Slashdot Mirror
Making an Argument Against Using Visual-Basic?
ethan_clark asks: "I work for a small company (< 10 employees) as a software engineer. The company got its start with a software product written by the owner in VisualBasic. He hired me to assist in rewriting the software – only catch is, he's stuck on having it re-written in VisualBasic. This scares me, but I honestly can't make a good argument against VB because I'm not familiar enough with it.
So my question is twofold: I am looking for some confirmation to my suspicion that VB isn't the greatest language for large projects; and If VB isn't good, arguments against using it. If it is good, what arguments would you use to argue for it (for my sake)?" If you are going to argue against a language, it is best if you do so after you become familiar with it so that you can argue fairly on its merits and deficiencies. VisualBasic, like just about every other language, has its place. For the sake of discussion however, what tasks would VisualBasic not be suited for?
What kind of project are you working on? The only description you provided is "Large". That could mean 3D FPS, relational database, mission-critical embedded vision system for an interstellar satellite, a cross-platform OS... all very different projects, and probably not suitable for VB.
Picking the right tool really requires a better understanding of your project.
Beyond the general problem, what are your expectations for reliability/testability, schedule, maintainability, expandability, performance?
If the owner is the only one qualified to improve the product, Visual Basic might be a good choice.
I once worked for a company that had an extremely accurate satellite propagation program. The problem was it was written in GWBASIC and did not run in a text-only mode (EGA graphics required!). For fun, I tried to convert it to C, but gave up - pure spaghetti code. The author became the head of a 200-person engineering department -- best leave it in GWBASIC and let him support it.
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
.NET simply provides the programmer with the ability to program in the language they either know better or in a language that seems better suited to the job, without taking a performance hit, since they all compile to the same intermediate language.
.NET 2.0 takes this to even more extremes, in that, more toolbox items are available and virtually all of the components are data aware. Also, Visual Studio 2005 Pro includes a development IIS instance and SQL Server 2005 Express is included.
Check out the Visual Studio Website for more information.
Setting his threshold to 5, Sparky eliminated most of the trolls on /.
Joel Spolsky explained why CityDesk, written by a shop populated entirely by highly qualified C++ coders, is 95% VB. He has a frank discussion of VB's pros and cons as a development tool, and you may find that many points he discusses will resonate with you as you develop your reasoning. Even if you don't come to the same conclusion he does, it's an excellent discussion of just the topic you propose.
Really, reading his argument in the context of having a bunch of C++ coders build a nice Windows app in 2006, I think I'd probably conclude that C# was the way to go, as opposed to VB. But keep in mind that C#.NET and VB.NET are more alike than they are different. For most apps, the arguments for managed code (VB or other) are very potent.
My take: If you and every single developer on your team can't instantly see and explain the differences between the 4 arguments to this function:
void foo(std::string a, std::string * b, std::string & c, std::string *& d)
stop now and use managed code of some kind.
If you all can, think really hard about why you want to spend your talent managing memory instead of doing things that'll really make your application shine. (There are reasons. They don't apply to most apps.)
.sig: file not found
.NET languages are all pretty much interoperable, so long as you make sure to build your assembly as CLSCompliant (which may limit usage of some language features). The main problem is that VB.NET is quite a bit different from VB6. For someone who's only ever done VB code, it's easier to learn VB.NET than C#, but for everybody else you may as well start directly with C#. In the past, I'd have advocated building your UI with VB and calling C++ COM objects for any heavy lifting. Now, I'd recommend you go C# and do everything there.
You get regular expressions and collections with .NET (though not as many different collections as in Java, unless you bring in the J# assemblies for your project). You also get generics, anonymous methods (anonymous delegates, lambda functions, closures, whatever you want to call them), and quite a bit more cool stuff, though I have no idea how well that's exposed through the VB.NET language. Even cooler than that, you could subversively write modules in a functional language like F# (a dialect of ML) and nobody'd know the difference from their VB.NET or C# environments. (yeah, you can do that with Java as well.)
I used to think so, too.
Try this.
Who's your buddy now? :-)
John
First company I worked for produced a series of ActiveX controls written in VB, shipped and sold with the source. It supported 3 full time devs, 2 support/sales people, one HR person, and an intern (me).
.COM world and got absorbed by ZDNet, but their components are still for sale on Programmer's Paradise, last I checked.
