I suggest you ...

12,075 votes
Vote
Sign in
Check!
(thinking…)
Reset
or sign in with
  • facebook
  • google
    Password icon
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Eugene shared this idea  ·   ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    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

    9528 comments

    Sign in
    Check!
    (thinking…)
    Reset
    or sign in with
    • facebook
    • google
      Password icon
      Signed in as (Sign out)
      Submitting...
      • martin rizal commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        When there is a Photoshop, there is a GIMP

        When there is a Microsoft Office, there is a LibreOffice, Calligra Suite, & Open Office

        When there is a Windows, there is a React OS

        Free yourself from monopoly

      • Kevin Provance commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Well, if that wasn't the biggest 'go *uck your collective selves' from MSFT, I don't know what is. It's okay tho, I've moved on from you, to a proper language. Fool me once...

      • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Here are a few things to consider:
        - 64 bit adaptation would be no problem - as many below pointed out: VBA is already available in 64 bit. All that is missing is the compiler (which can be taken from Visual C like it was done before!)
        - If .Net is the technological future, why isn't Office built on or at least moving to .Net? Office Development Team obviously said something like "Screw that sh't..."
        - If .Net is the technological future, why isn't Windows 8 build on or at least moving to .Net? Windows Development Team obviously said something like "Screw that sh't..."
        - If Windows and Office Dev Teams won't go .Net, why the heck should we?
        - Microsoft - especially the Visual Studio Team - has a proven track record of abandoning technologies and programmers alike. Here are a *few* of the *many* examples: GDI+, Lightswitch, Silverlight, XNA and of course VB6.

        So my conclusion is: Paul has no clue what he is talking/writing about (64 Bit). Also the VS team is seemingly the only team at Microsoft that is completely misguided and believes in kicking developers in the curb and in that clusterf*ck that is .Net. Why would anyone with a clear mind adapt .Net technology? It will suffer the same fate as every technology the VS team has come up with - excpect perhaps C/C++ - even ths VS team isn't stupid enough to slaugther that beast.

      • Lofaday - 0AV com - new IDE abandoned commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        I am astonished. I will simply repeat an internal email circulating amongst my colleagues -- If EVER there was an ignorant and arrogant company that was heading like lemmings off a cliff, it is Microsoft.

        And we went on..."They have just recently kicked vb6 into touch -- despite thousands of votes for its revival, despite the fact it was their most popular language, and IS STILL more popular than dot net"

        Many people in MS need to be dismissed, including Paul Yuknewicz whose patronising automation is beneath contempt. My plea is direct to the shareholders, weed out those who see your plunging investment as inconsequential, second to their ego. Open your eyes. Wise men once said the customer is always right. Who knows, but the sycophantic lot guiding your policy is not right and will drown you.

        Anyone who knows me knows I have invested in Linux. I was always open minded to MS and hopeful of a glimmer of sense. Thanks for the lick in the teeth. You disgust me.

      • VB Coder commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Paul Yuknewicz says about VB6 programming:-

        "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. "
        - but we aren't going to do anything to help you.

      • VB Coder commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Microsoft have declined the request to bring back an updated version of the VB6 programming language.
        http://visualstudio.uservoice.com/forums/121579-visual-studio/suggestions/3440221-bring-back-classic-visual-basic-an-improved-versi

        Microsoft's Paul Yuknewicz has stated it is 'not possible' to add the same modifications to VB6 that they have already added to VBA.
        He also states it is 'not feasible' to open source VB6.

        Yuknewicz does admit Microsoft will continue supporting VB6 until 'at least' 2024.

      • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        ADA, Fortran, COBOL, C (and the list go on) all exist in their core language form meeting the past, present and future client needs. With few exception, most companies do not impose having the developers change the entire language to perpetuate a companies product line. More importantly these languages meet the clients needs for the applications created.

        You can keep your .Net objectives. A 64-bit compiler\IDE is all we are asking for for pete's sake!

        We are all certainly willing to pay ($) for your work. If you cannot give us what we are asking for please release it as open source. Thanks.

      • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Ok.
        You suggest that we start using .Net to extend our current systems as a start for a full migration process that thus would proceed gradually and painlessly.
        But that also implies that we can use interop with .Net code from our Classic VB applications.
        Therefore, our classic VB applications are "empowered" to face the same problems that VB.Net would solve.
        So we conclude that you pulled the rug from under our feet as a sort of marketing move to force us into your new line of products.
        Any argument to rationalize the abandonment of Classic VB is easily disproved, even using your own premises.
        Pleas, stop beig so stubborn and dumb **** and give us back Classic VB.

      • Listen to This commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Message from Karl E. Peterson: C'mon... This isn't even reasoned out. Unless your goal is to make sure no one even listens to you, you gotta get a few things straight.

        It's quite clear why they can't open source it - Classic VB(A) is still integral to their Office franchise. Microsoft sinks if Office does, and Office sinks if VBA goes away. That's the only thing currently keeping Microsoft afloat. Paul was clearly not saying there's any technical reason for that (open sores) refusal, but they have fully understandable business reasons for not wanting to do that.

        Now, the story about not being able to do a 64-bit implementation... Yeah, that was purely a fabrication. They've demonstrated it's entirely possible with VBA7. If you want to attack a lie, well, there it is.

        Oh, and finally, before they orphaned the product Microsoft routinely published their claim/estimate of six million Classic VB developers, so the "tens of thousands" above is off considerably.

      • Listen to This commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Let me replay Karl E. Peterson's last phrase: Oh, and finally, before they orphaned the product Microsoft routinely published their claim/estimate of six million Classic VB developers, so the "tens of thousands" above is off considerably.

      • Listen to This commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Message from Karl E. Peterson: C'mon... This isn't even reasoned out. Unless your goal is to make sure no one even listens to you, you gotta get a few things straight.

        It's quite clear why they can't open source it - Classic VB(A) is still integral to their Office franchise. Microsoft sinks if Office does, and Office sinks if VBA goes away. That's the only thing currently keeping Microsoft afloat. Paul was clearly not saying there's any technical reason for that (open sores) refusal, but they have fully understandable business reasons for not wanting to do that.

        Now, the story about not being able to do a 64-bit implementation... Yeah, that was purely a fabrication. They've demonstrated it's entirely possible with VBA7. If you want to attack a lie, well, there it is.

        Oh, and finally, before they orphaned the product Microsoft routinely published their claim/estimate of six million Classic VB developers, so the "tens of thousands" above is off considerably.

      Feedback and Knowledge Base