Conversion vb6 to VB 2008 Express
in [VB.NET]
|
From: C on 26 Sep 2009 15:38 On 26 syys, 20:04, "J.B. Moreno" <pl...(a)newsreaders.com> wrote: > <wrong.addres...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > -snip- > > > I am in a similar situation, except that the decision is made: VB.net > > will be used in future. > > > Over the last 14 years, thousands of lines of VB3-6 code has been > > written, almost all of which is in use. I wonder how long it could > > take to recode and not convert all of that. I cannot work full time as > > a programmer. On the other hand, most of my VB6 code is relatively > > simple - no databases, no communications with other programs or too > > many APIs. There is just graphics, mostly plots of 4 kinds. Is > > recoding a feasible option? Any estimate on how many weeks, months or > > years it could take me? I wonder how many months it will take me to > > learn "enough" of VB.net. > > Well, my experience has been that upgrading to .Net is not only > feasible, but relatively straightforward. I've done two apps, one with > just a single form, and one with a couple of dozen. > > Biggest problem has been third party tools and some database type > conversion issues. > > Not having done anything with plots, I can't speak to that. > > As for learning "enough" of VB.net it's less "VB" and more ".net" as in > the .Net Framework. While that's a large area, most of it you probably > won't need or need to learn. > > I'd say go for it. > > -- > J.B. Moreno I am already able to replace the code for plotting, but I am now wondering if the whole thing should be redone instead of converting. A lot of mathematics (subroutines with only calculations; at the most Text1.Text = temperature) will remain the same.
From: Nobody on 26 Sep 2009 16:03 "C" <wrong.address.1(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:0deb3ba7-9af8-4eef-85bb-e86fb18bbc4e(a)f33g2000vbm.googlegroups.com... > Over the last 14 years, thousands of lines of VB3-6 code has been > written, almost all of which is in use. I wonder how long it could > take to recode and not convert all of that. Some of the options available is KBasic. It's is similar to features to VB.Net, but 100% VB6 code compatible, according to the author. It's open source, and written in VC++ 2008. It uses Qt as GUI toolkit, and compiled code runs on Windows/Linux/Mac. I haven't tried it myself, so you may want to check it out: http://www.kbasic.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt_toolkit
From: J.B. Moreno on 26 Sep 2009 17:15 <wrong.address.1(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 26 syys, 20:04, "J.B. Moreno" <pl...(a)newsreaders.com> wrote: > > �<wrong.addres...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > -snip- > > > > > I am in a similar situation, except that the decision is made: VB.net > > > will be used in future. > > > > > Over the last 14 years, thousands of lines of VB3-6 code has been > > > written, almost all of which is in use. I wonder how long it could > > > take to recode and not convert all of that. I cannot work full time as -snip- > > Well, my experience has been that upgrading to .Net is not only > > feasible, but relatively straightforward. �I've done two apps, one with > > just a single form, and one with a couple of dozen. -snip- > I am already able to replace the code for plotting, but I am now > wondering if the whole thing should be redone instead of converting. A > lot of mathematics (subroutines with only calculations; at the most > Text1.Text = temperature) will remain the same. I'd say give it a try and see how it goes -- don't be afraid of a lot of errors to begin with, try fixing them and see where it goes. There's probably only going to be a few basic types and fixing the various instances one of the other (once you've figured it out) is little more than typing (or even search and replace). Before doing the conversion, it's recommended that you go through and do what you can to make the conversion go more smoothly (again this is mainly a lot of typing), in particular make sure that you've used a declared type where ever possible and that parameters are declared as ByVal unless they really need to be ByRef. The best thing about this is that if you decide to stick with VB6, you've just cleaned up your code a bit. -- J.B. Moreno
From: C on 26 Sep 2009 18:18 On 26 syys, 23:03, "Nobody" <nob...(a)nobody.com> wrote: > "C" <wrong.addres...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:0deb3ba7-9af8-4eef-85bb-e86fb18bbc4e(a)f33g2000vbm.googlegroups.com... > > > Over the last 14 years, thousands of lines of VB3-6 code has been > > written, almost all of which is in use. I wonder how long it could > > take to recode and not convert all of that. > > Some of the options available is KBasic. It's is similar to features to > VB.Net, but 100% VB6 code compatible, according to the author. It's open > source, and written in VC++ 2008. It uses Qt as GUI toolkit, and compiled > code runs on Windows/Linux/Mac. I haven't tried it myself, so you may want > to check it out: > > http://www.kbasic.comhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt_toolkit I have checked various clones and none of them are 100% compatible. I think it was in K Basic that you have declare every control object manually and give it a number. Jabaco is one of the nicer options but not very compatible with VB6. I have to learn VB.net. That is decided. I can still decide to convert the old codes or redesign and recode some of them. I am inclined to learning for another few months with trial and error before starting recoding.
From: Kevin Provance on 26 Sep 2009 18:40
| > Despite what others say, if you want at the end a | > program that is 10 times faster then VB6 (what is | > possible with VB for Net) . . . | | Put your money where your mouth is fatty. And change that picture on your | MVP profile. You look like a child molester with his head on upside down. ..Nxt faster than VB6? LMAO!!! I have to agree with Mike, what would know about speed waddling the way you must. |