .NET equivalents to the
controls that ship with vb6 out of the box).
a good thing is the .net framework which, could allow
code execution in other systems/OSs if ports of the
framework were to be developped for those platforms
(like JAVA).
i think .net is better then java because it's a REAL
WORLD technology to be used in small projects and not
some language developped FOR coders (like JAVA is) |
US |
| I still use VB3 whenever I can,
because it does many jobs very nicely and is easier
to install. The only tecnical documentation tool I use
is for the Help file. I use Help Writer. |
US |
| Instead of migrating to VB.NET we decided to use C#. |
US |
| A timely list of companies that
need VB6 developers would be really useful. |
US |
| Till Now i am able 2 achive all the requirments using
vb6 so i don't think there is some urgent need to shift
on .net. |
US |
| I don't like the way .NET is so
different than legacy VB. I just got decent with VB6
and now they want me to learn something new already.
I feel that no matter how much Windows changes backwards
compatibility should be top priority... |
US |
During last for years I have been working with VB6
and I don't had problems. What's the reason for change
to VB Net ..?
What about with Visual Basic for applications if in
this moment the code of Office is supported on VB6.0
..? |
US |
| I have 11 years VB experience, starting
from Version 3 and have used VB.Net commercially for
18 months and have recently (4 months ago) changed to
C#, which at the end of the day, makes no difference
wether you use VB.Net or C#. To be honest, I really
don't see a future for VB6 or earlier versions. |
US |
| I'm afraid I don't know enough about the above to
make choices! I just put my head down and code - and
get it to work! (I put in what I thought - hope it's
meaningful) |
US |
| I use VB6 for windows programs.
I am moving to VB Net to keep up, but I consider the
ADO net and printing methods are awful no doubt ms will
sort it out in time, but in the meantime I've started
looking at Java and Delphi |
US |
| I like working in VB6.0. I think its fine |
US |
I would very much like to migrate
to .NET
But every time you start a new project, there is no
time and money for changing from your fingertip development
tool. |
US |
| Microsoft should keep Visual Basic 6 without the .NET
features or else. Why not a simple VB 7.0 or 8.0 as
a suite to VB 6? |
US |
Why make a change?
We are not 100% program developers - we pürogram as
a means to solve our engineering problems and VB/Delphi/FPRTRAN
is perfect for that. .NET is simply not required ans
has totally the wrong emphasis put on it |
US |
| VB is dead, long live C#! |
US |
| Please leave this questionary in
English or translate it correctly. Developers are accustomed
to use the English language - it would also work with
questionaries ;-) |
US |
| VB is so widespread that information and examples
are readily available anywhere on the NET. Microsoft's
examples are usually somewhat sparse and the Technet
has been stripped of what it considers 'Obsolete Products',
yet has limited information on what is considered 'Current'
(i.e. .NET). |
US |
| By version 6, VB has developed into
a reasonably stable and fairly usable development tool.
The pain that Microsoft made VB users (i.e. developers)
endure on the way to version 6 was largely unnecessary
and caused by their ill-thought-out approach to product
development (although I accept that expectations altered
drastically during this period, partly because of the
functionality offered by Microsoft developer tools).
.Net appears to be a way to force us all through the
same pain again, with no obvious benefit. |
US |
| These questions were very confining and hard to answer
correctly due to missing choices. I only use VB6 when
forced to. That is the main point of your survey, right?
|
US
Top
|
| There needs to be an easier way
to migrate applications to VB.Net |
US |
| Good Luck! |
US |
| VB6 is still the language of choice
for me when targeting lightweight home systems running
older Windows versions. And development in VB6 is very
fast (track record: 10 minutes for a simple generic
SQL client). I will use ASP.NET and C# for Web applications
and Web services. |
US |
| VB6 is a great tool. I will still use this until I
am confortable with VB.NET. |
US |
We use VB6 for instrument control.
We cannot keep updating the versions |
US |
| Size of the .Net framework is a barrier for Internet
deployed Windows apps |
US |
Although clunky at times, VB6 is
a tool that can make things happen.
Among other things, I wrote parsers, expression evaluations,
database designer and other stuff you would typically
do in C++. The language is sufficiently OO for my purposes;
I could get around its deficiencies with a few extra
lines of code.
Strong points:
- interpreter, can alter program code whilst the program
is
stopped at a breakpoint; immediate window
- small executable when generating p-code
Problems:
- installer for VB programs - sometimes goes into infinite
reboot loops when installing your app, depending on
the machine! It took
me several days at one stage to fix that - luckily,
MS provides source.
