PB vs VB

[vanbeck]

This was the same case during VB6, the 'huge' runtime *every* enduser had to 'instal'.
And now VB6 is fine??! and vb.net sucks..?!

No, the VB6 runtime as only about 1.6mb - that's 100 times bigger. And not every PC has .NET installed already, that sort of assumption is what makes people press the Cancel button when installing a program.

You know some of us have not used VB6 in years, that does not mean that our opinions and preferences are redundant - I need fast and portable code that can just run on a PC without taking my time, installing anything. I need the code to run on even horribly slow machines. I have my reasons, and I have my reasons for disliking working with VB compared to PB from EXPERIENCE!. I'm by no means saying that either is better, I just find that PB tackles my problems a lot better, I don't use .NET, I don't need that level of UI, trying not to sound like a fanboy when I say PB fits my needs perfectly - as opposed to VB which made my 'coding' life miserable.

[Thorium]

If you need to be in control of everything, download the sdk, command line compiler and write your
vb express .net programs in notepad. .net is xcopy deployable, single exe is no problem. Hello World
is 19kb.

That don't changes that you are not in control of everything. Well you are never in control of everything but PB offers you create low level support. It depands on the applications you want do develop. I used to ran into problems with VB6 that are extremly hard to solve and the solutions are slow and ugly. Just because i can't do anything low level. In PB i ran in problems that i solves with 4 assembler instructions, fast and easy. How do you scan a memory buffer for a data pattern? Doing this in assembler is the easiest way, not only the fastest. PB allows me to go to low level whenever it makes sense. And thats the true power of PB for me that means having control.

[Edwin Knoppert]

>No, the VB6 runtime as only about 1.6mb - that's 100 times bigger.
Most apps will use .NET v2, v2 is 30MB install, v3.0 (and thus v2) is already present since Vista.
Iow, only XP users may run into trouble, the trouble for future versions will be less and less occuring (in percentage).

>And not every PC has .NET installed already
Like i mentioned, i would never add the framework to an installation, you really must see the framework as separate once in a lifetime installation, simply point the enduser to a download.
Do not see it as we did in the past for VB6 but then, it's nmost likely hard to put you into that perspective.

>that sort of assumption is what makes people press the Cancel button when installing a program.
Oh no, only purebasic fokes being paranoia about libraries.

>You know some of us have not used VB6 in years, that does not mean that our opinions and preferences are redundant - I need fast and portable code that can just run on a PC without taking my time, installing anything.
This has been discussed, using Visual Studio (Express) 2005 and 2008 you can create significant v2 based applications(!)
Distributing the exe (and custom dependancies?) is fine.

>I need the code to run on even horribly slow machines.
That may be a serious hobby machine, i work for customers and they are used to problematic slow machines, their problem, their thing to solve.
And make note, these fokes do not want to spend money on the things that are actually make them gain money (the idiots, what do i care?).

> I just find that PB tackles my problems a lot better
I was not discussing PB, what do i care what you use?
I was simply trying to correct the misassumptions on .NET (and it's installations in practise)

>I don't use .NET, I don't need that level of UI
I don't mind but do note that .NET also brings a lot of goodies, hard to learn though.
The .NET objects are complex and there are simply to much things to learn.

There are also some negatives about .NET.
1) First boot is very poor, at least 5 seconds.
2) Some parts (assemblies for example) are causing the app to pause, they seem to (re)compile parts when accessed, i don't know but it does eat some time again.
3) Steep to learn since you may need several classes to get things done, for example smtp-mail is far from trivial, you'll need to combine everything yourself.
4) The issue in #2 may let you think yourt code is slow while there are good and speedy parts present.
5) Compiled stuff is decompilable instantly.

[the.weavster]

I really like .NET / Mono but I've found something I much prefer to VB.NET or C#, it's called Boo

[Randy Walker]

["There are two types of programmers, the copy and paste programmer and the one who actually knows what he does." - JLC

Hey!! I have no problem admiting to it. It also keeps my head above water so why am I going to care what JLC says about it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Excessive pride only shows in those who think they know what they are doing." - Me

[PB]

> you really must see the framework as separate once in a lifetime installation, simply point the enduser to a download

And that's why I will never code in .NET, because it's not portable. I can't take a .NET app and just run it on any PC like I can with a PureBasic app. At my workplace, the PC is locked down (government), so any .NET apps don't run at all. If I go to a public library (which I do often), again, no .NET available and no way to install it. If I want to run an app on a friend's PC to do something, why would he want me to install .NET just to run it? It's dirtying his machine with a 30 MB framework that won't be used once I go home. As far as I'm concerned, that's downright rude and disrespectful to another person's property. That is literally no different to a workman coming to your house to do some painting, and when finished, he leaves the ladder, dropcloths and trays in your lounge room and says, "The painting's done and you've got room to spare, so I'm gonna leave all this stuff here because it's not in the way."

