Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
#41
The remarks against VB are hilarious, as always. I don't think I know anyone who ever said it was the greatest thing since sliced bread, but at least it isn't as hobbled as QB - which definately has its niche for some classes of problems too.

It is amazing though that the anti-VB crowd always sounds just like the anti-MS crowd. Maybe it's just part of the human condition to demonize.

That said, I'm not a .Net fan myself. If you think VB6 is "bloated," etc. you need to spend some time dealing with .Net application deployment. This will give you a whole new appreciation for VB6.

Last time I looked we were 5 years into the 21st century. 1985 called, and it wants its idea of "bloated" back. :wink:

BTW, AFAIK hardly anybody writes or maintains VB4 anymore. It was good in its day, but it had too many crudenesses. VB5 fixed many of these, and VB6 dealt with many other deficiencies. VB5 is basically extinct too except for those using VB5CCE (free) or needing better multithreading support (some of which VB6 "broke" - apparently on purpose).

Think of VB5 (VB97) as a major "service pack" to VB4 (VB96), and VB6 (VB98) as the next big service pack. Nobody should be using VB4/VB5 anymore (with the exceptions noted above).
Reply
#42
Firstly, those dll's are something you could never avoid. While I am not too knowledgeable in raw win32 programming, even a c program would have to include those dlls that antoni showed, right?

Secondly, the idea behind VB is it's SIMPLICITY. Someone with a little English and a little BASIC knowledge can create win32 programs easily without messing about with message loops and handles. But, for the advanced user, that stuff is right there. That's the beauty of VB.

I think the absolute power and functionality that VB demonstrates is worth 25kb for a basic win/button program. I don't think many languages could ouput a smaller file.

And the 3 threads of VB is a good way for cheap/poor people to get a reach on professional software.

And the VB runtime DLL with people have always bitched about has been shipped with every single computer that I've ever used in my life after 1999 (thats about 250 since I've used pretty much every single school computer). Thats a stupid excuse to knock VB, and to be honest Antoni, I thought you would be able to see past that.
·~¹'°¨°'¹i|¡~æthérFòx~¡|i¹'°¨°'¹~·-
avinash.vora - http://www.avinashv.net
Reply
#43
Quote:Firstly, those dll's are something you could never avoid. While I am not too knowledgeable in raw win32 programming, even a c program would have to include those dlls that antoni showed, right?

No, i can compile you a programm, written in Basic and one in c, that does not need these pesky dlls. It needs stock win32 dlls, nothing more.
You could even go and make your programms in ASM without any special dlls Wink

Quote:Secondly, the idea behind VB is it's SIMPLICITY. Someone with a little English and a little BASIC knowledge can create win32 programs easily without messing about with message loops and handles. But, for the advanced user, that stuff is right there. That's the beauty of VB.

Ok, point, but i like to do it myself and dont do "Click and Code" (ajar to Click and Play)

Quote:I think the absolute power and functionality that VB demonstrates is worth 25kb for a basic win/button program. I don't think many languages could ouput a smaller file.

Hmm... BCX, Dev-Cpp, FB, ....

Quote:And the 3 threads of VB is a good way for cheap/poor people to get a reach on professional software.

Why didnt they just sell the programm without any support at 50 Euro and for those who realy need support... they pay extra.

Quote:And the VB runtime DLL with people have always bitched about has been shipped with every single computer that I've ever used in my life after 1999 (thats about 250 since I've used pretty much every single school computer). Thats a stupid excuse to knock VB, and to be honest Antoni, I thought you would be able to see past that.

I had a programm that uses VBRUN3*, a map viewer for fate - gates of dawn, and it was not in system32 of windows xp.
If this dll where not needed, then nobody would complain on the user side, but it is needed and it is anoying that you have to keep track of them.

So Long, The Werelion!
color=red]Look at you, Hacker. A pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting and sweating as you run through my corridors. How can you challenge a perfect, immortal machine?" - Shodan, AI at Citadel Station orbiting Earth[/color]
Reply
#44
I think some of us overreact...

I tried PP console compiler, while I'm most definately sure I won't use it, to be true, there isn't nothing bad I could say about it.

PP (window, console) have it's place. And if someone is willing to pay for it -it's his/her choice.
url]http://fbide.sourceforge.net/[/url]
Reply
#45
Quote:I had a programm that uses VBRUN3*, a map viewer for fate - gates of dawn, and it was not in system32 of windows xp.
If this dll where not needed, then nobody would complain on the user side, but it is needed and it is anoying that you have to keep track of them.

That's the runtime needed for Visual Basic 3 programs. VB3 was for Windows 3.1, so it's normal that you don't have the dll in your system.

As explained, the dlls are in there 'cause they contain everything that's done for you. It was just an option M$ took: whether they link the runtime parts needed to each program you compile, or they stuff all of them together in a single file. That saves space, in the same way that having the BRUN45.EXE file instead of statically linking the needed runtime functions did in QB45. You just need the file to be present once, and all your exes are way smaller.

As I said before, something is not bad 'cause you don't like it. For example, I don't like BCX, as it is just a translator and the language is very C-ish. To code in C, I code in C. But that doesn't mean that BCX is bad.