:) ) without peer. As to the inavailability of new APIs: a) Pretty much anything in COM can be used -- although some trickery may be necessary for custom structures. b) Anything done in a "straight" Win32 API can be directly invoked -- akin to P/Invoke in the managed world. For database work, VB was unparalleled. The ease of data connections has now come in some degree to the managed code word, but in unmanaged code only VBA comes close. C++ just can't compete. VB is no longer entirely late-bound -- if a dual interface is available, and the code is written to expect that type rather than just Object, VB6 operates as an early bound client. VB6 is also capable of being used in a late-bound fashion with almost identical code to the early bound scenarios.
They vanished after they tried to compete in the
I got an internship with Microsoft after spending most of my interview defending VB as a language choice -- this was pre-C#/.Net.
Some "facts" from above annoyed me, so I'm responding:
1) VB is only interpreted.
VB6 can be compiled to P-code, and will run interpreted. However, by default it's compiled to executable code. The only "penalty" for using VB6 when it comes to speed is really the memory footprint of the VB6 runtime DLLs.
2) VB6 is not suited to large products.
I'm aware of at least one company that based an entire website off VB6 apps. I'm sure they would be ASP.Net now, but at the time (VB4), that wasn't yet an option. So the web engine was actually a series of VB apps that were invoked to process the web request as ReadLine and Print commands.
3) VB6 -> VB.Net
(The person in question did only propose this as an idea.)
I would argue against this. There are certain elements only possible in VB6, and the switch to managed code is unfortunately not as seamless as MS would have liked. Hence the uproar when MS EOL'd VB6. VB.Net is great for managed code, and even has some features that C# lacks. I personally prefer C#, but I come from enough of a mixed background that I can handle what VB.Net code comes my way. While rewriting the application in VB.Net may be the proper thing to do, it certainly does not provide much in the line of benefits above and beyond rewriting the application in C#.
VB does have certain benefits to use. As a RAD environment, it is (or was
While I can't know why your manager wants to use VB, it's not such a terrible order.
If your manager only wants to preserve the look-and-feel of previous versions, the previous proposal of writing COM components in C++ for the high-performance portions and using VB for the front-end is certainly a very viable option, and one that I've used previously. In this manner, the weaknesses of VB6 can be circumvented while still leveraging existing components and possibly even code. At the far end of the advancement spectrum, even managed components can be exposed to COM clients -- Adam Nathan's wonderful ".Net and COM: The Complete Interoperability Guide" is probably the most complete book on the subject. If appropriate, you can write new code in C#, and expose it back to VB6.
If your manager wants to preserve the code base in VB6, you might want to determine why he wants to rewrite the application -- it's possible a better solution is just to rewrite portions of the code, depending on the scope of the changes he desires. The right tool for the right job -- VB is the right tool for some jobs, but shouldn't be presupposed to be the right tool for every job.
That being said, there are few things you can't do in VB -- although some of the solutions are probably not as simple as they may be in other languages. Keep in mind, however, that it is even possible to get assembly code linked into a VB6 application, if necessary. It just takes a little bit of creativity.
I've done a great deal of VB programming over the years, and I've seen all manner of projects written in VB that never should have been. Now, the poster did not specify if they were talking about VB ala VB 6, or VB.NET - the two are completely different in so many respects an argument for/against one doesn't translate very well to the other.
.NET language lies in the .NET Framework, and the language chosen should be the one you are most syntactically comfortable with. That being said, I abhor the syntax of VB.NET; C# is more my cup of tea, but in the end they are (with minor exceptions) functionally equivalent. It takes about the same amount of work to do one thing in either.
.NET language can interoperate with libraries written in any other .NET language (assuming the library conforms to the CTS), but the same goes for VB applications; in VB, you're dealing strictly with COM, a technology designed to allow components written in disparate languages to interoperate.
.NET language.
Here's my two-cents, by language/environment:
VB6
---
If you're writing business applications, VB6 will get you through. Manipulating very large datasets can be a bit of a challenge, and you're always going to have problems with user experience (due in large part to a complete lack of multithreading). Applications can be made that are *functional*, although your resultant UI will always seem dated.
