|
The Pentium Guy
Squire
12 Posts |
 Posted - Mar 21 2004 : 12:46:01 PM
|
hey, im new here
and uhh, idk i was just wondering what you guys prefer more, vb6 or vb.net,
personally i like vb.net becuase of the ease of use adn stuff-
what about you guys? |
|
|
VBBR
Moderator
Brazil
617 Posts |
Posted - Mar 21 2004 : 1:50:12 PM
|
I prefer VB6 because of the ease to distribute your application (.NET requires install of the framework). And I'm more used to it also. I think VB.NET yet needs some time to turn to a default.
|
Whatever. Who knows... |
 |
|
|
Eric Coleman
Gladiator
USA
811 Posts |
Posted - Mar 22 2004 : 1:14:00 PM
|
I agree with VBR. .NET is pretty bloated, and if someone installed .NET 1.0 then they have to download a security patch for it. Now that MS is at version 1.1 with the .NET framework, you have to download the entire thing again.
If you create a game with .NET, the screenshots need to look really amazing if you expect someone to go through the trouble of downloading your game AND downloading and/or updating the .NET framework.
You should consider the people that will be playing your game. They don't care what language you create it in. They only want the game to simply work.
Of course, that really isn't an answer to your question of which I prefer, vb6 or vb.net. I prefer vb6. I think the opinion expressed in this article pretty much sums up my attitude towards vb.net. http://www.vb-helper.com/rant_vb_net_not_oo.html I suggest anyone that reads this post read that article as well. Its extremly enlightening. |
|
|
|
The Pentium Guy
Squire
12 Posts |
Posted - Mar 23 2004 : 5:20:15 PM
|
Eric Coleman: wow, i never knew that o_O.. makes you think
VBRR: i agree with you, it does take a lot of effort in order to distribute your application
the main reason why i like vb.net is because (for example) directX in vb.net has a much more evolved architecture vb6's <-
vb6 is alittle more COM based, personally i think COM is a little less User Friendly(ok fine.. programmer friendly :p) and has waaay too many capital letters;
and, its a litlte bit easier to shift from VB.NET to C++.NET than to shift from VB to C++
btw, about the whole "installing a whole buncha stuff to get a .net app to work", yeah that sucks :(, fortunately, Windows (codename) Longhorn will center on the .net framework - making it faster to compile / run a .net program,
just wanted to share my thoughts,
pent |
|
|
|
Lachlan87
Moderator
USA
160 Posts |
Posted - Mar 24 2004 : 08:26:37 AM
|
I use and prefer VB.net, but I wouldn't recommed it to anyone else--yet. I won't go into all my reasons right now, but I will say that while I think VB.net is an improvement over vb6 code-wise, it's advantages are small. I suspect before too long, most windows users will have the nessecary .Net runtimes, but until then, vb.net's (disputed) advantages are not sufficient to make the switch worth it IMO.
The main reason(though not the only one) I use VB.Net is because by the time I wanted to buy Visual Basic, I couldn't find any legal copies of VB6, and if I'm going to be distibuting my applications, I want my language to be legal. |
|
|
|
Krisc
Knave
69 Posts |
Posted - Apr 04 2004 : 11:59:55 AM
|
| I use and prefer C# actually...I like how it is similar to java...almost combining all the good parts of C++, VB and Java into one language. I am really digging it and after moving to C# from VB.NET from VB I have no complaints except Fullscreen Direct3D apps are not documented at all for C#. Kind of frustrating but I figured it out. |
|
|
|
Spodi
Warrior
USA
142 Posts |
Posted - Apr 04 2004 : 6:08:21 PM
|
I have never used .NET, and I dont want to. I dont want to have to get used to the new layout/code format and have to deal with all the patches and crap. Then you dont got as much of references to go off of since theres not as much .net projects. So all in all, I dont think it is worth it.
|
vbGORE |
|
|
|
Matt_Giuca
Neophyte
Australia
3 Posts |
Posted - Apr 17 2004 : 09:18:31 AM
|
I've been using both for some time now, and I've been using VB 3/4/6 since 1995. I'd say, for a small game (ie. freeware, its gonna be hard to convince people to play) go VB6 due to:
a) The big issue of .NET runtime
b) You shouldn't need .NET features / OOP features
For a big game that people are gonna want to play, go VB.NET because it IS better. Yes it is hard to learn. But a) the new OOP features are really cool, it is very close to C++ now. b) it is much more tightly integrated to C++. If you have Visual Studio this is a great advantage since you can very easily write a program which shares languages, for very fast C++ code. c) DirectX 9.0 is much easier to code in with Managed Code .NET - very nice. d) The environment (the IDE itself) is a delight to use - everything happens as you want, its very helpful and nice to you.
So in short, get VB.NET but don't expect to use it on small tasks. Any "little" programs you should do in VB6. Save .NET for the big mummas you are going to spend years polishing and will be worth the .NET framework download.
btw it says I'm a newbie, but as I said (although I haven't posted here) I have used both for a long time. I've made 2 games in VB6 and I've done DirectX/Direct3D coding in both versions.
