Bring back Classic Visual Basic, an improved version of VB6
The silent majority of VB6 users did not ask for changes that came with .NET
We request Microsoft brings back classic Visual Basic as COM development is back with Windows 8.
David Platt wrote an excellent article about why classic VB still thrives:
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.
Group Program Manager
Microsoft Visual Studio Cloud Tools
666 facebook likes ?! realy ?! :))) what a number ! Please one more like to go 667 likes ...
From time to time a propagandist idiot comes here to explain how good VB.NET is.
The reality is that Visual Basic 6.0 (VB6) came 6th this month in Tiobe index and in polls it is voted 1th.
Why is 'backwards compatibility' no argument? I do not know if you're real programmers. If you are, then imagine that all your code for the garbage. How then are your arguments?
Perhaps you could explain how to open and compile VB6 source code in VB.NET ?
Eugênio Pacelli Salgado Canaan commented
Mais um que nasceu ontem,
e acha que os zilhões de linhas em VB6 não valem nada.
Mais um que acha que um interpretador de comandos
é a mesma coisa que um compilador de verdade.
Mais um desses que se acha programador e aceita calado
e submisso as grandes ausências de performance
e facilidade de instalação de aplicativos realmente compilados.
Onde a Microsoft consegue tantos submissos ???
Ao menos se lesse os argumentos que norteiam quem
requer uma continuação do que foi o VB6 em seu tempo...
Decepcionado com o ser humano.
Decepcionado com a idolatria desmedida,
onde eu esperava encontrar mais pessoas lógicas e sensatas.
Já não gasto mais energia contra argumentando idólatras de dot net.
Another one was born yesterday
and thinks the zillions of lines in VB6, not worth anything.
Most who think that a command interpreter
is the same as a true compiler.
Most of those who thinks programmer, and accepts draft
and submissive, big absences performance
and ease of installation of applications really compiled.
Where Microsoft can, many submissives??
At least, if I read the arguments that guide who
requires a continuation of what was, VB6, in his time ...
Disappointed with humans.
Disappointed with the rampant idolatry,
where I expected to find more logical and sensible people.
Have not spent more energy arguing against idolaters dot net.
Johann Dirry commented
From my perspective, reintroducing a new version of COM in favor of .NET might turn out to be a bad decision. Specially in complex debugging szenarios (HRESULTs have a lot of WTF potential) and the (perceived) need to maintain old tools.
Still, I do not see the need for ancient VB, since everything you can do with it you can do in VB.NET - including targeting COM and Threads. If you want it easy you can just learn the basics and learn the more advanced conceps later. So VB6 beeing 'easier' or 'backward compatible' is not a compelling argument.
Vb6 is not much older then the .Net (bloatware) framework. It's just that one of them got its oxygen cut and other is fertilized gracefully. Time can yet show that it was the wrong one.
The deficiencies of managed applications in terms of performance (resources) can be largely justified by cross-platform execution, like JVM concept.
But .Net does not benefit on that, does it ?
Ignore the mighty IDE and API (with the same effort it can be offered to any language) and tell me what's left as an excuse for putting in action all that extra code - just to remain Windows locked ?
What is the point of rewriting millions of lines of good code just to be at the same place with new errors ?
If I'm forced to go "managed", then It might be worth to put some additional effort and produce code that will run on Mac, Linux and Windows, plus avoid the vendor lock, that turned out to be fatal to quite a lot of serious VB6 developers.
C and Java are much older, and still doing much better then .Net. Why ? Maybe because their vendors didn't give up on them.
Languages don't die. People can just stop using them. How hard is it to understand that VB6 is still in use, and therefore - not dead.
So at least open source VB6, but DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT ! Your reputation does not allow you to ignore this issue !
Damien HOFFSCHIR commented
Old things have to die. Cruel, but it's the only way to evolve.
I already tried to explain this in the past to VB6 addicts, but the fact is that they love VB6, and don't want to change that for anything else. Good for them, really. But Microsoft should not waste time into this anymore.
Maybe the better should be to open VB6 source code.
Miquel Matas commented
Visual Basic 6 now sixth most popular language
VB6 has risen to sixth place in the April 2014 Tiobe index
C# is fifth and VB.Net tenth.
