Switching from VB6 to VB.Net?

[jewbloob]

I am an experienced Visual Basic 6 programmer, and have been working with VB since version 3.0. But I've heard the new version, VB.Net, has so many changes that it doesnt seem like the same language anymore. Would someone experienced with vb.net and vb6 point out major coding differences, as well as answer the following questions:

1. most of my apps rely on activeX DLLs. is this functionality still in vb.net?
2. will i have to distribute that whole 20 meg .net framework or is there just a vb portion i could distribute?
3. is the vb6 -> vb.net convert wizard reliable? will it fuck up any of my code?

 

[doh]

1. They should be, perhaps with unsafe code.
2. Most Microsoft OSes have .NET installed, but yes, you would have to have .NET to use a .NET application.
3. It seems to work fairly nicely.

 

[j0k3r]

Microsoft is trying to make ActiveX go the way of the Dodo with .NET. Here is an article that outlines that a bit:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dndotnet/html/actxvnetcontrols.asp
...and another:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dndotnet/html/actxctrlswinforms.asp

Full list of Upgrading to .NET Articles:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dndotnet/html/actxvnetcontrols.asp

.NET is really a whole new animal. It won't be hard for you to adapt as an experienced VB developer, but everyday I find myself saying, "Crap, I can't do that in .NET." Or even better, "This is much easier in .NET."

 

[doh]

I find myself saying, "Crap, I can't do that in .NET."

Like pointers.


(ok ok, you can do it, but you must use 'unsafe' code or a wrapper class!)

 

[Messy]

part of the reason you need to get the whole 20 meg framework is that vb.net is really just a plugin layer to the framework which is natively written in c#.

personally i think vb.net was made as marketing device to bring vb developers onboard, and i'd just learn the c# syntax - unless you're in love with the verbose sytax of vb.

 

[j0k3r]

part of the reason you need to get the whole 20 meg framework is that vb.net is really just a plugin layer to the framework which is natively written in c#.

personally i think vb.net was made as marketing device to bring vb developers onboard, and i'd just learn the c# syntax - unless you're in love with the verbose sytax of vb.

That's not entirely true. The .NET Framework is there to interpret MSIL which is what all compiled, managed .NET code becomes.

 

[Messy]

ok, i over-simplified it, but c# is considered the 'native' language of .Net. vb.net is akin to J#, cobol.net, etc, in that they are the 'language add-ons' for lack of a better term.

i came from a largely vb background and i was overjoyed when c# came out because it allowed me to get away from the clunky (yes, some call it easy or even elegant, i don't) syntax of vb.

 

[ksar123]

VB.net is a whole different world coming from VB6. On a side note, the project converter is a piece of crap, you're better off re-writing the program from scratch. It only works for very basic programs (no pun intended )

 

[Messy]

korpse is right. after doing both, i don't see how a converter would convert any complex and do it properly.
plus, conversions, if you have the time, are a great way to begin learning because you essentially have a functional piece of expectations and requirements in front of you!