VB.NET
------
This is an entirely different beast. You've got a much more powerful langauge on your hands, with as much power and expressivity as Java - it is quite straightforward to produce a modern, performant application with little muss or fuss.
My suggestion, if VB is an absolute must, would be to insist (as best you can) on VB.NET. Now, that being said, VB is not a magic bullet - VB/VB.NET/C#/Java, they are all languages designed to allow a programmer to express their thoughts, and it's quite easy to produce unworkable software with any of them. Do not allow yourself to fall into the 'C# is better than VB.NET' arguments, simply because they are completely non-sensical; the power of any
I've worked professionally in VB, VB.NET, Java, Perl (alot of Perl, in fact), C#, and C/C++, and I must say IMO the most expressive langauge is C++, hands down. I love Perl, and you can do an amazing amount of things with it, but the power and flexibility of C++ is unmatched in the list above. VB.NET/C#, however, can be excellent choices for presentation-centric applications (Windows Forms applications or Web Forms). In the past, I've worked on projects that combined the two; a C# GUI that interfaced with a C++ server component. It worked great.
Any
Short Story: If you're writing a business-focused application with limited or no multithreading needs, VB works; If you need a modern GUI with all the latest bells and whistled VB.NET/C# should be examined; If you need high-performance, minimal runtime requirements, and low-level system interaction, look somewhere else. Real-time equipment monitoring, for instance, is a task best left to C++. The rest can be done in VB or a
Have fun!
Bryan
==
1. VB is not portable.
That's actually the main feature of Classic VB -- that it's really just a user-friendly wrapper around Windows COM. If you want MS Office automation or anything that ties in closely with other Windows apps, VB6 is still a very good choice.
Although I agree strongly with your assessment of VB server apps.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
I remember back in 2000 my roomate had a job with a small firm that was kind of a "coders for hire" place. They didn't have a product, but if you came to them with something you wanted made they made it. Mostly a bunch of CS grads that didn't know anytihng but Java, however a few like my roomate were more diverse. He knew a few languages but PERL was his thing. Guy was a complete PERL badass wrote amazingly fast PERL code. PERL + MySQL development under Linux was his thing. Not at all a fan of MS development environments.
So General Motors, or at least some small division of it, hired their company to do a project and my roomate was assigned to it. He was kinda miffed though, because GM insisted it had to be done in VB. He talked to them and they acceded that the backend could be in PERL, but the client side UI had to be VB. Well he didn't really know anything about VB, he just disdained it as a "toy language"... That all changed on that project. He was amazed by it's flexability in doing Is and speed of development. He said that every time they totally changed the requirements of the client interface he could get a new one done in a couple hours.
In the end, he was certianly no VB-all-the-time convert, but he had a respect for the situations it was useful in.
Not knowing anyting about this project I can't say, but there are projects out there that something like VB is the best answer for.
As for the tasks VB are not suited for (again, I only know VB6, not VB.Net) the biggest glaring omission in my experience was the lack of decent Regular Expressions, or Hash Tables / "Dictionaries"--unless you link to the VBScript/IE6 library like everyone used to.
.NET:
Just FYI about
VB.NET directly supports dictionaries, even by using generics.
It also suports reasonably powerful regular expressions via the System.Text.RegularExpressions namespace.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Aiiighghghghhhhh!!!! Why, why, why do people keep saying this?!
Java is a compiled language. The Java source you write gets turned into native machine code. It's just that the compilation happens at runtime, unlike with many other languages where it happens earlier. Same process, different time.
It's not like this is a new concept. For one thing, the documentation describing it has been up on the Java web site for years. For another thing, people on Slashdot have been saying it for years. And for another thing, LISP environments that do incremental compilation to machine code at runtime have been around for at least, what, 15 years? Some quick googling indicates that language environments that compile stuff to native machine code at runtime have been around since 1968.
And heck, it's not as if it's even all that high tech or complicated in certain ways. You don't need something as esoteric as the internals of a JVM to see machine code being generated at runtime. If you want to see it happen on something simple, go to your nearest Unix or Linux machine and type "tcpdump -d not port 53". Notice that it spits out machine code? Now try some different filter expressions like "not host 127.0.0.1" or "host 127.0.0.1 and tcp and port 25" and watch how the assembly code changes. Yes, that's right -- even tcpdump compiles code at runtime, at least it does so with the packet-matching code, which is where the speed is really needed.