- OO deficiencies - control cannot implement interface,
no inheritance. |
US |
| VB6.0 is suitable for small size project |
US |
| We are planning to move from VB6
to C# - not VB.NET due to what we understand as VB.NET
will become todays 'noddy/Access/VBA' language in th
future which will not hold the power C# is planning
to have. |
US |
| .Net is major step in the right direction. It has
come at a price deprecated features and a complex envirnoment.
The environment is focused on tools for the professional
developer and they have created an issue in creating
a tool that beats the socks off J2ee but is is not as
productive as VB6 |
US |
| The main problem with .NET is the
size of Framework to install in Win9.x machines. It's
almost impossible distribute a program made in .NET
without the framework for use in these OS. VB6 projects
can be deployed using one or two floppy discs. Another
problem is the difference of programming language between
VB6 and VB.NET... |
US |
| One thing which would be great is to have the possibilities
to compile a single EXE which contains all the necessary
libraby in its code (something like Coolplayer application
from Coolsoft)... This is mainly why i gave 8 at the
7th question. |
US |
| Microsoft need to put the multiline
comments in VB.NET and use it to generate sensitive
help |
US |
| I work on projevts that are both in evelopment and
being maintained |
US |
| I would have prefered a usual Visual
Basic 7 instead of VB.net, i.e. no migration problems
what so ever. I don't think it's possible for us do
migrate. |
US |
| Some of my clients still use Windows 95 and 98. on
PIII computer .Net is simply too big and slow for them.
Also the framework changes too often. I may use .net
but not before another 5 years... |
US |
VB is out of date today (Internet
Browsers Generation) ...
.NET is -again- a MS product ... only for MS products
...
Open source (PHP, MySQL, Kylix, ...) rules! |
US |
| I truthfully find Microsoft products poor and un-user
friendly. If I could I would be using another programming
language, but the companies that I work for all want
a popular unified platform (and since they are using
Office applications, well). |
US |
In a corporation trying to minimize
in-house developed code, there is also a reluctance
to establish .NET as the standard because of incomplete
training and competance. As a result, new projects are
still being authored in VB6. Some developers are experimenting
with .NET, but without corporate backing, the transition
will lag by years.
SAP is intended to be the integrated development environment
across the worldwide organization. |
US |
| Java is the way to go! |
US |
| I will never allow my company to
use .net or any other new development tools from Microsoft.
Breaking code compatibility for the second time is unforgivable.
If we are forced to move from VB6, we will re-code using
development tools which offer some longevity. |
US
Top
|
| MS Should support regular VB as well as .NET. In fact,
there should be a non-.NET version as well as the .NET
version. |
US |
| My university is transitioning our
VB projects to Java, so I will have to learn .Net on
my own time. I'm sorry Microsoft had to ruin the only
language I have found that allows developers to focus
on the business domain instead of the technical "how
to do it" that other languages require. The informal
reviews of .Net I have heard from other developers indicate
that VB's "ease of use" was not retained. |
US |
We all understand that the development business requires
constant education activity considering all the new
technologies springing forth. New versions of languages
come out and we learn the new functions. What get's
to be aggravating with MS is that a lot of time is spent
on some of their languages or their backbone technologies
like COM or ActiveX and then MS decides that wasn't
what they wanted to do afterall. Not everyone feels
the need in every application to be web centered. Updates
are easily downloaded and installed without being web
centered. As the Jet Engine seems destined to go to
oblivion and even the SQL server future is uncertain,
I am considering going to an OpenSource strategy. Java
for application development and MySQL for database.
I might as well go to learning JAVA as opposed to C#
or VB.Net. In either case we are talking about a massive
change from the VB6 that we all know and love and hate
(and love anyway in spite of it's short comings). But
at least we know it, and when it needs some help on
speed or something, I can write a C++ DLL to help it
out.
And perhaps even more important is the licensing question.
As MS becomes more dominant essentially a monopoly,
they become more belligerent in their licensing requirements.
So if your customers have multiple work stations, MS
itself starts making your application look less cost
effective.
