Dumb Question about Visual Basic / Visual Studio... 2

[GWhiz]

From someone who has been programming as long as I have, this has got to be a dumb (DUH!!!) question. But if I don't get it answered, I'm going to continue to run around in circles. The problem stems from what appears to be a simple name change, and the fact that I only upgrade my software infrastructure here every few years, so I miss what's going on.

VB6 appears to be the last (terminating) version of Visual Basic. There will be no VB7. But, clearly, the language itself is not being terminated -- just called something else, or is being "assimilated" (resistance is futile) or absorbed into a larger platform, losing its identity as a stand-alone programming environment.

How does Visual Studio relate to Visual Basic? Is the "next generation" version of Visual Basic now being called Visual Basic.NET? Is VB.NET part of Visual Studio? If I get Visual Studio, is VB.NET automatically part of that package? Or is Visual Studio one thing, and VB.NET something else entirely, ordered as two separate things? If I want to keep programming in VB (as a programming language/environment), do I now have to get Visual Studio instead?

Sorry to bother the more enlightened souls here with a DUH question -- but I gotta ask SOMEBODY...

Thanks. You folks have been a GREAT help here.

 

[SBerthold]

>How does Visual Studio relate to Visual Basic

Visual Basic 6 was the last version of the [Classic] Visual Basic, and could be purchased separately, or as part of Visual Studio 6 [Classic].
Visual Studio 6 [Classic] included Visual Basic 6, among other programming languages and tools.

The Next generation after that was VB.NET, which also is part of a package, Visual Studio NET, and can also be acquired seperately, or as part of the Visual Studio NET package.

 

[dilettante]

Also keep in mind that as of VS 2005 Microsoft started calling VB.Net just "VB" which adds some confusion. It is still VB.Net and not VB in the classic sense.

From a marketing point of view the old VB is long gone, so the name became available.

 

[jozino01]

is visual basic 2005 (express) just one of versions of vb.net?

 

[strongm]

Yes

 

[GWhiz]

Boy, did I ever open up a can of worms with this!

I looked up some history regarding the migration from VB6 to VB.NET -- not only why Microsoft made the change, but also why MS is essentially abandoning "classic" VB -- and it's an interesting story.

The [Classic] VB community is quite large, even within Microsoft itself, but there also appear to be some dead-ends in the classic version that make abandoning it an unavoidable (if painful, at best) but probably wise business decision.

I wouldn't even have asked unless one of those dead-ends bit me -- but I sure didn't expect what appeared to be a small crack to actually be a large hole in disguise.

Some folks appear to regard a change from VB[Classic] to VB.NET as "learning a new programming language"; others say that, while there are surely some things to un-learn and re-learn, most of one's experience and skill is portable to .NET.

Thanks, folks, for your prompt and courteous responses.

 

[strongm]

>Boy, did I ever open up a can of worms with this!


The can was opened 7 years ago

 

[JoeAtWork]

VB and VB.NET are completely different programming languages, which share similar syntax (just as all BASIC programming languages have some similar syntax - but that doesn't make them the same).

StrongM - in this and similar threads I thought I detected some negative undertones towards .NET. I'd be interested in your views on the .NET "revolution" - do you think it was something who's time had come, or would you have preferred a continued evolution of classic VB?

 

[dilettante]

Maybe more of a topic for forum656 except it's a little late now. So late as to almost be academic.

 

[BobRodes]

<others say that [...] most of one's experience and skill is portable to .NET.

Generally, those would be the ones without a great deal of experience and skill.

Kidding aside, the syntax has many similarities: there is no similarity whatsoever in the underlying implementations of the code artifacts. The further under the hood you go with VB6, the less you find the two languages have in common.

Bob

 

[GWhiz]

Strongm:

"The can was opened 7 years ago..."

Yeah, that's what I found out. I've been living in a bit of a cocoon -- the vast majority of the programming I do (automated test systems) makes any differences between classic VB and .NET absolutely irrelevant. There was simply no reason to step outside of the box. I've been playing catch-up on the evolution of the two programming paradigms. Interesting issue. I can see why there's been quite a debate about it.

dilettante:

You're right -- at this point, it's entirely academic.

BobRhodes:

Time for me to upgrade. Failure to do so looks like a dead-end -- though it also looks like an extinction event is still some years away. Such is life.

***********

Thanks, all, for your input.

 

[BobRodes]

<Failure to do so looks like a dead-end

Depends. I'll still use VB6 if I can choose to, especially in conservative IT departments, so long as there are opsys instances that don't automatically include the CLR.

 

[strongm]

> negative undertones towards .NET

Not really. Just towards the marketing of VB.NET that has caused confusion for many