Drake7707 Posted September 7, 2006 Report Posted September 7, 2006 yuck .net, its way too much like c++/java, stick with vb6 The "On Error goto errh" or "On Error Resume Next" is easier for me to handle exceptions
»D1st0rt Posted September 7, 2006 Report Posted September 7, 2006 yuck .net, its way too much like c++/java, stick with vb6 The "On Error goto errh" or "On Error Resume Next" is easier for me to handle exceptionsWords are for noobs, {'s ftw
»D1st0rt Posted September 7, 2006 Report Posted September 7, 2006 Using whitespace to define scope is weird imo
»Admiral Kirk Posted September 13, 2006 Report Posted September 13, 2006 Whoever mentioned VB6 needs to be shot burried, dug up incinetated, disperesed over the sea, the sea filtered for the ashes the ashes put into a coffin and burried in an asteriod that is fired at a sun somewhere giving it just suficient m!@#$%^&* to go supper nova.... And whoever related C# to C++ also needs to die in a hole... C# is a rip off of Java and thats about it. C# sucks just as much as Java does, infact probably more. If you want a _real_ programming language use ANSI C++ with CRT Librarys. None of that ATL or MFC bullcrap. Just strait up C++, its the only way to go EDIT: Oh ya, and good job on the nifty program!
Witchie NL Posted September 13, 2006 Report Posted September 13, 2006 lol just admit you like the program
»D1st0rt Posted September 13, 2006 Report Posted September 13, 2006 Kirk why don't you just write everything in !@#$%^&*embly, C++ sucks compared to it.
»Admiral Kirk Posted September 13, 2006 Report Posted September 13, 2006 Actualy I do have inline !@#$%^&*embly in some of my programs but then portability becomes a !@#$%^&* because !@#$%^&*embly is architecture dependent. Pure CRT C++ on the other hand can be written such that it will compile on both win32 and linux with zero modifications.
Samapico Posted September 15, 2006 Report Posted September 15, 2006 who cares which language is used... as long as it WORKS and you won't even notice the difference
»doc flabby Posted September 16, 2006 Report Posted September 16, 2006 try {do this}catch(Exception e) {display error} finally {do this what ever happens}
Drake7707 Posted September 16, 2006 Author Report Posted September 16, 2006 yeah, but if you need that on every single line, then On Error Resume Next in vb is way easier to read than having that chunk of text on every line you want to test. Btw vb6 isn't all that different from c, because the vb6 compiler is a hacked c compiler.
»SOS Posted September 16, 2006 Report Posted September 16, 2006 Lolololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol
»ZiGNoTZaG Posted September 16, 2006 Report Posted September 16, 2006 All prog langs are relatively the same in function. They all use the same basic constucts to achieve desired results. The only major differances are speed. vb tends to be slow, but tends to be faster in the dev stages. C and its endless varients are faster but can be alittle more difficult to debug and dev without proper planning. !@#$%^&* is alot faster then anything else, but requires a greater understanding of how a cpu actually works. net is nice, but basically makes any program that uses it a 30 meg program...even its just a !@#$%^&*o world. You have to download the entire framework to use it, not just a dll or control here and there. Vista will probably include it, but that means nothing to people who will be with XP for a long time to come. This is an old, old, debate...a fanboy debate. I dont like any language more or less, except some of those older frame langs like cobal...GOOD LORD ALMIGHT! is this ever wordy! Writen a novel here! Yes companies still use these dinosaurs... costs big bucks to move on. Heres some trivia, i work in the credit industry for one of the Top transaction processors in the world. Guess what language almost all of the client side apps are written in?
»ZiGNoTZaG Posted September 16, 2006 Report Posted September 16, 2006 VB Drake...VB....interesting no?
»ZiGNoTZaG Posted September 17, 2006 Report Posted September 17, 2006 remeber tho...thats client side. I must admit, that alot of the dll's behind the scenes are C. its your standard windows client...linux box
»Admiral Kirk Posted September 19, 2006 Report Posted September 19, 2006 Yes, we have several VB apps running our FCC testing labs as well. Thats actualy my job at the moment, to rewrite them all in C++ so that they actualy work without crashing or taking 60 years to compute a simple value Although I must admit as to the crashing thats more the fault of the VB coders than VB itself, its just that the original coders were so mindnumbingly stupid that they couldnt even be bothered to check for simple things like "Does the file actualy EXIST before we try to open it ^^".. morons... Thats ok though, I finaly got one of my rewrites past QA and everyone is suitably impressed, it may not look as pretty but it works 100x faster and has not crashed ONCE throughout all of QA and the last several months that its been in use. Im certainly not saying that VB doesnt have its uses, it does, just that those uses are prototyping and small rare-use utilities. Not production applications ^^.
»doc flabby Posted September 19, 2006 Report Posted September 19, 2006 The problem with VB is not the language its normally the programmers who code in it. Its very easy to write a vb app with very little knowlege the same is not true of most other languages. I have created a few vb6 apps that are used in production, do not crash and are stable and fast as any c++ program. I've even written a true mul!@#$%^&*hreaded vb6 app, which is not easy. The problem with vb6 is that there are many quirks in the language that if you do not know about can lead to memory eating and stability issues. Learning how to use windows api calls in vb is essential to get anywhere. However since c# has come out i have really swtiched to that as its a much better designed language and has none of the "interesting" quirks that vb has.
Drake7707 Posted September 19, 2006 Author Report Posted September 19, 2006 overall vb6 programs quality is low because a lot of programs have been created by beginners. Thats why the general idea of vb6 is seen as bad. If you know other languages as well, and have a lot of experience with programming, you can create a stable program just as good in vb6 as in c++ or any other language.
»Admiral Kirk Posted September 20, 2006 Report Posted September 20, 2006 Ok sure, if you go through the imence amount of work thats involved in byp!@#$%^&*ing the VB6 runtime modules and using the win32 api directly from VB6 ya you can write a stable app that will come close to being as fast as a C++ app, but at that point your practicly coding C++ anyway so might as well use the more powerfull language And yes, i definetly agree that at least 70% of VB's bad wrap comes from the fact that its so easy to create a program that will actualy _do_ something that the majority of VB coders are complete amatuers. However thats not all of it. I do know VB6 and VB7, and have tried both. VB6 is just plain horrid no matter how you look at it, the runtime library is terrible, timers dont always work, the built in string functions are horribly inefficient. Array access functions are sickening, the list goes on ^^. VB7 is a little better but not by much. The problem isnt the language itself but the runtime library microsoft wrote to be used with it. Infact the problem is almost entirly microsoft Also another serious stab for VB is that its 100% unportable (and no, WINE doesnt count). VB6 is realy only good for GUI prototyping, that is something its incredibly good at. Beyond that, nothing realy.
Recommended Posts