The reason that our faith in MS language, technology,
database, server, and licensing all starts to seem a
little scary for the future is because of the escalating
changes of the past. We just know we're gonna get screwed!! |
US |
| We have other developers full time,
I use VB part time to do hardware support example programs
for Windows using MSComm and a USB device Library for
VB 6.0. Used VB5 with PDQComm in 97-99 for serial control
demos, previously QB4.5, and VC++ 4.x for SCSI/Parallel
projects. At B&B I only have a VB6 license, so that
is all I use. I've been programming since 1981 using
various Basics, Forth, F83, C, mostly for real time
hardware control, even tried LOGO. Fastest programming/testing
I like best, usually the UI is the most work, VB makes
it easy to move things around for better operation. |
US |
| For now i think programming in VB6 offers me the best
option to work because the language is not a "baby"
and with that gives me the know how of many years of
many people that working with it (also my own know how
of the language). My supporting routines works very
well in VB6 but with .Net i must do all the work again
and lose some time to update some projects that i have. |
US |
| It will be a long time before we
can move some of our larger projects to DotNet. However,
DotNet is a far superior platform. |
US |
| Nice survey. Hope my answer helps :) |
US |
| VB started to loose its "BASIC"
concept with VB6 and .net seems to take an even bigger
step in this direction. VB6 certainly has a lot of improvements
and is still a very good tool. .net makes many things
unnecessarily complicated |
US |
| We hesitate to move to VB.NET because it requires
more hardware to run applications written in it, and
our customers (non-profit organizations) often do not
have up-to-date hardware. Also, rewriting our rather
large application in a new programming language does
not make sense from a timeframe/budgetary point of view. |
US |
Not sure that any Microsoft products
are the future for us.
Servers have gone to Linux, and desktops are going that
way. |
US |
| thank you |
US |
| VB6 code is still faster than the
.NET equivalent, especailly when it comes to startup.
VB6 code also runs in a much smaller memory footprint
(and yes, I know that this is not so critical in a GC
environment). |
US |
| My biggest frustration with VB6 is the lack of built-in
reports support. I had planned to convert my Access
aps to VB6 until I found my users would have to purchase
a separate report generator to be able to use it. Instead,
I just use it to develop ActiveX components and installation
screens, and use Access Developer to support the aps
for stand-alone db installations that just need the
Access runtime. |
US |
| .Net has removed many of the supported
DLL's I used frequently in VB. It has also changed the
characteristics of many of the standard controls making
it difficult, if not impossible, to upgrade smoothly. |
US |
| My primary development area is Microsoft Excel, using
Excel/VBA for the front end and VB6 DLLs for middle
and data tiers. |
US |
| Your Questioaire assumes that only
one version of VB is being used by the responant, I
use both VB.NET and VB6 and C#. In future I will rely
almost exclusively on C# under the Mono framework, using
the Mono version of VB.NET only when a client wants
code in VB. |
US |
Most of our clients are large national and multinational
companies who have not moved to XP or do not have the
.NET runtime available.
DEvelopment in .NET is also harder and requires greater
knowledge and skill on the part of the programmer. |
US |
We have a project that is almost
done. It is a full rewrite of a Student Adminstration
System we began coding back in 2001 and will have completed
by the end of this year.
Our new projects have been in .NET, and we will eventually
port over the Student Adminstration System to .NET as
well, but time constraints caused us to wait until after
release this year. |
US |
| The last true Visual Basic version was 6.0. The .NET
platform's 'version' of VB is no longer 'basic'. You
no longer have the generalization and broad scopes that
you did with previous versions. |
US |
| Regardless of Microsoft's abandonment
of VB6 and the laughing manner in which the non-VB world
views it, Visual Basic to me is still tough to beat.
It is quick, it is easy, and in the hands of the right
person, it is just as powerful as anything else out
there. |
US |
Question 7 & 8 - What version of VB are you talking
about? VB.Net or VB6
Why couldn't Microsoft rename VB.Net as B# |
US |
| Since we are only developing in-house
applications on a very small scale, it is not to be
expected that we'll need the .Net framework. The investment
would not be warranted. |
US
Top
|
| We use a mixture of .NET and VB6. .NET is our preferred
tool for new developments, but you just can't beat the
speed with which you can fire up VB6, build something
quickly and use it for one-off data processing. .NET
also doesn't do interpretation, so the immediate window
functionality in VB6 is going to be missed when we all
go .NET. |
US |
| I have a feeling VB6 will still
be around in 10 years! |
US |
| Your question "In which phase is your project?" is
simplistic. Our "project"--i.e., our core app--is always
being enhanced (development) AND maintained. We have
1 1/2 developers in our company to maintain/enhance
almost 70 VB6 projects, which include over 300k lines
of code. The thought of migrating to VB.NET is daunting,
to say the least. We already have two installed reports
written in VB.NET (forget Crystal Reports--it didn't
work), both of which took three times as long to write,
aren't as nice looking as the reports they replaced,
and had to be deployed in a squirrely manner just to
run. So far, I'm exceedingly under impressed by the
product, but what choice to we have? |
US |
| thank you and i would like to provide
me with latest news about about vb6 and vb net and if
there are job opportunities. |
US |
| While the mags tell us that .NET is the way to go,
I find that VB6 is still in very wide use and is a far
better RAD tool than .NET |
US |
| All said and done... it's Micro$oft...