And Spodi, I think .NET will take off once more people have the framework. The next version of Windows should probably come with it, so after that it will be quite popular. And you don't have to "learn" the new interface. It is possible to set it to be almost exactly like VB 6 (it is highly customisable) but believe me you won't want to because the new interface is so sweet! |
Edited by - Matt_Giuca on Apr 17 2004 09:22:20 AM |
|
|
|
ken_foust@hotmail.com
Neophyte
USA
3 Posts |
Posted - Apr 18 2004 : 8:08:16 PM
|
Well, I read the rant about .NET being less OO than VB6...Interesting view point, but I don't agree. The main article is about objects no longer having as much encapsulation...yeah - ok. So this is the CON - what's the PRO? Less bloat of code - now you don't have code you don't need and won't call/use. We're after code reuse (notice the word "use").
Think about it - when you design and create an object - you add the methods and properties that will be needed most or has to be included. This is because there is a dwindling return on investment. Adding a lot of code that will only be called 10% of the time is simply a waste of money.
Now - would you create the methods/properties to draw on your ojbects: Form, PictureBox, Menu, Windows, etc - or would you create the Graphics classes so the coder (user) consuming your objects could use this same class to draw on all of them?
Just my two... by the way I prefer .NET over VB6 - especially now that it has edit and continue !! |
|
|
|
Eric Coleman
Gladiator
USA
811 Posts |
Posted - Apr 19 2004 : 11:17:56 AM
|
I think the point the article is trying to make is that the Form, PictureBox, Menu, Windows, etc in VB.NET should have encapsulated the drawing methods. That's major tenet of object oriented design.
If you want to talk about code bloat, it doesn't make any difference if the design of the program looks like Form.Graphics (VB6) or Graphics.DrawOn (Form) (.net); the actual function to do the drawing wouldn't be that much different between the two design choices.
If you think of code bloat as having a class full of functions and procedures that you don't use, then you're not aware of the nature of the .NET framework. Even if it was designed to be more OO like VB6 where the graphics classes were encapsulated in the objects that allow drawing, then a program that uses those graphics methods would not be any more bloated than a program that doesn't use them. The reason why is that it is all in the .NET framework. If you don't use the functionality of something, that doesn't mean it is not there. In fact, the .NET runtime is chock full of stuff that is duplicated, not only duplicated in itself, but also duplicated in the windows API. So simply by nature of being a managed program, your code is bloated.
|
|
|
|
Dan
Squire
United Kingdom
29 Posts |
Posted - Apr 20 2004 : 03:16:23 AM
|
I've recently done my MCAD for which the .NET framework was a major part. There are many Redeaming features and It is a step forward in the right direction. The .NET framework makes rolling out a buisiness application childsplay, They have finally sorted out the problems with the data enviroment and provided a shed load of helper classes. The .NET framework also encapsulates ASP .NET which is a massive change on ASP. There is also the addition of XML webservices (Like windows services but hosted on an IIS5 site) + Remoting (Accessing services on another machine). All cool business realted stuff.
The thing I like most is the fact that c# no longer has the performance edge that it once had over VB6 because all .NET languages are compiled down in to the same Intermediate language.
The Oo of .NET took me a while to work out - but it offers alot more flexibility, If you don't like the way a control or class works, you can inherit it and overide it or add additional methods. You no longer have to map all the methods properties and events that you didn't want to change. The .net distribution projects are also a massive improvement on the package and deployment wizard.
There is deffinatly a bloat in resources required - simply because the .NET framework needs to load it's lardy ass in to memory to compile the MSIL language that was generated from compiling the VB Code. It is possible to overide the Just in Time compiler and get your code compiled in to the correct machine code - but this has to be done during installation and still requires the .NET framework to be present.
But as for what .NET can offer the VB Gamer - Not all that much really. As I've mentioned already the .NET framework is primarily for providing business solutions. The XML Webservices is a cool concept that could make it in to games. Because it's HTTP based it gets passed firewalls that allow net access.
Businesses are going to roll out the .net framework quicker than home users. There is nothing in there that a home user would want to use. MS will be shipping the .NET framework with the next round of O/s. So it's going to be a few years yet before .NET is found on home users machines in any quantity - and even then they probably wouldn't realise they had it!
|
|
|
|
|
masterbooda
Swordmaster
277 Posts |
Posted - Apr 20 2004 : 08:03:35 AM
|
 jeez...im old and poor for I'm still coding in vb5.....does this make me a bad programmer....do I need a dunce cap.... |
DaBooda Team is back: http://dabooda.789mb.com/ |
|
|
|
XaosII
Neophyte
4 Posts |
Posted - Apr 20 2004 : 10:06:32 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by masterbooda
jeez...im old and poor for I'm still coding in vb5.....does this make me a bad programmer....do I need a dunce cap....
There's nothing wrong with coding inVB6. Just because Microsoft is pushing for a "new standard" in programming doesn't mean you have to follow it.
For simple(r) applications, VB 6 suits just fine. VB.NET happens to be a bit better at object oriented structure. However, VB 6 has been used for many more productivity software than VB.NET has, so just because its out doesn't mean VB 6 is "old and dying."
Personally, i prefer .NET because i find it a tiny bit easier than VB6; but if i had a job as a programmer but working on non .NET VB, that would still be great! |
|
|
VB6 vs VB.NET