Also, most people needs to develop fast. They need GUI applications fast. Not everyone (including me) has the will to go and code a message loop. VB is for us. If it is already done, I prefer using VB rather than having to do a nice session of CTRL+C/CTRL+V. Plus all the nice things such as working directly with access databases, having ODBC support or great interface with Winsock.
SCUMM (the band) on Myspace!
ComputerEmuzone Games Studio
underBASIC, homegrown musicians
[img]http://www.ojodepez-fanzine.net/almacen/yoghourtslover.png[/i
Reply
#46
Quote:Firstly, those dll's are something you could never avoid. While I am not too knowledgeable in raw win32 programming, even a c program would have to include those dlls that antoni showed, right?

Not at all, those dll are required by vb just to run. You can download from MS site a terminal program programmed in C that compiles in a single 60K exe and runs in every freshly installed (no hidden dll coming from elsewhere) version of Windows from 95 to XP. It uses only what comes in the windows setup.
The problem with that is you must code everything using windows API, a daunting task.

To avoid this some systems as VB or PB or Delphi use intermediate librairies to wrap the windows API. That librairies make the ease of use of those compilers.
Only Delphi and PB compilers make a standalone programs by picking only the
library routines the program uses. This makes a 350-400K single file executable. (the only problem is Delphi is Pascal, but that's another story Big Grin)

The problem with VB is the compiler is unable to pick only the routines the executable will use, you must carry the complete library with you.

I wonder, in the case of the listing of my previous post why the heck a program consisting in a comms routine and a dialog needs the jet database dll...Perhaps a bad use or a poor design of the setup wizard...

When people designs an office app, they target the acoountant's computer, a clean machine with only Windows and Office installed, where carryying around some megs of runtimes is not a problem.

But I work for a company installing Building Management Systems (BMS), with the mission of making devices from differnt origins communicate with our SCADA PC. I must work in PC's set temporally over the top of a cable roll, carrying around programs from different suppliers in USB Drives.
Each supplier (including Trend Controls from UK) has developed their programs in different times. I can't afford to carry around 5mb of cab files for each differnt program. VB is not a serious tool in this case, but everyone uses it because it's easy...

You VB programmers think you will be asked for an update of your programs every time Bill Gates issues a new version, but you're wrong:The program will be used until a new computer can't run it. So people has to mangle with VB3, VB4, VB5, VB6 and NET framework every day.

VB has just charmed IT managers because it allows my grandmother to program "Winhello" and it has controls for every Windows and Office area, it saves millions of dollars in developement.

But it's stupidly BLOATED.
Antoni
Reply
#47
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.
I'd knock on wood, but my desk is particle board.
Reply
#48
Nek, it is well known that VB requires additional runtime files to function.

Not everyone has those files, I run into missing VBRUN files about once a month.

Everyone who blindly accepts any random file download request, and doesent care whats on his system has all files, correct.

I don't like having VBRUN30 lying around on my computer wasting space (Yes, it's small, so? Many small files become pretty large)


If you take into account the runtime files needed by VB EXEs then you easily get 500kb.



And gee... Whats up with all this: I'm so cool I can code in [insert random crap here]


Get over it already...


Now, everyone get your asses over to the debate forum, and flame for a while... Infidels... FB will kick you in the nuts!
Reply
#49
Quote:Nek, it is well known that VB requires additional runtime files to function.
[Image: captobvious.gif]
Quote:Not everyone has those files, I run into missing VBRUN files about once a month.
Then update your computer and stop deleting the runtimes.
Quote:Everyone who blindly accepts any random file download request, and doesent care whats on his system has all files, correct.
Bad software exists everywhere. In fact, you're running some right now.
Quote:I don't like having VBRUN30 lying around on my computer wasting space (Yes, it's small, so? Many small files become pretty large)
You likely also have dxdiagn.dll, MSHTML.DLL, Jungle.dll, MSXML.DLL, SHDOC401.DLL, and a bunch of other large DLLs lying around your computer "wasting space" as well. You're a fool if you delete a file because it "wastes space" and then bitch and moan later because a program can't run without it. And some small files can become large...yeah sure, if you're using an antique filesystem like FAT16 or even FAT32 on very large partitions.
Quote:If you take into account the runtime files needed by VB EXEs then you easily get 500kb.
Incorrect. If you look at the argument, he said that the binary itself was 500KB, which is utter bullshit.
Quote:And gee... Whats up with all this: I'm so cool I can code in [insert random crap here]
Coder's pride, I guess. :roll:
Quote:Get over it already...
I agree.
Quote:Now, everyone get your asses over to the debate forum, and flame for a while... Infidels... FB will kick you in the nuts!
FB owns all. Big Grin
I'd knock on wood, but my desk is particle board.
Reply
#50
About the trial, sorry, I got that confused with LibertyBASIC. About you dinosour Cry I am very sorry, Z!re!!!
Cry Cry Cry Cry Cry Cry Cry Cry Cry
I got some mourners for you!
f a fly walked, would it be called a walk?
Why dosn't someone make a word that rymes with purple or orange?
WHY AM I SO ANNOYING? Becuase I wanna!
Why am I typeing this? Cuz im bored!
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)