And this is the link to that user's page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tedickey
Please read this conversation with a WikiPedia admin, which always reverses the reliable information and citation on WikiPedia Visual Basic page:
The problem is that the WikyPedia Visual Basic page contains wrong information on Visual Basic 6.0. Everything I've written on Visual Basic page has very serious and credible citations. While I offered credible information with serious citations, such as Microsoft statements, NEWSMAX articles and a CodeProject Prize winner in Competition (text which has been deleted by you without explanation), the current text lacks citations. How can this be better than the information provided by me previously ?! I thought that everyone can make their contribution on Wikipedia !
How can a text on About.com (citation 3) be more reliable than Microsoft, CodeProject and Newsmax ?! Is not this a little absurd ?!
Please reconsider my text.
CodeProject is a collection of postings from amateurs - some are useful, but overall it's equivalent to a comment on https://freecode.com/ TEDickey (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely untrue, CodeProject is an IT Journal (https://freecode.com/ is far from that). In a scientific journal there are (commonly) three reviewers and CodeProject has (for this article) 54 reviewers. Then, how can CodeProject be a collection of posts ?! When in reality it is one of the most respected and popular IT journals.
The idea was for you to look carefully at my contributions, not to drive me away by progressive deletion. Zastrowm user, that does not even have his page for comments, reverted some cites (and text) of mine without clear explanations (in fact even wrong explanations). What I mean is that you should not driven users who want to bring true and accurate contributions to WikiPedia.
PS: and how come this page (Visual Basic page) had wrong information (even malicious) and wrong citations for years and no one did anything about it ?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Rather than argue about a non-reliable/non-authoritative source, you might try looking for a source which meets the guidelines. TEDickey (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Attention, CodeProject awarded this article with first prize for January 2014 and globally CodeProject is just a little behind compared to WikiPedia ranking (see Alexa).So, I think it's really reliable. Do you have evidence to justify otherwise?
Megan --220.127.116.11 (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Your comment is irrelevant. We're not talking about a popularity contest, but identifying (a) what facts are stated, (b) who provided the facts, and (c) an reliable indication that they've been providing reliable information on the given topic for an extended period of time, so that questionable information can be more (or less) relied upon. Your source starts off poorly in (a) by contradicting itself, and fails entirely for (b) and (c). TEDickey (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
If you treat me badly and my comments are irrelevant then what is the role of the discussion on WikiPedia ?! I brought very reliable citations on topics that you told me to and Zastrowm user has deted them (and you did not reverse his mistakes). :(
Megan --18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
The place for discussing these is on the talk page of the relevant topic. Presenting a batch of Google hits is pointless, and anyone is likely to remove them. Arguing on my talk page is nonproductive TEDickey (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Alexa and Google hits are not the same thing ... and you have two words in your track record that are not constructive, namely "pointless" and "irrelevant"!
Well, there was a citation from About.com, which for some users was more reliable than Microsoft statement or CodeProject, so, success in editing the page :) --22.214.171.124 (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Alternatively... just ship the compiler and offer it as a plugin to visual studio. You can plug in Python, PHP, why not VB6?
Until Lightswitch can really fill the void, seems like a good alternative.
I still use it today as it is quite RAD
And "ignorant" is "every one not thinking like me"... or "using the same tool I do"...
Nice, and very...advanced.
If you seek an open plattform that "may" fully support VB6 IDE and applications eventually, why not consider supporting the new ReactOS community edition and push "VB6" up in their priority list?
Only thing MS feels here is "ignorance is bliss"
@Dean Great spirit boy ! Keep rolling !
I believe this link is somewhere deep down this post but it explains why lot of us feel the same. It deserves to be repeated
It looks like people in the past used to think before taking action. Thinking has become obsolete meanwhile.
i should have said, I prefer the past for some things.... not all
LIKE WINDOWS 95, THE BEST OS EVER.
"I prefer to live in the present. This entire suggestion is built upon the premise that people should not only be able, but accomodated for their desire to live in the past."
I prefer the past, the music was better for one thing
I also ride a 1996 motorbike, about the time VB5 was around!
you can keep your C# mate, glad you like it!