closed-platform, totally opposed to the hacker mindset
:-( |
US |
| I wish C and low level were supported. |
US |
It's quite difficult to compare
who is the best vb or VB.net.?
it's depends upon the requirement. |
US |
| VB6 was a hell of a lot easier for most things. I've
forced myself to learn the new system but have not seen
any major benefits from doing so. Basically, I changed
because it'll soon be the only game in town. |
US |
We have converted 10 of our VB6
projects (about 700 forms
and a lesser number of modules) to VB.net. We do not
see
any speed or size advantages so the conversion is motivated
solely to stay current. With embedded VB3 no longer
supported
on handhelds we have to move our handheld to compact
framework.
We have no (zero) clients who have any interest in paying
for a VB6 ---> VB.net conversion |
US |
| Si Win32 no muriera, seguiria usando VB (clasico)
por siempre, pero WinFX (el API de Longhorn) se acerca,
y con el viene la muerte de Win32 y cualquier lenguaje
para dicha API. Esto tambien lo estoy viviendo tambien
con Delphi. |
SP |
Aun tengo que utilizar VB6 porque
todavia no conozco bien Vb.Net
La desventaja de Vb.Net es que debemos vover a aprender
otro lenguaje de Programación. |
SP |
| No conozco .NET pero me encantaría probarlo. |
SP |
| Il costo del pacchetto Professional
è eccessivo e quindi per .NET mi sono orientato ad utilizzare
dei prodotti Open Source (SharpDevelop e WebMatrix). |
IT |
| Ci vorrebbero più componenti di rappresentazione dati
maggiormente personalizzabili e un supporto decisamente
migliore per la stampa in diversi formati il datareport
è un pò scarso e poco personalizzabile. |
IT |
Ritengo che, benchè sia una notevole
innovazione (vedi multitreading,ereditarietà ecc), vb.net
sia superfluo per il 90% delle applicazioni desktop
come gestionali ecc.
In sostanza, se ne può fare benissimo a meno.
|
IT |
| Visual Basic 6 è più che sufficiente per fare tutto
o quasi sia su piattaforme base 95/98/Me che professionali
NT4/2000/XP/2003 se si sa utilizzare, inutile sperperare
risorse tempo e soldi per acquistare VB.NET, quali che
siano i vantaggi di portabilità e affidabilità chi non
usa nello specifico, feature del framework .NET (quasi
nessuno che non sia solo travolto dalla "moda"), non
ha motivo di spendere inutilmente in tool di sviluppo
e corsi di aggiornamento. |
IT |
| VB6 era ed è un ottimo strumento
di sviluppo, non ho gradito la migrazione ad un nuovo
linguaggio anche se di vecchio conserva solo il nome
(parte). La transizione da VB 3.0 alla 6.0 era all'insegna
della coerenza e retrocompatibilità. Con .Net non ci
siamo. Tutta l'esperienza acquisita va sprecata. |
IT |
| Non ci fidiamo piu` di M$. La cosa piu` importante
in un linguaggio e` la durata nel tempo. Con un linguaggio
tipo Delphi, chi ha programmi fatti in Pascal per DOS
puo` ad oggi ancora compilarli con Delphi ultima versione.
Con il passaggio da VB a VB.Net Microsoft riconferma
una mancanza di professionalita` vergognosa, per cui
VB6 sara` l'ultimo linguaggio M$ che useremo. Appena
possibile ci sara` pure una conversione da ASP a PHP
al fine di abbandonare M$ in tutto (a parte i sistemi
operativi per ragioni commerciali). |
IT
Top
|
La cosa più snervante di VB.NET,
stà nel fatto che non è possibile effettuare correzioni
durante il debug dell'applicazione. In questo modo diventa
molto difficle dove e come correggere gli erroti. Inoltre
sento molto la mancanza dell proprietà Index nei controlli,
dato che in genere preferisco costruire i programmi
in maniera dinamica. Inoltre se devo realizzare una
semplice applicazione che fa uso di DB, generalmente
utilizzo un MDB è l'applicazione va giù da sola, con
VB.NET tutto si complica, costrigendomi a rinunciare.
