I suggest you ...

11,155 votes
Sign in
or sign in with
  • facebook
  • google
    Password icon
    I agree to the terms of service
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Anonymous shared this idea  ·   ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Dr. Mihai Bush, PhD (MPV)Dr. Mihai Bush, PhD (MPV) shared a merged idea: Make Visual Basic 6 as a part of Windows (by default)  ·   · 
    Anonymous shared a merged idea: Please bring back Visual Basic 6.0 !  ·   · 
    Anonymous shared a merged idea: The silent majority of VB6 users did not ask VB.NET  ·   · 
    MaryMary shared a merged idea: Merge the core of VB6 into Office or the Windows OS.  ·   · 
    BravoBravo shared a merged idea: Bring back Classic Visual Basic, an improved version of VB6  ·   · 
    HMan2828HMan2828 shared a merged idea: Make a new Classic Visual Basic, an improved version of VB6  ·   · 
    Ana-Maria (VB6 software programmer)Ana-Maria (VB6 software programmer) shared a merged idea: Bring back Classic Visual Basic 6.X, an improved version of Visual Basic 6.0  ·   · 
    Anonymous shared a merged idea: Bring back Classic Visual Basic 6.X, an improved version of Visual Basic 6.0  ·   · 
    Marius OrionMarius Orion shared a merged idea: Bring back Classic Visual Basic, an improved version of Visual Basic 6.0  ·   · 
    PacManiPacMani shared a merged idea: Close the suggestion to "bring back VB6"  ·   · 
    VB6 FireVB6 Fire shared a merged idea: Bring back Classic Visual Basic, an improved version of Visual Basic 6.0 (the old idea has been stoped at 7400 votes for no good reason)  ·   · 
    MeredithMeredith shared a merged idea: Make VB6 Free  ·   · 
    Mike PaulickMike Paulick shared a merged idea: Bring back VB6. I have no interest in .net. VB6 is better for me.  ·   · 
    David KayeDavid Kaye shared a merged idea: Bring back VB 6.0! It's an extremely handy language used on tons of business apps.  ·   · 
    Adam SpeightAdam Speight shared a merged idea: Don't do a Classic VB (VB6). Open Source the VB6 compiler source code.  ·   · 
    VB6 FireVB6 Fire shared a merged idea: Bring back our un-killable cockroach, is ours !  ·   · 
    Nitesh PatelNitesh Patel shared a merged idea: The Old classic visual basic 6.0 bring it back  ·   · 
    I_A_WI_A_W shared a merged idea: Visual Basic 6.0: A giant more powerful than ever  ·   · 
    Anonymous shared a merged idea: Full vb6 Compatiablity, dammit  ·   · 
    your nameyour name shared a merged idea: shove .net up your boss's butt. bring me VB6-A already.  ·   · 
    Anonymous shared a merged idea: Open Source VB 6  ·   · 
    leoleo shared a merged idea: make it easier. In VB6 i don't have to know what classes are. It has been to complicated for simple programms.  ·   · 
    declined  ·  Visual Studio TeamAdminVisual Studio Team (Product Team, Microsoft) responded  · 

    We have read all of the comments on this thread and I’d like to thank you for providing your constructive feedback on this issue. Instead of merely repeating our support and migration guidance that has been laid out on http://msdn.com/vbrun, I’d like to address some of your specific comments here.

    To play back the feedback themes we’re hearing:
    - VB6 is awesome
    - VB6 needs to be brought forward and maintained: in a new release or OSS

    VB6 was and still is without a doubt awesome. VB6 made developers incredibly productive building a breadth of applications and as a result we have a wealth of applications and passionate developers to this day in 2014. One way I see our mission in developer tools is to empower developers to solve problems. This includes both today’s problems AND the problems of tomorrow. VB6, as you all have stated repeatedly in this thread, is an excellent tool for solving the problems of its day. We also stand behind our decision starting in 2002 to meet the current demands of our developers and the industry with .NET. For the scenarios VB6 set out to do, we see VB6 being “complete”. We feel good about VB6 being able to continue maintaining their applications for the past 15 years. Current needs ranging from distributed applications and services, to web applications and services, to devices, to new architectures and languages, required fundamental changes to the whole stack. We looked at how we could accommodate these needs through incremental changes to VB6 while maintaining its essence, and that was not possible.

    To address the modern needs we would need to go far beyond updating the language. We have to remember that VB6 is not just a language. VB6 is a language, a runtime, a platform library, a tool/IDE, and an ecosystem tightly packaged together in a way that made all of them work well together. We’ve worked with many customers on migration from VB6 to .NET and found that while yes, there are language changes, the dominating factor in migration difficulties isn’t the language differences. Even open sourcing the language/runtime wouldn’t solve the fact that VB6 was thought for a different set of problems, and the fact that its strength came from the end-to-end solution provided by all these five pieces working together. Take a change like 64bit, the complete runtime, tools and ecosystem chain would need to be retooled.

    So, moving forward what can we do? Where we have been able to help move forward is in our stance around support and interoperability. The VB6 runtime it is still a component of the Windows operating system and is a component shipped in Windows 8.1. It will be supported at least through 2024. This ensures your apps and components continue to run as you incrementally move forward to .NET. The support policy is here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/vstudio/ms788708. There are numerous interop strategies that we developed and evolved to enable incremental migration as you upgrade your skills, described here: http://msdn.com/vbrun.

