is vb6 still in demand..?
608760
Yes. VB6 is much a better language than the lame VB.NET. I don't say this out of nothing, the proof is listed down here and they are not even a complete list. \n\n- VB.NET is often quoted as not a worthy enough to be VB6 succesor, due to its (very) poor backward compatibility, making it almost the same as new language. Even Microsoft admit this by having their motto for the language "The Difference is Obvious", yeah it's obvious since it's basically a different language, with some minor extra feature and majorly crippled.\n- VB.NET's compiled code can be decompiled easier than VB6's because it uses Intermediate Language, and not a direct comilation into Machine Code\n- VB.NET runtime is approx. 10 times larger than VB6 runtime, making  programs need a much larger memory demand. This useless overhead is a significan disadvantage.\n- It have been proven that some of the changes are NOT needed for the language to comply with either CLR (Common Language Runtime) nor .NET framework. These changes are suspected to be because the people that develops VB.NET wanted to selfishly create something that is more similar to their own language than the original Basic.\n- Most of VB6's greatest feature is missing. Some has been restored at future version of VB.NET, like the Edit And Continue feature, but until now, I haven't seen control arrays in VB.NET. There is a solution for Control Arrays substitution, that they say is simple, but in fact, the lies is obvious, it is NOT SIMPLE AT ALL, in fact they're very complicated and complex. In VB6, CA is made in design time, in VB.NET, there is no way to make it in design time, you had to create a CA in runtime, which is very not simple.\n- VB.NET IDE crashes all the time, VB6 IDE is much more stable. 10% of the time I (just) opened the VB.NET IDE, it crashes, and 60% of the succeded one crashes afterward, just after I instructed the IDE to create a new project.  Finally, it would crashes 90% of the time while I was working on the code. I have never get any crashes on VB6 eve for once in my entire life.\n- VB.NET codes are generally longer and need more work to type than the same thing done in VB6\n- There is no Data Type Currency. And there is no substitution either.\n- This new language claiming the name VB, have much difference but is too similar enough to be confusing people that have mastered the VB6.\n- VB6 to VB.NET's code converter is suck enough to introduce new bugs that is purely inexistent in the original code.\n- Converting code to VB.NET makes much more loss than profit that you can get.\n- VB.NET syntax isn't in sync with VB6's spirit.\n- VB6 is already fully Object-Oriented Language in 'concept'. Most people don't think so though, but it is 'conceptually' OOP, just because it doesn't follow some of the rules of OO doesn't mean it isn't an OO language.\n\nMS tried to patent the keyword IsNot, this is stupid, since patenting it might mean we cannot lawfully use the keyword.\n\nALL IF NOT MOST OF THESE ARGUMENTS  IS BACKED BY WIKIPEDIA IN THE ARTICLE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Basic_.NET\nOR MSDN (Microsoft Developer Network, a.k.a Microsoft undignified way of creating money by selling products without help file in VB6, their sin is already released a bit in VB.NET by having an unhelpful help file in VB.NET)
416693
If you r developing any system level things u should go for C.\n\nWhile VB is mainly use for GUI based software, mainly accounting software, it would be difficult to develop system level software in VB.
1030467
Here's the deal. The official name of the last version was "Visual Studio .NET 2003". The official name of the new version is "Visual Studio 2005" (dropping the .NET).\n\nWhen people mention "C#" or "C#.NET" they're talking about the same exact thing. When people talk about "VB" and "VB.NET" they might not be talking about the same thing, since Visual Basic pre-dates .NET (specifically, VB 6 was very popular for quite a while).
623061
this will help\n\nhttp://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/f1f367bx(VS.80).aspx\n\nmy VB is a lil rusty but i looked it up
1086847
> http://www.pcguide.com/vb/showthread.php?t=38363
1080454
Try http://www.vbcodesource.com \n\nor\n\nhttp://www.programmersheaven.com/zone1/mh49.htm
265421
Here is a url to a very large site with more then you'll\never need. All free. Check it out.\nhttp://www.freeprogrammingresources.com/vbtutor.html
131688
Install VB 6.0 runtime on the machine that might solve the problem.\n\nFile: VBRun60sp4.exe
671422
just install vb6 runtime which can be downloadable from net and also the system should be registered with the supported ocx and dll which is needed by your software..
279178
The language itself is capable of more than Visual Basic 6 and the development environment is improved greatly.\n\nApplications developed with Visual Basic .NET (2005 Express) use the .NET framework, so there is still a run-time that needs to be installed on the client machines.  (Although updates for Windows XP and Windows Vista will have these.\n\nOut of the box, you can use Visual Basic .NET to create console applications, class libraries and Windows forms applications.  While there is not a project template for VB.NET Windows services, you can still create them.\n\nVB.NET can still use 3rd party dynamic link libraries (DLLs) and COM/ActiveX controls and components.  You do have to download a separate 'Express' product to use Visual Basic .NET for Web development.\n\nOf course, the best thing about Visual Basic 2005 Express is that you can download it for *free*.  I've included the link below.
670197
are you looking to compile this program? if so you need to have visual studio installed on your machine to build the project and have it compile the program for you. Else you should be able to google for a VB project and see what they have out there.
69163
VB.net is better than VB 6.0. Here are few of my reasons...\n\n1. The code written in VB.net can combine with codes written in other .net  languages, thereby providing better reusability. \n\n2. The VB.net code doesn't need the DLL's to run. Hence it is easy to transfer applications from one system to another. \n\n3. The VB.net code can migrate over platforms with the help of software like mono. \n\n4. The VB.net is object oriented whereas the VB 6.0 is an object based language.\n\nI think these reasons should be enough to say that VB.net is better than VB 6.0.
54063
Have projects in VB.NET become obsolete?\n\nJust reading books can help improve grammar. Or you can just go to the thrift shop and pick up an old English book. As a general rule of thumb, if it sounds wrong it is. But with all the slang we use today, thats not always correct. I dont know of any websites to help you.
1128978
You sure you want to teach qbasic and then vb.  This transition is difficult for many to make and almost impossible.  The only thing in common  is some of the commands.  I learned qbasic back in the early 80's and in the late 90's decided to change over to vb.  I needed help in moving into objec! oriented code.  I would recommend going directly into VB and not going to qbasic.
102379
VB3, 4, 5, 6, .Net 1.1, .NET 2.0?
1030150
Yes you can use a Java object in VB6 but it will have to be wrapped with a COM wrapper. Building the wrapper will probably require C++.
799761
It works for me. But any way I think you can log on to www.allexperts.com\nGo to Computing-Programing-Basic-vb.net and post the question there.\nMany a problems for me have been rectified.\nIts free of charge.\nHope this helps.\nCMR