Il mio sito si trova al seguente indirizzo:
http://bcp.3000.it |
IT |
| L'azienda ha già settori che sono passati al Net (250
persone, 150 con Vb asp com+, circa 50 altro, circa
50 DotNet |
IT |
VB était à l'origine un langage
pour "débutants", c'est désormais un langage pro avec
l'avènement de .Net
L'utilisation conjointe avec C# permet de couvrir tous
les domaines, en gardant la lisibilité du code VB et
en permettant d'exploiter l'ouverture de C# (composants
gratuits sur le web tels qu'Olymars de MS) |
FR |
| Le produit .NET va être imposé par Microsoft car c'est
la politique commerciale de Microsoft. je suis entouré
d'informaticien personne ne travaille en .Net et personne
ne compte migrer à .Net |
FR |
| Le principal frein de l'utilisation
de .NET est la complexité de paramétrage de la plateforme
de développement. |
FR |
| J'ai a peine mes 18 ans et je ne travaille donc pas
en entreprise. En ce qui concerne mes projets personnels,
la durée est très variable et parfois tends vers l'infini
faute de temps/d'intérêt. La plupart de ces projets
projets sont destinés à illustrer des techniques particulière
dans le cadre de réponse aux questions posées sur les
newsgroups et n'ont par conséquent aucune période de
maintenance et une faible durée de développement. |
FR |
| asp.net apporte beaucoup de fonctionalités
par rapport à asp dans le cadre de développements web
par contre n'apporte rien par rapport à vb |
FR |
venant de QBasic 2.5, VB3, en passant par vb5 puis
vb6 et enfin vb.net, je ne cesserai jamais de faire
des éloges de mon langage de prédilection.
Certe, aujourd'hui, les nouveaux projets sont en vb.net
(que j'adore)mais j'utilise encore vb6 pour de petits
utilitaires et je crois que je ne suis pas pret de m'en
separer. |
FR |
Les mises à jour Visual Studio NET
sont trop chères;
je suis toujours en 2002 pour cette raison |
FR |
| Il serait très intéressant de générer un exe unique
intégrant le code utile des composants (DLL, OCX, ...) |
FR |
| actuellement,J'ai environ 15 applications
qui évolue en permanance suivant la demande des clients
(certaine on même été dévellopée sous VB4 que j'ai pu
reprendre sans trop de problème avec VB6) et cela me
fait peur de passer les sources en vb.net sans tout
redévelopper. ayant essayer avec une version d'évalution
30 jours du .net, l'outil de conversion est pas génial,
il faut tout reprendre ligne par ligne (mes programmes
faisant entre 50 000 et 60 000 lignes). Alors j'ai abandonée. |
FR |
| Pourquoi est-ce que la conversion de VB6 a VB.NET
est tellement difficile que sur nos 40000 lignes de
codes on doit TOUTES les revoir. Il aurait fallu une
migration 'en douceur' avec un mode de compatibilité
VB6. Je regrette aujourd'hui d'avoir fait confiance
a Microsoft, car pour moi ils vont abandonner VB6 et
la charge de travail est inimaginable. |
FR |
| Regrette que Microsoft 'abandonne'
la technologie DAO pour passer à ADO.NET, il aurait
pu garder aussi la techonologie DAO en passant à .NET
car les migrations des anciens projets à .NET ne sont
pas aisées. |
FR
Top
|
| dommage que Vb ne permette pas d'intégrer les dll
et autres composants dans l'exécutable. Dommage aussi
que l'outil de déploiement et installation soit très
loin de la perfetcion. |
FR |
| Un outils qui fonctionne correctement
(VB6), n'as pas besoin d'être modifié aussi profondément
(.Net). |
FR |
VB.NET , c'est la meme chose que JAVA la portabilité
en moins !!!
Pourquoi choisir VB.NET alors que jamais fait la meme
chose avec en plus une ouverte sur des milliers de config
différentes, alors que VB.NET ne marchera que sur des
machines à environnement microsoft.
Bof bof... Pour windows, VB6 est très bien, sinon, JAVA
est nickel |
FR |
| La notion d'interopérabilité entre
les langages est très intéressante dans le framework
.NET, et permet ainsi de gagner du temps en sélectionnant
une ressource (développeur) sur un panel plus important
de compétences. |
FR |
| Il faudrait que la conversion des projets vb6 en vb.net
soit plus optimisée |
FR |
| VB5 EST UN OUTIL DE DEVELOPPEMENT
EXCEPTIONNEL TANT DANS SA SIMPLICITE QUE DANS SON UTILISATION.
