|
Been using one flavor or
another of Basic for most of my 30+ year career including VB6 and VB.Net but I’ve not touched it since 2021. I didn’t think I would like C# at first but now I can’t really imagine ever going back to VB. But I don’t think VB will ever completely die.
|
|
|
|
|
First, What is Visual Basic?
We have VB (classic), VB-Script and VB (.Net)
The first one (VB Classic)is dead - the last version was released in 1999.
But it's coming back to live; google on TwinBasic and RadBasic.
The second one is dying (VB-Script) - Microsoft is phasing out this version of VB.
And I think that should have been done years ago, as it is only something to be used by Ransomware parties.
The third one (VB.Net).
Officially? It's alive.
Really? It's dead as the language is not evolving anymore.
But, just like for VB Classic, VB.Net is reviving.
There is a second implementation (Mercury), OpenSilver is 100% supporting VB.Net, enabling VB to do Xaml, WebAssembly and mobile, and former head of VB, Anthony D. Green has started to take up the task of supporting the VB language, adding language structs and features.
So, the answer is Yes and No.
Depending on what you think VB is and if Microsoft support defines dead.
As I see the projects outside Microsoft, VB classic and .Net both have a bright future.
But if you want to depend on MS only, they are both dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Short answer is Nope.
I got flagged a couple of years ago on another forum for answering the same question about PHP. I said they would more than likely be dead before PHP  That was apparently an offensive answer, lol.
Of course, the difference between VB and PHP is that VB.net is a semi-commercial venture by Microsoft, so at the end of the day, it is their call regarding its existence.
Codebase sizes for desktop apps are largely unknown with estimates being based on things like jobs and posted questions. While those two metrics have some relevance, they don't accurately depict the actual usage. For many of those applications, there's little difference between C# and VB. Heck, there's still a bunch of VB6 floating around that still does what it needs to do. Should it be? No, but it can be tough for some organizations to justify (or afford) the expense of converting to C# or even VB.net.
I wouldn't answer this question as strongly as I did the PHP one. The web has become mature enough to handle more apps that were relegated to desktop roles and I've seen more movement in that direction.
|
|
|
|
|
VB enabled many people to learn to code on the job. Was that good or bad? Personally I see it as a win for some people to have gotten into IT Development as you no longer had to be a "computer scientist" to do so. But simultaneously, it made it almost "too easy" to write code, and is likely responsible for some horribly written monolithic systems that likely still exist today.
|
|
|
|
|
I guess it depends on what you mean by "dead".
I'm still using VB.NET for most things. It is my preferred language, although I also have one project in C# that I support.
That being said, I'm a web developer, and Microsoft has pretty much screwed over VB.NET web developers. Very little of the ASP.NET Core things can be written in VB.NET.  Mostly the work I am doing is supporting existing WebForms applications so this hasn't been a big issue for me. But if I was building something new, I'd probably use RemObjects Mercury to take advantage of ASP.NET Core but still be able able to use VB. My clients generally don't care about the language choice, so I can choose whatever I prefer.
I agree that I haven't seen many listed positions for VB.NET these days, although I'm not really looking much so I probably don't have a good feel for that.
There is definitely a small contingent of folks who still love the language and are actively using it, but I suspect we are aging out.
--Avonelle
|
|
|
|
|
Oh the memories! VB6 is the only language I've ever used where functions htonb and ntohb seemed like a bright idea. Had to write my own, of course, and used them to great effect.
Dang! My '58 Renault Dauphine has another flat tire.
|
|
|
|
|
DoEvents. A hole waiting...
|
|
|
|
|
I have been using Visual Basic since "classic" VB 1.0. I jumped to VB.net as soon as it was introduced. I know it like the back of my hand which allows me to get programming assignments done quickly. The thing I like most about this new "Microsoft is not updating VB anymore" policy is this means the language is stable. There's no chance of the latest update causing breaking changes in your line of business apps.
|
|
|
|
|
I've been programming applications for 43 years and the only language I've ever used is Basic.
BasicA, RockyMountain Basic, HP Basic, Apple Basic, TI99/4A Basic, Commadore Basic, Quick Basic, Visual Basic, VB.Net. I've seen them all come and go. I'll be retiring soon but I will miss the fun of programming in my favorite of all language. I think it is a big mistake fort Microsoft to want to end VB DOTNET. They are going to loose lots of creativity to other companies who are currently building development systems to keep the language alive. Check out XOJO for instance. Cross platform applications development in a Basic environment. Basic is still the best environment to start learning computer programming for youngsters.
|
|
|
|
|
I still have one app left in VB that I support still, and regret choosing VB back then. VB is not quite the same as c#, where a long time ago I wrote an API for credit card processing, and the XML output was different than c#, and authentication failed. But somehow I remember how to code in VB every time I have to work on that app. Amazing!
If it ain't broke don't fix it
Discover my world at jkirkerx.com
|
|
|
|
|
Nope, pining for the Fiords... 
|
|
|
|
|
There's no reason to use VB.Net on any new projects anymore, but there's a whole lot of legacy VB.Net out there. And it's not really worth re-writing it in C# unless you're biting the bullet and moving away from WebForms.