No, PureBasic is totally superior. Totally.

[Edwin Knoppert]

I understand and i'll reply but note.. with a ok?

>At my workplace, the PC is locked down (government), so any .NET apps don't run at all.
That's because you haven't brought them any useful software otherwise they may think their policy over + you may be thrown into jail by bringing your pb software from home possibly having a virus.
It is their computer, not yours.

>If I go to a public library (which I do often), again, no .NET available and no way to install it.
What are you doing there with your software anyway?
Still, it's their computer.

>If I want to run an app on a friend's PC to do something, why would he want me to install .NET just to run it?
Unless you brought him something useful?
Your comparisation is flawed since, there was not really a choice.
Anyway, bring your friend over and show him your fine .NET app.
It's all about motivation, if you tell him .NET is the best!, he doesn't mind the install haha.

>It's dirtying his machine with a 30 MB framework that won't be used once I go home.
I would not notify him but not discourage him per se, the v2 install is rather friendly imo.
Diskspace.. mwah, a new world for new software, not only your app.

>"The painting's done
When will you come over?

>No, PureBasic is totally superior. Totally.
Mwah.., i'll leave you to that, you're happy...

[PB]

> It is their computer, not yours.

Yes, but with permitted use when not working.

> What are you doing there with your software anyway?

You mean libraries outside of Australia don't allow you to run apps on their PCs? I pity you.

[Blue]

Jabaco looks interesting - its a VB6 *clone* that produces Java Byte Code

If only to discover this hidden perl (no pun intended!), it was worth reading this topic.
Thank you, Naw.

[doctorized]

I agree with GWarner. The best version of VB was version 6 (I was a VB 6 SP6 programmer) but when I think
that my executable files should be followed by msvbvm60.dll (MicroSoft Visual Basic Virtual Machine 6.0 lib)
I get sick!! Now with PB there are no depedencies. No f*cking ocx files no nothing. The inline asm was one of
the advantages that liked in PB. Yes, the GUI editor is a little better than PB's but as I have been habituated
with the design philosophy of VB's (left,top,width,caption and all the other object features) it was not too
hard for me to understand how PB's GUI design works. Now I do not use any kind of designer. I write all the
gadgets by hand.

All the other versions of VB (7 and later) suck. My main problem are the depedencies. .NET framework MUST be installed
on the target machine in order to run your program. That means users with Windows 98 or ME are stillborn. Why?
They DO NOT ask us if we DO want to install it. Yes, it is free but I DO NOT like to be enforced to install this cr@p to run the program.

[Edwin Knoppert]

Except for the runtime, you can all do that via VB as well
(I am not talking about OCX stuff)

[utopiomania]

The .NET runtime isn't a problem... Its everywhere, and most people doesn't care.

Another thing in favour of learning, or using VB is that you can use your skills to program
Office apps like Excel spreadsheets or Word documents at home, or at work.

Just use the built in VBA editor, and the syntax is the same.

[PB]

The main reason I hate .NET is that my PC slows down after installation. Folders open slower, apps start slower, you name it. I've tested this with a clean install of XP. It slows down XP for me. I will thus never install an app that needs it. I installed an app once that installed .NET without asking, and I knew immediately that it did because of the slowness of my PC afterwards. I looked in my Windows folder and there it was! I restored my PC to a prior snapshot and everything was zippy again. Nuff said.

[Edwin Knoppert]

Wait until you install SQL server Express 2008
It's serious s**t! (read: the most terribly flawed install ever)

I agree that an app shouldn't install .NET without warning.
But then, i also said that imo an app should never install .net, only warn you about a lack of .net.

[SimpleMind]

Every programmer should learn more than 1 programming language. Just to learn which tool is the right one to get the job done.

I do have Visual Studio 2008 Professional installed but use it very little. The most difficult part is to get a .NET project installed in a secure MSOffice environment. It's a pain in the a**. Therefore I still use VBA, PB and even Powerbasic when it comes to the job.

But last but not least, If you want the connection with the "industrial" programmer scene you should learn a .NET language such as C# or VB.NET. And I agree with a speaker above: learn java it runs everywhere... Download Netbeans at SUN.

Edit reason: I > If