IL FAUT JUSTE EN CONNAITRE LES LIMITES SUIVANT L'APPLICATION
A DEVELOPPER. |
FR |
| Le majeur probleme de VB.NET est le fait que c'est
100% décompilable (via Salamander par exemple.) |
FR |
| Pourquoi changer de langage pour
des industriels dont le but est d'optimiser leur résultat
et pas uniquement de travailler avec le dernier langage
à la mode ? Si vous avez une réponse... |
FR |
L'aide de visual basic 5 est réalisée d'une excellente
façon. VB6 et autre logiciel devrait s'en inspirer grandement.
L'accès aux bases de données, de type Access, avec devient
trop compliqué avec VB6 en rapport à VB5 et ses contrôles
data
Le service d'empaquetage de VB6 est quelques fois perfectible
|
FR |
| un VB7 aurait été plus judicieux,
c'est à dire avec un IDE digne de ce nom, de l'héritage...
|
FR |
| Umfangreiche Standardsoftware umzustellen ist zu aufwendig.
Neuentwicklung von Modulen wird in .NET gemacht. Komplettumstellung
also nicht in Sicht. |
DE |
| die Übersetzung Ihrer Umfrage ist
grauenhaft |
DE |
Ggf kommt ein Umstieg auf PowerBasic in Betracht.
Der derzeitige Einsatz von .NET wird von mir als IT-Consultant
noch nicht empfohlen, da (noch) nicht stabil genug. |
DE |
Ggf Umstieg auf PowerBasic.
.NET wird von mir als IT und Security Consultant bisher
noch nicht empfohlen, da (noch) zu instabil. |
DE |
Das Deployment für Netzwerkumgebungen muss in Verbindung
mit auf Fileservern liegenden Assemblies und die korrekte
Rechtevergabe auf Windows Clients noch überarbeitet
werden. Das ist zu kompliziert mit den Wizards!
Die Deployment-Tools sind für gemischte Anwendungen
(Access-Runtime, VB6 und .NET ZUSAMMEN) nicht geeignet
und man muss auch teure Pendants wie Installshield ausweichen
(Nullsoft NSIS ist auch sehr flexibel).
Codedokumentation muss viel einfacher werden für VB.NET.
Bei C# funktioniert das schon sehr gut.
Die IDE sperrt sich manchmal selber die Dateien (Zugriffsverletzungen)
und der Form-Designer zerstört gelegentlich veränderte
Formulare mit Custom Controls. Das DARF nicht passieren.
Absolut gut wäre die Möglichkeit, C# und VB.NET Module
von der IDE aus in eine einzige Assembly zu linken.
Manuell ist dies bei großen Libraries sehr umständlich
und zeitraubend.
Weiterhin sollte man in den Kompilationsvorgang eingreifen
könen bzw. Makefiles für alle Arten von Solutions (nicht
nur C/C++) erzeugen können.
Für einen Verzeichnisbaum mit mehreren hundert einzelnen
Projekten und gegenseitigen Abhängigkeiten bleiben einem
nur externe Tools wie NANT.
Schönen Feierabend! :) |
DE
Top
|
| Warum ich nicht auf VB.Net wechsle:
im VB6 kann ich so schön "am lebenden Patient operieren"
(Quelltextbearbeitung im Haltemodus & weiterlaufen lassen). |
DE |
Falle wohl ein bischen raus, da ich nie VB6 entwickelt
habe und die C# Syntax nicht sehr ansprechend finde.
Ein Modus, der die VB6 Zugeständnisse abschalten könnte,
wäre wohl recht gut in meinen Augen. |
DE |
Die Fragen sind teilweise falsch
gestellt. "- Warum migrieren Firmen auf .NET? " müsste
heißen "Warum migrieren Firmen _NICHT_ auf .NET?".
Eine der Antworten wäre dann, weil es aus _KUNDENSICHT_
keine klar erkennbaren Vorteile gibt!
- Nur für ein kleines Tool das .NET-Framework installieren
kommt häufig nicht in Frage. Solange das .NET-Framework
nicht Bestandteil von Windows ist oder eine Verbreitung
wie der IE erreicht, wird sich an der schleppenden Verbreitung
von .NET nix ändern. Es wäre schön, wenn die NET-Jubler
und Microsoft diese Tatsache endlich zur Kenntnis nehmen
und sich was einfallen lassen, wie das NET-Framework
auf die USER-PCs kommt.
|
DE |
| Für mich ist .NET obsolet |
DE |
| Da ein Umstieg generell mit Zusatzaufwand
verbunden ist, muß der Benefit entsprechend hoch sein.