I expect it will be supported for a long while yet, because legacy code.
|
|
|
|
|
That´s an amazing long thread, I could not read all posts.
I see M$ is (again) cutting the roots (as I remember, M$ startet with Basic interpreters for computer manufacturers), and their attitude against "Basic" is .... mehh.. dont like that old stuff, and somehow this feels like M$ sees "Basic" developers as 2nd or even 3rd class citizens in the ecosystem.
Another company (calling €€€ or $$$ for getting it) provides still a "Visual Basic (.NET)" language, but it´s not free. This company - I will not name it - still sees a benefit of supporting and developing the language, also for other platforms (iOS e.g.). You can google for it.
And another company stepped into a - not really compatible but easy to use - VB6 replacement. Also for other platforms (Mac, Linux and more). They just removed the name of the language "Basic". You can google for it.
There is even a project on patreon, that guy is currently developing as VB6 compatible IDE and compiler (still alpha) targeting .NET Framework (very very alpha, but an amazing idea: put your old code in and get 64bit binaries out). google it, and if you like it, support him (I do ...)
A lot of people obviously thinks, "Basic" is "basic" .... but thats not the meaning of the name of the language.
I cannot remember: What did I before google?
|
|
|
|
|
Yes VB is dead and C# is the only .NET lang that makes any sense.
|
|
|
|
|
This sort of used to work. I support a customer who has gone completely anal on security (all it takes is one hack I guess). Anyway, they moved the server to inside of an ultra secure facility, and network restrictions are to the extreme. This is all on their internal network AND behind their firewall - nevertheless... I used to be able to login to their VPN and RDP from my laptop to the server but no more.
Now, I login to their VPN, RDP to the "jump server" - a machine that is open for these connections. This jump server is heavily restricted to talk to a limited # of other servers. I then RDP from the jump server to the production server - this is what I mean by nested.
I need to be able to navigate between each RDP session. It used to be that I could slide the RDP title bar to the left or right but this seems to have disappeared. Any hints or wisdom?
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, mystery one solved. The first session's menu bar was hiding itself. I managed to click the pin that had it pegged. Jeesh. Intuitive? Nope. Guess I need more rounded icons.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
charlieg wrote: This is all on their internal network AND behind their firewall - nevertheless... I used to be able to login to their VPN and RDP from my laptop to the server but no more.
Their choice, their problem 
Maybe invest into having RDP tunnels over the Onion framework using NordVPN? Ofcourse, NordVPN is owned by the CIA, so you need to build your own alternative. Paranoia is ok, as is realism
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
NordVPN is owned by the CIA? wtf? Seriously?
And yes, their problem. It's a total fluster cluck. I can't even ping anything. They won't open anything up for testing, etc. Going to double my rate.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
charlieg wrote: Going to double my rate.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
If I'm being real, having a DMZ or a jump box is not a bad thing at all. Never really seen anyone do that over RDP twice though. In theory you'd only have to RDP to the jump box and do any admin via PowerShell, etc. to the actual machine(s). But, whatever floats their boat I guess. 
Just want to point out that as DMZ isn't a bad thing. In the *nix world at least, hopping around servers in a session is very common.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
I'm okay with that. DMZs are good. The internet is completely out of control and 99.99999999% of the people have no clue. The ones that do work for the NSA and Russian hackers 
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
There are a couple of ways...
I used to reduce the resolution to make it a bit smaller than my laptop monitor, then you have two windows. The only annoying thing is that the keyboard shortcuts can act weird depending where the focus is.
Another option is, if you have more than one monitor, to set the first RDP to use all monitors and the second one to use only one monitor.
Sharing information / files from one to the other one, can still be a PITA.
Oh, btw. There was (not sure if still is) a very annoying (and even dangerous) bug back then. Multiple users RDPing in a server would get cross-clipboard. That means, the text I copied could be pasted by you in an editor. That provoked a couple of "funny" situations in our routinary work.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh pray do tell
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
I do a similar thing, but, instead of RDP over RDP, I have RDCMAN installed on the machine I RDP into. There's then no confusion over which system I'm controlling and I don't need to worry about hitting the right control title bar thing.
It might be overkill for connecting to a single server, but since, at the last count, the list of servers I need to connect to was well over 100, it's useful for me to have a single tool where I can group servers, switch easily between them, start sessions on all nodes of a cluster or all servers running a particular service, etc.
Of course, you may not be able to have it installed on the "jump" server.
Note that our network also has restrictions, so while the PC I RDP to can connect to a large number of servers, the PC in front of me, connected via VPN, has a much more restricted set that it can access.
|
|
|
|
|
Run the first session full screen (or windowed almost to full screen) and the nested sessions windowed slightly smaller.
Move the taskbar on each layer to a different side of the “monitor”
Workstation: Bottom taskbar
Jump Server: Left taskbar
DMZ Servers: Right taskbar
We do similar things where each login is a different userid. I prefer windowed at each layer so my password manager/powershell script can send the untypable, constantly-rotating passwords to the lock screens. Running in full screen blocks “send keys” functionality.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
