02-16-2005, 04:48 AM
You use the tool for the job, Antoni. No one is going to use VB6 (or anything Microsoft-based after Visual Studio 98) for portable programs that need to be able to run on the fly like that. In fact, if you don't do a static compile in VC++ 6, you're still going to need a runtime module (msvcrt.dll).
BastetFurry: you're just plain full of shit. No VB program, even in the crap that is vb.net, is going to produce a 500KB executable for a window and a button. VB6 is so exceptionally granular that it's a surprise that it even WAS 27KB in size. Part of that size, though, is the resources that are compiled into every VB program. VB apps also have more initialization code, they have to start up OLEAUT, etc. so they're going to be slightly larger than something coded in raw API calls. But when you compare that VB window-and-button example to a VC++ program that does the exact same thing, you could be looking at a 100 to 200KB difference...often times more.
The issue with runtime modules is so exceptionally weak in this day and age that I am surprised anyone had the lack of brainpower to even bring it up. Everyone and their grandmother with a halfway modern computer already has the runtimes installed, so it's not even a real issue anymore. And for those who don't, well...there are ways of dealing with that too that aren't exactly rocket science. None of this is hard to understand. People just like to complain about things they only half understand.
The reason I dislike VB6 (although I use it, and often) is its execution speed. This of course is due to the "middleman". However, the size of the executables compared to equivalent C++-based applications plus the ability to make the application far less error-prone makes VB6 exceptionally attractive. Sure, any dumbass can start it up, drop a few controls, hit Compile, and say they've made a program. But it takes a true expert to actually code in VB6.
Arguing over languages, especially ones to which you know little about, is quite stupid.
BastetFurry: you're just plain full of shit. No VB program, even in the crap that is vb.net, is going to produce a 500KB executable for a window and a button. VB6 is so exceptionally granular that it's a surprise that it even WAS 27KB in size. Part of that size, though, is the resources that are compiled into every VB program. VB apps also have more initialization code, they have to start up OLEAUT, etc. so they're going to be slightly larger than something coded in raw API calls. But when you compare that VB window-and-button example to a VC++ program that does the exact same thing, you could be looking at a 100 to 200KB difference...often times more.
The issue with runtime modules is so exceptionally weak in this day and age that I am surprised anyone had the lack of brainpower to even bring it up. Everyone and their grandmother with a halfway modern computer already has the runtimes installed, so it's not even a real issue anymore. And for those who don't, well...there are ways of dealing with that too that aren't exactly rocket science. None of this is hard to understand. People just like to complain about things they only half understand.
The reason I dislike VB6 (although I use it, and often) is its execution speed. This of course is due to the "middleman". However, the size of the executables compared to equivalent C++-based applications plus the ability to make the application far less error-prone makes VB6 exceptionally attractive. Sure, any dumbass can start it up, drop a few controls, hit Compile, and say they've made a program. But it takes a true expert to actually code in VB6.
Arguing over languages, especially ones to which you know little about, is quite stupid.
I'd knock on wood, but my desk is particle board.