Ich sehe mehrere mögliche Trends, tendiere jedoch zu
der Annahme, daß Linux bzw. andere Betriebssysteme als
Alternative an Bedeutung weiter gewinnen. Wir entwickeln
Server- und Client-Software, was eine Offenheit dem
Betriebssystem gegenüber wichtiger macht. .NET liegt,
was Portabilität angeht, aber ganz schlecht im Rennen.
Eine weitere große Ungewißheit ist, welche Preispolitik
Microsoft in Zukunft anstreben wird. Hier könnten hohe
Kosten entstehen. Aus diesen und anderen Gründen kann
leicht ein Umstieg auf Java oder Python beispielsweise
viel interessanter sein. |
DE |
| Solange .Net keine vernüftige (Zeitsparende) Datenbankanbindung
für nicht umbedingt hoch skalierbare Anwendungen hat,
werde ich nicht umstellen. |
DE |
falsch 8) Was ist Ihre Meinung bezüglich
das Microsoft Technical Support ?
richtig 8) Was ist Ihre Meinung bezüglich des Microsoft
Technical Support?
falsch 9) Was ist die durschnitliche Grösse ihrer VB
Projekte ?
richtig 9) Welches ist die durschnitliche Grösse ihrer
VB Projekte?
falsch 11) Ihre Kommentäre sind willkommen :
richtig 11) Ihre Kommentare sind willkommen: |
DE |
| Ich verlange, dass VB weiterhin gepflegt wird! |
DE |
| mit .Net habe ich mich noch gar
nicht auseinander gesetzt. Wir werden wohl in den Wintermonaten,
wenn es bei uns ruhiger bei uns geworden ist, zunächst
mal Literatur erwerben und dann können wir vergleichen.
In erster Linie arbeiten wir mit VB in Verbindung mit
ACCESS. |
DE |
| VB Projekte nur noch in Dienstleistungen wo der Aufwand
mit .NET zu hoch wäre. Ansonsten bereits kompletter
Umstieg auf .NET - dort hauptsächlich C#. |
DE |
| Ich sehe keinen grund auf .net umzusteigen.
vb6 sollte in seiner art weiter entwickelt und supported
bleiben. optimal wäre eine implementierung der runtime
in das windows wie es bei c++ schon ist |
DE |
| Eigenstandige Native Exe wie bei Delphi würde VB.Net
gut stehen. |
DE |
| Seit mehr als zwei Jahren mache
ich nur noch Software-Projekte mit .NET. Dabei entscheidet
der Kunde, ob VB.NET oder C# verwendet wird. Ich selbst
ziehe die Entwicklung mit C# vor, da C# und die gebotenen
Mittel ein ganzes mehr Professionalität bieten als VB.NET.
Außerdem läßt VB.NET unsinngige Programmierung durch
die Weiterführung von 'liebgewonnenen" VB-Spezialitäten
zu. VB.NET schleppt zuviel aus den alten Welt mit in
die neue .NET-Welt. Das ist bei C# nicht der Fall. |
DE |
Es ist nicht nützlich, eine Sprache für tot zu erklären,
wenn diese durchaus noch gute Dienste leisten kann.
.Net ist als Ergänzung willkommen, ein fettes Framework
sollte aber nicht jedem aufs Auge gedrückt werden. |
DE |
| Ich arbeite nur mit Visual Basic
4.0 Professional Edition, 32 und 16 Bit. |
DE |
Wir haben meistens mehrere kleinere Projekte parallel
laufen !
Die kleinen Dateigrößen sind eine echte Hilfe. Wir haben
auch schon eine kleine Anwendung für mobile Geräte (PPC
2003) geschrieben, die eine Kundenlösung zur Lagerhaltung
hervorragend abrundet. |
DE |
| Die zukünftige strategische Ausrichtung
unseres Unternehmens lautet J2EE |
DE |
| Hoert nicht auf mit VB6. |
DE |
Ich LIEBE VB6! Ich würde gerne in
VB6 weiterentwickeln. Aber ich kann mit VB6 Webanwendungen
nicht so einfach erstellen, wie das in VB.NET (ASP.NET)
geht. Und Webanwendungen sind zur Zeit am meisten gefragt.
Ein weiteres Problem ist, daß Microsoft VB6 nicht weiterentwickelt
und neuere Technolgien (XML, SOAP, ...) nur schwer zugänglich
sind. Microsoft lässt uns keine Chance, an NET vorbeizukommen.
