pick that shit up (clown_shoes) wrote in visualbasic,
pick that shit up


I've been having a discussion with my boss about moving to .NET.

His opinion is that it's not really been accepted by the industry. I disagree.

How many of you are using it? Is there any sites that show any statistics of what languages people are using, etc?

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
I just started programming, and while VB.net 2003 is all I have used, I don't see any reason while you might as well not update. There are only a few minor changes in the actual codes.

VB.net will convert you vb6 code to vb.net stuff, but once it is converted, it wont go backwards.
Well, if you plan on continuing to program for the Windows platform, it really shouldn't be considered optional.

.NET is Microsoft's replacement for the Win32 API. It's not an extra entity to co-exist alongside Win32 - it's an outright replacement. All new Windows development ought to be under .NET, because Win32 is now nearing the end of its lifecycle (as one FAQ puts it, come Longhorn: "Win32 will be in maintenance mode, and all new development will occur with managed .NET APIs").

You can move to .NET now or you can do it later. It's just like when Win32 came along to replace Win16 - Win16 code was still supported but that support slowly eroded away as everything moved to the new platform.

I think some people are confused because .NET is not only a Win32 replacement, and I think some people hear about what ELSE it is and kinda get mixed up.

I would say, however, that if you are going to be developing an application for release within the next few months, you might not want to use .NET. Not every existing Windows system has been updated to include the .NET framework. Although after the latest rash of viruses, I bet some anti-updaters have gotten the message and have brought their Windows installs up to date. For any development beyond, say, a year's time (and I'm kinda pulling that number outta my butt, instead of any real concrete reasoning), I would use .NET.

I guess just judge your potential customers. If your software is going to grace a lot of "legacy" Windows installs (95/98/etc), then maybe think twice. If you're developing for newer systems, then utilize .NET. .NET's APIs are the new "Windows APIs", and if you're not developing for it now, you will be later. (Though, as another post pointed out, porting code over to .NET is not a laborious task - it involves mainly changing a few OS API calls, I think - I don't code in VB that often, but .NET's reach extends to Windows programming in every other language as well, so I'm comfortable in commenting on it. :) ).
You can redist the .net runtime as well, however. The only OS it won't install on in win 95.
I feel like such an idiot for forgetting this. :)

My only excuse is that I'm more of a Linux guy. ;)
you crazy linux people :)

Actually, I'm hoping something becomes of the Mono Project

I'd like that very much. I'm not real fond of C#, but I can do it.
If his only reason is it's not accepted (which it totally is), then you need to do more research on the benefits of .net

It's almost ridculuous NOT to go with it for somethings.
Of course, i work for microsoft - so i am a little biased ;)
As stated above just for the fact that you won't need to use the Windows API code anymore is a good enough reason to switch over to .Net. The framework is very easy to work with and you can use most of the same functions across the different languages which tie directly back to the common language runtime code. I heard somewhere that Microsoft isn't planning on supporting VB6 in Vista.