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

    9533 comments

    Sign in
    Check!
    (thinking…)
    Reset
    or sign in with
    • facebook
    • google
      Password icon
      Signed in as (Sign out)
      Submitting...
      • 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.

      • Picky Packer commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Disconnect the language from the runtime and use the .net framework if you have an issue with the runtime environment. At the same time while you at it cater for the web, mobile and desktop applications from one code base - do not limit the target platform to MS. You made the leap with MS Office, now do it with your development tools.

        Microsoft will become irrelevant as the number of alternatives increases. My alternative choice too VB6 is not vb.net, it is Adobe Flash with Flex/AIR. Just as productive as VB6.

        You can always traceback to a point were things started to deteriorate.

        Maybe this can help: http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html

      • The programmer commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Paul, all who comment here have a high intellectual level ! many of these people have geniuses IQ's, why do you not listen to them ?!

      • MikeB commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Message relayed from MikeB:

        I guess should be the time to seriously think about to abandon Microsoft and their moods. I would remember that EACH SINGLE time they release a new technology, they present and SELL IT as the absolute and definitive good solution for ever. While, in the meantime, constantly show all the weak point of the past technology like if was made from somebody else! I've partecipated to hundreds of workshop from Microsoft and their "evangelist" and ALWAYS news stuffs are good, past stuffs are absolutely BAD even if THEY MADE IT. This happened with RDO and then ADO was suddendly the new way to god... Also with IIS happened the same. And now it happen with the SDKs...For who is taking the time to read this post, please consider that from .Net 1.0 to .Net 4, ALWAYS a "porting" was needed! Even if you used .Net... but with the new wrong version! At Microsoft seems they do not care AT ALL about developers.

        They seems not to understand that all the above "moods" COST MONEY other than time! Bigger the company bigger the costs. Not all the software company around the world have the resources Microsoft have! I hope those are only "moods", otherwise that means at Microsoft they do not know what they are doing! At moment, seems that developers are binded with their operating system and if you want to produce YOUR software, you MUST agree with their politics. Take it or leave it. If you don't agree, you just loose all what you did till that moment! I perfectly understand that the world need to be innovated, but then two considerations came to my mind:

        1) I wish to be FREE to decide if I NEED to innovate myself or forced to do it, paying otherwise the penalty to loose my customers or job. 2) If innovation is in terms of software "theology", structure OOP etc. and the porting from "the past old bad stuffs and habits" is the "new" .Net way of light, please consider that JAVA is like is .Net NOW, but just years and years ago! So if we want to talk about innovation, then it is Microsoft that is LATE about 10 years, not WE as developers. WE JUST BELIEVED TO THEIR ABILITY to provide a working environment to build software. And Visual Basic 6 IT IS EXACTLY THAT. So, if we are talking about "innovation" seems then that all the developers that trusted on Microsoft's solutions have really used very OLD stuffs, not competitive since the beginning. So, how many of you still believe to continue trusting in Microsoft?

        How long this "new and good" technology will remain the same,until the new "porting", in the name of the "innovation"? We have to still trust about the forecast for the support of this .Net product? What about the mandatory switching to Windows 8 if you want to INVEST into the new latest versione of .Net? How many of your customers will feel comfortable to mandatory switch to Win8 only because you started to use the latest .Net framework? Personally, because of the amount of the products and related code I've done in these years I CANNOT AFFORD to "port" it to .Net. Too much complicated, good for "complex" stuffs to do with VB6, but incredibly slow and difficult for basic everydays stuffs. Not to mention the protection of the intellectual property, that with .Net it is simply impossible to really protect. Well.. there are "obfuscators"... good to stop my grand mother... (continue)

      • MikeB commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Message relayed from MikeB:

        That said, if a new Linux Basic SDK appear on the market, I'll for sure reccomend it to ALL OF MY customers, suggesting to switch to Linux. Probably I'll do the switching for free then! Incredibly less cost, more performance, more stability, less problems system-wide. If a new "Linux Basic" that REALLY WORKS will be sold for Linux, I'll go to buy it. 100%. So, who is able to do a compiler, should take this opportunity that Microsoft left open! Whoever will make a Linux Basic, have a market of thousands and thousands of developers, READY TO GO. Those developer, like me, are simply tired to be kept by the neck from Microsoft. We do not switch to other systems simply because there are no good alternatives, or good economic alternatives.
        Yet.

        Well... if I'm FORCED to INVEST my time and MONEY somewhere else, there is JAVA, that prooved to be made from who have clear idea in mind about software industry and how to respect who kept the company grow. Do you think that Microsoft could sell so many licenses of Windows and Office, if there was not so many developers around the world?
        The above to answer to Mr. Paul Yuknewicz, the Group Program Manager of Microsoft Visual Studio Cloud Tools.
        I respect what he said, technically speacking. His points are honestly good points, but economically speacking, and in the way Microsoft usually put decisions, it is totally unacceptable. Refactor VB6 is difficult?!!? This means do the .Net is easier?

        We have no way to force Microsoft having a "GOOD SENSE OF PRACTICE" other than go away and leave them alone.
        So, this is a WORLDWIDE CALL to any developers that are able to make a SDK that have the same ability of VB6, but opened to all the suggestions made in this forum, actualize it, make it for mobile applications too, if possible and with the ovious constraints!
        BUT running onto a serious platform: LINUX.
        That one will be then a "porting" that could make some sense to do... and not blindly still follow the Microsoft "evangelists" (I'm not kidding. They call like that, by themself, at least here in Italy...).

        Kind regards.

      • N commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        By Microsoft,
        it's now time to swiitch to open source. Time for a change.

      • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        1. Supporting a VB6 64-bit version does not mean changing the MS .Net vision. Both can co-exist.

        2. We don't need VB6 to do all things (the .Net vision) just a 64-bit IDE and compiler.

        3. If you cannot do the above please allow an open source version and provide materials to do so.

        Thank you.

      Feedback and Knowledge Base