NET ist ja grundsätzlich nicht schlecht, sondern sehr
gut. Aber ich "hasse" diesen IL-Code und den damit verbundenen
Wiederherstellungsmöglichkeiten (Anakrino, etc.).
Native-Code war mir lieber! |
DE |
Wir haben schon Visual Studio .NET 2003
Laufende VB 6.0 Projekte werden abgeschlossen und nicht
migriert.
Neue Projekte werden in C# entwickelt. |
DE |
| Die Kombination bei .NET die Programmierkenntnisse
aller Sprachen zusammenwerfen zu können hat für mich
fast nichts mehr mit ordentlicher Programmierung zu
tun! |
DE |
| Die Einarbeitung in ADO.NET is mehr als mühselig,
weil es am Markt nahezu keine gute Literatur gibt. (Ich
bevorzuge die Erstellung von ADO Komponenten (dataset,
adapter, conn objekt) zur Laufzeit per Quellcode) |
DE |
Warum gibt es in .NET keine FTP-Klasse?
Sockets sind zu einfach, asynchone zu kompliziert/umständlich. |
DE |
| Also wenn wir auf .NET umsteigen, sollten die Preise
der Lizenzen gesenkt werden. .NET ist für mittelständische
Unternehmen zu teuer (in der Entwicklung und Wartung).
Außerdem ist man mit ASP nicht flexibel genug. Kleinere
Projekte, die von heute auf morgen fertig sein müssen,
sind in einem "strengen" Zeitrahmen nicht realisierbar.
Deshalb setzen wir auf php und MySQL. |
DE |
Ich finde es schade das VB6 nicht
"weiter entwickelt" wird.
Als Hobby Programmierer habe ich keine Lust und auch
keine Zeit
eine neue Sprache zu erlernen. |
DE |
| Ich finde VB6 ist eine super Programmiersprache und
die Entwicklungsumgebung lässt nur wenige Wünsche offen.
Schade nur, dass der Sprung zu .NET zu groß ist, und
das sich soviel geändert hat. Ich hätte es super gefunden,
wenn man noch das "alte" VB weiterentwickelt hätte,
parallel zu .NET! |
DE |
Auf "Was ist die durschnitliche
Grösse ihrer VB Projekte ?" schließt sich nicht die
Frage "Zahl von VB Entwickler auf dem Projekt :" an.
Ihre Umfrage ist wertlos. |
DE |
| Ich bin überzeugter Visual Basic Programmierer, weil
Visual Basic einfach und Komplex zugleich ist. |
DE |
| Ich benutze VB nur noch für bestehende
Projekte. Neue Anwendungen werden unter c# entwickelt! |
DE |
| Dieses survey ist unterste Menschenwürde ;) .Net ist
einfach eine schreckliche "Programmier"-sprache, deshalb
würde ich es nicht benutzen |
DE |
| Auf die Werkzeuge bin ich bisher
nicht gestoßen. |
DE |
Ich bin nur Hobby-Programmierer.
Diese Umfrage ist sehr schlimm gestaltet und lässt viele
Fragen offen. |
DE |
| Ich sehe in VB.NET praktisch nur
Vorteile, der einzige Nachteil ist der extreme Aufwand,
bestehende Projekte von VB6 auf .NET zu migrieren, da
der einzig sinnvolle Weg eine Neu-Programmierung sein
kann (speziell bei Datenbank-Anwendungen ist durch ADO.NET
sowohl in der Business-Logik als auch in der GUI alles
anders und daher kann man von einer Migration wohl kaum
sprechen). Unter "Shared Components" habe ich Komponenten
von Drittherstellern interpretiert. Ein anderer Sinn
dieses Wortes ist mir nicht eingefallen. Die Formulierung
der Fragen ist teilweise missverständlich. Zum Bsp.
(9), "Zahl der VB Entwickler auf dem Projekt" steht
unter dem Titel "Durchschnittliche Größe Ihrer VB-Projekte".
Was meinen Sie unter "dem" Projekt? Ich arbeite gleichzeitig
an mehreren. |
DE |
| Die Mehrzahl von Kommentar ist Kommentare |
DE |
| wird von uns nur für Eigenbedarf
oder kleinere Tools für Kunden benutzt |
DE |
| Für die Anforderungen meines Projekts reicht VB6 vollkommen
aus. Ich sehe für meine spezielle Anwendung keine Vorteile
in einem Umstieg auf VB.NET. |
DE |
Il reste très peu d'applications en VB5. En revanche,
beaucoup d'entreprises utilisent encore VB6.