    In summary, VB6 was awesome. We agree. We don’t expect or demand anyone to throw away their code or rewrite from any of our technologies unless it makes business sense for them to do so. We have to innovate to enable our customers to innovate. It is not a viable option to create a next version of VB6. We stand by our decision to make VB.NET and the .NET Framework. We think they are awesome too. It is not feasible to open source VB6 tools chain and ecosystem. The VB6 runtime was last shipped in Windows 8.1 and will be supported for the lifetime of Windows 8.1. Support and interop are great tools to move forward incrementally.

    I hope you feel we’ve listened to your feedback and that I’ve explained things well enough that you understand our decision.

    Paul Yuknewicz
    Group Program Manager
    Microsoft Visual Studio Cloud Tools


    Sign in
    or sign in with
    • facebook
    • google
      Password icon
      I agree to the terms of service
      Signed in as (Sign out)
      • MaryMary commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        B4J\B4A is a very mature and well supported product. Before investing in it I wanted to better ensure that what happened to VB6 could not happen to B4J\B4A so I started a dialog with the owner and developers of the product. Explicitly extracting if it was or would ever be part of their product culture to put out a new version that is not code compatible with the last etc.

        There answer was pretty clear NO WAY. They fully understand what happen with VB6 and that is not a path they wish to see repeated by any company especially theirs.

        I've been using B4J\B4A for about a year. To me it is far more like VB6 than .Net. I am still very happy VB6 works on Windows 10 though! Between these two products I can do everything I need.

      • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        With Java being by far the most used programming language it makes sense for the makers of B4J to make a version of VB that works with Java.

        This is added to their existing VB-like languages for Android and iOS.

        Great for VB6 programmers who can now program for Windows (with VB6), for Java (B4J), for Android (B4A) and for iPad and iPhone (B4i).

        And it is an easy migration for VB.Net developers - they too can now develop genuine 'universal' applications.

      • EdwardEdward commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Been using B4J for some time now. All my clients seem happy with it.

        @Alan_Hughes post your code on the B4J BBS and lets take a look at what your doing. Be glad to help you.

      • Alan HughesAlan Hughes commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        BTW, B4J is a joke. It is even more of a toy than VB6. It is NOT a replacement for VB6 that is for sure. Can you convert VB6 to B4J with a click of a button? Why do you need to install NET,java framework to run it? It is a pathetic marketing to those pathetic cryboys here. That's all what it is. A false hope. Go with NET!

      • Alan HughesAlan Hughes commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Still whining to bring back VB6? I was here a few months ago and it seems nothing has been changed. Same losers, same hopeless cries. LOL

      • axisdjaxisdj commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        I agree Grant, but B4J is using this as an opportunity to exploit MS disdain for vb6 users.

        B4J is not native etc... so it is lacking, regardless I hope they succeed because this will bring others to the table and might even wake up MS.

        The fact that vb6 woks on windows 10 is pretty exciting, we are about to release 4 brand new hardware and software products, one based on the surface 3 pro, all written in VB6. It really is amazing how much can be accomplished with vb6!!!

      • Grant SwingerGrant Swinger commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        I downloaded B4J and gave it a whirl. As someone who has written a lot of classic VB code it baffles me as how this can be described the successor to VB6. It's not even remotely backwards compatible and I thought that was a major sticking point with VB.NET. Any software converted to B4J would be a total rewrite. While it has a BASIC-like syntax it's heavily influenced by Java the same way VB.NET is by C#.

        So I don't get the praise for this. On one hand VB.NET is condemned because it's not backwards compatible and "just not the same" whereas B4J is heralded as the successor to VB6 when it's not backwards compatible and just not the same either.

      • Sten2005 - vote for VB6 programmingSten2005 - vote for VB6 programming commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Anywhere Software have announced a free tool called B4J that "takes up where Visual Basic left off."
        The free tool was created to meet "vocal market demand for a modern alternative to Visual Basic 6."
        "That edition of VB, released in 1998, is probably the most popular variant out of many. It was supplanted by Visual Basic .NET for the Microsoft .NET Framework in 2002, but that version wasn't backwards-compatible and never enjoyed the same vocal popularity as VB6. While VB.NET continues to evolve, it's just not the same. In fact, recent programming popularity indices reported it has fallen off in developer mindshare."


      • Sten2005 - vote for VB6 programmingSten2005 - vote for VB6 programming commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate


        "Anywhere Software yesterday announced the tool has been added to its B4X RAD suite, joining similar offerings such as B4A (formerly called Basic4Android) and B4i (for developing iOS apps on Windows). This latest addition to the stable targets desktop and server applications running on Windows, Mac, Linux and ARM platforms such as Raspberry Pi."

        Microsoft have repeatedly missed opportunities to update the VB6 programming language. They can hardly be surprised when others step in.
        Anywhere Software are to be congratulated in recognizing this market opportunity and offering a successor to Visual Basic 6.
        It is ironic that Microsoft developed their dotNet Java clone to compete with Java, but now find Microsoft's most successful ever language, VB6, is being replaced by a Java version.

      • HManHMan commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Well a thin client is typically used to remotely connect to a terminal server like Xorg or Terminal Services, most don't even have any storage apart from the base OS, so in that context I can see why they wouldn't include it. It is unlikely that any actual application would run locally. I have seen thin clients with a 400MHz ARM in it and 256MB of RAM, with an integrated 1GB flash, most would probably not run Windows at all...

      ← Previous 1 3 4 5 232 233

      Feedback and Knowledge Base