Visual Basic question

I generaly practice coding in C, but have recently decided that I might give VB6 a go, as it seems easier when writing programs for windows. I think I might have been put off the idea though as Ive been told that you cannot actually compile the code into a standard executable file, but instead the compiled code is a Visual Basic dependant file and that the user would have to have the VB system files. Is this true? Is there any way of compiling an ordinary .exe? Am I better of coding in C using the winapi?
I dont want to go through all the hastle of installing VB6 if its not worth it

I have a book on Visual Basic, one that college makes you get(even though I'm still in high school, but anyway), it comes with a disk that has an IDE for VB. I installed it and made a simple program and compiled it, it made it run as a "child" of the IDE. I thought I saw somewhere, maybe even in the book, that says if you purchase the COMPLETE IDE, obviously the one I was using was a "learning" IDE, it could make executables. I think I have also downloaded programs before that were made with Visual Basic that were just an executable, so I would say yes you can make executables with Visual Basic. It is quite easy but I consider it a waste of time because it isn't as nearly powerful as C++, and I just hate it. It's your choice though. It's your destiny, stay on the C++ side of the force voodoo3182.

Ok thanks for the advise jmd15, maybe I won't bother with it. The whole program seems a bit bulky, and Ive also heard that the programs you create with it are always bigger in size and not very fast at runtime. People say that VB is good for beginners, but it is not actually learning people true programming skills, as everything is just "drag and drop".

In terms of "baggage", the traditional Visual Basic required its runtime DLL file to be present on the system before you could run any program made with it. This lead to most people having to include the ~1MB file in thier zips and setups to ensure that people have it. (e.g. all programs made in VB6 require MSVBVM60.DLL)

The most recent versions of VB (VB.NET) instead require the .NET Framework in order to run, which is in the order of 100MB(!). That said, it is a lot better than the old VB when it comes to type range, etc.

If you need to write a program that works with databases any time soon, you may find VB worth your while. Otherwise...

VB6 is not a tool I enjoy using, but I work with it every day. I find the IDE too helpful....(not as friendly when working with/on COM+ C++ dlls)

Required dlls are on most windows PCs (version may be wrong though).

>>but have recently decided that I might give VB6 a go

Have a look at C#

C# is not a bad mix of VBs ease of use and some of C++s power.

We are trying to move into C# (from VB6) but have too much code (and work at the moment). Is newish so employers should not expect too much experience.

Sorry for a rather late reply but i must add to this. Why does no one recommend Delphi???.

Both visual basic and C# require a runtime library, visual basic has it's vb library and c# requires the .NET framework. Both are rather bloated and slightly slower from what i know. The executable itself however isn't so big(the overhead comes from the runtime library).

If you wan't a friendly IDE like visual basic's and have the option of compiling your application to be stand alone(no library's required) then consider trying Borland Delphi.

It's simplicity is comparable to that of visual basic and if you think that is inneficient you can always go lower(You could for example create a gui purely using Win32 API if you chose too rather then use the drag and drop way).

I use Delphi myself for over a year now and IMO it leaves Visual Basic and any .NET variant in it's dust. C/C++ however used properly can be more powerfull(less resource hungry and reduced project size also).

Well that's it for my rant and my first post here

Both visual basic and C# require a runtime library

I have very little experience with VB, so I can't contest that comment, but C# does not require a run-time library. It's JIT compiled - which means that the first time the program runs it is compiled from it's intermediate language form into native machine code. From that point on, it's speed is quite comparable to a C++ program. I think that for almost all applications, that's a small price to pay for the benefits your recieve.

If you are not already using VB6 I wouldn't start. Get Visual Studio .NET and you get C++, C#, VB and a few other things. You can also get stand-alone VB.NET. Microsoft has already dropped support for VB 6.0 and VC++ 6.0 compilers. I have heard that the code for VB6 is not compatible with the VB.NET compiler. So there is no point in starting new projects with that old compiler because as a student you want to learn languages that will be helpful in the job, and VB 6 is as outdated as many of my old skills. With Visual Studio .NET, you can mix and match all these languages in the same program -- you can use the best of all of them when you create the program.

The latest version of Delphi also runs in the .NET framework, so I suspect it also compiles down to JIT code. The description on Borland site make Delphi looks interesting -- supports both Delphi and C# languages. It's pretty pricy though, but so is Visual Studio .NET.

>> I have very little experience with VB, so I can't contest that comment, but C# does not require a run-time library. <<

It requires the .NET Framework, which could be called a run-time library.

It requires the .NET Framework, which could be called a run-time library.

True. I just thought it important that the distinction be made between a traditional run-time library and this more recent idea of JIT (Just-In-Time, for anybody who was wandering).

Yes when i said runtime i meant the .NET framework as it still gives you an overhead. I'll admit that as far as i know Borland Delphi isn't exactly the most popular as far as for a business is concerned but there is no reason why it shouldn't be.

The one thing i hate though is that the creator of .NET is actually an ex borland employee........ or so i have heard.

Borland however doesn't have an operating system and a gaming console out on the market and fancy advertising, it's alot of word of mouth when it comes to borland and the average person.

Unfortunately it would seem that .NET is the future seeing as Vista will have it intergrated. Im assuming how Win32 is atm.

If you use the newer delphi products then you won't have a problem here as it supports .NET, traditional delphi and other's.

ewwwwwwwwwwwww.... M$ lovers..

:P


say screw microshaft and go with linux