Visual Basic . NET

[bRoKeN]

Okay, well i was going to start by learning Visual Basic and i went to the book store and baught a book but it seems to teach Visual Basic . NET. I just wanted to know is VB and VB.NEt = same thing or like if i learn VB.NET i can work with VB also? And what's the diffecrence.

[hismajesty]

They are very different in my opinion.

[bRoKeN]

I was told its more advanced, For advanced programming.

[Dark-Feanor]

Visual Basic .NET is basically a more object oriented version of Visual Basic 6. If you know one of them, you could probably program in the other without really having to learn anything new.

[MyndFyre]

Visual Basic .NET is basically a more object oriented version of Visual Basic 6. If you know one of them, you could probably program in the other without really having to learn anything new.

This is correct.  As a matter of fact, it's quite easy to learn VB 6 once knowing a .NET language (I went from JavaScript to JScript.NET to C# to VB .NET to VB 6).

[Adron]

This is correct.  As a matter of fact, it's quite easy to learn VB 6 once knowing a .NET language (I went from JavaScript to JScript.NET to C# to VB .NET to VB 6).

Are you generally backwards?

[K]

Visual Basic .NET is basically a more object oriented version of Visual Basic 6. If you know one of them, you could probably program in the other without really having to learn anything new.

This is correct.  As a matter of fact, it's quite easy to learn VB 6 once knowing a .NET language (I went from JavaScript to JScript.NET to C# to VB .NET to VB 6).

I will stick to the stance that going from VB6 to a .NET is more difficult.  You are more likely to use legacy functions from the Microsoft.VisualBasic namespace than the more object oriented System.* namespaces - for example Open / Print / Close for file IO instead of using a System.IO.Filestream, InStr() instead of String.IndexOf(), Mid$() instead of String.Substring().  You get the picture.  VB.NET lets you do a lot of things not standard to the CLR in the name of compatability (globule modules ...)

Sure, youre code will work, but it's kind of like writing C code in C++.  

[Grok]

In my VB.NET and ASP.NET projects, I still write code with VB6 keywords, methods, properties.  It will take more time and experience to write VB.NET the way it was intended.

[Adron]

Sure, youre code will work, but it's kind of like writing C code in C++.  

I use strcpy, memcpy & co a lot in C++ code actually. And besides, Mid is shorter than Substring and InStr is shorter than IndexOf, so they're more efficient to use.

[K]

In my VB.NET and ASP.NET projects, I still write code with VB6 keywords, methods, properties.  It will take more time and experience to write VB.NET the way it was intended.

Exactly what I'm saying.

Sure, youre code will work, but it's kind of like writing C code in C++.  

I use strcpy, memcpy & co a lot in C++ code actually. And besides, Mid is shorter than Substring and InStr is shorter than IndexOf, so they're more efficient to use.

Ok, so maybe my analogy was flawed  
Do you write code like this in C++ projects?

Code Select Expand

void rbtree_init(Node* root);
void rbtree_destroy(Node* root);
void rbtree_fixup(Node* x);
Node* rbtree_find(int key);
void rbtree_insert(int key);

[Adron]

Hmm, no, I'd probably use a class for that particular case. But I do use printf type functions in C++. Another example of using "legacy" functions...

[quasi-modo]

VB6 and vb.net are very similar the majority of the time syntax wise. But vb.net offers a butt load more power then vb6 when you get into the meat of it. I went striaght from vb6 to vb.net with ease. I have been using asp.net for about a year and find vb.net much easier to use then vb6. When you say vb.net is much more object oritned then vb6 it is an under statement, vb.net is completly object oriented, where as it would almost be a joke to call vb6 the least bit object oriented.

[Dark-Feanor]

I will stick to the stance that going from VB6 to a .NET is more difficult.  

Not if you already understand OO programming.

[quasi-modo]

I will stick to the stance that going from VB6 to a .NET is more difficult.  

Not if you already understand OO programming.

yes you can do everything in vb.net you can do in vb6 with the same or greater ease. You do not even need to fully understand OO to use vb.net, but eventually it will come in handy.

[MyndFyre]

This is correct.  As a matter of fact, it's quite easy to learn VB 6 once knowing a .NET language (I went from JavaScript to JScript.NET to C# to VB .NET to VB 6).

Are you generally backwards?

hehe, no.  I learned JavaScript first because it is a client-side web language.  Then I went to JScript.NET when I got into server-side junk.  C# was being touted by Microsoft for the .NET platform so I picked that up, and once I had that, VB .NET was a breeze.  Having been looking at code samples, all the other VB-centric stuff (such as vbCrLf and vbRed, all that fun junk) was easy to pick up for VB6.  :p