So hopefully it's not too hard to comprehend now that modern JVMs do the same thing, and as far as I know, so does the .NET virtual machine.
1) VB doesn't work well with source code control - it has unnecessary binary files (*.frx, *.ctx) and it's text files create bad diffs because the IDE flips lines around and changes case of identifiers
2) COM components in VB don't keep the same GUID from time to time (depending on what changes you're making). This causes build problems because when the component's GUIDs change, you have to change all the other projects that reference them. This can be a huge timesink in development.
3) VB6 is unsupported and is a black box, which means no one else can support it either
stay frosty and alert
> This scares me, but I honestly can't make a good argument
;-)
.Net at moment has only two versions - 1.x and 2.0 - and all components of next "XXX-Hell" are there: M$ doesn't do excplicit versioning of libraries nor APIs.
> against VB because I'm not familiar enough with it.
I, as system programmer, for three years did ported number of VB applications to C/C++. Funny job for system programmer, don't you think?
The list of problems of my employer was:
1. Run-time libraries conflicts. VB applications affected worse of all by "DLL-Hell" probles of Windows: lots of functionality resides in ActiveX components developped by third parties. People usually quote ActiveX support as VB first advantage, but from POV of deployment and support it is hell.
2. Run-time libraries dependencies. Since VB is all into ActiveX, you might start using some component you haven't explicitely installed. Then when you ship the application to your customers you might find yourself in silly situation: half of them report everything is Ok, half - scream that nothing is working. Apparently, first half have the similar set of applications installed - and VB application finds the library missing from its own installation.
3. Internationalization. That was huge problem for my employer. We have had quite number of customers in Japan. M$ did internationalizion of VB in straight way: it didn't. In other words, VB as we have it in Europe/US and VB in Asia are two different VBs. Absolutely different. Since Japanese love VB, most of our customers had it installed. The situation looked so: if customer installs our application - other and her/his own applications stop working; if s/he reinstalls VB anew - our application stop working. Interpreter is the same, but run time libraries are very very different.
4. Upgradability. VB applications are one hell to maintain. We have had lots of reports that installation of our application made with VB4 was breaking VB5/VB6 installations. According to M$, the cure was to upgrade everyone to VB6. But VB6 introduced some problems so our custormers were split - half used VB5 and other half VB6.
To conclude. One can write good application in VB. But M$ doesn't make that very easy. The whole ActiveX thing is one hell to deploy and maintain.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
Aside from it being at end-of-life, there are plenty of other, more technical, reasons why VB6 is a bad choice for many projects, especially large ones. I say this coming from a long history of writing and maintaining VB6 code, not because I have a bias against the language.
.NET, in my experience. Every benchmark I've ever run has VB losing by at least an order of magnitude. For example, I wrote an MD5 algorithm in VB (no small feat since VB has no unsign
VB was my second language and VB6 does vastly improve the VB experience, but there are several large problems: it doesn't support inheritance (only polymorphism); it is very difficult to use advanced features of the Windows API, it is very hard to debug and profile, and finally, it can lead to extremely unstable code.
The VB6 language supports a feature where you can implement an interface, similar to Java or C# interfaces, or C++ pure virtual functions. It does not, however, support a method to inherit methods from another class. Thus, you often find yourself writing reams of code to delegate to another class that has a common implementation of various functions. Furthermore, if an interface changes, all the classes that inherit that interface must also be changed. That can lead to a rather large maintenance headache. Furthermore, changing the interface often plays havoc with the IDE's parser, so it can no longer tell which methods on the class are inherited in the Intellisense functions.
More advanced features of the Windows API require you to copy and paste large bits of function and constant declarations into your code, and you have to jump through all kinds of hoops just to properly use the registry, system tray, or message handlers. I.e. if you want to catch a certain message sent to a window, you have to use SetWindowLong to override the message procedure of the window (you pass in the address of another procedure, which you acquire by calling "Address Of"). There is also all kinds of problems with passing pointers to structs, since you can't get a pointer in VB6. I.e. often, many window procedures require a struct with a pointer to another struct. There are hacks to get that, such as allocating a new memory buffer (using the LocalAlloc API), using CopyMemory to copy the VB struct into the memory location, then passing the pointer you got from the LocalAlloc call in as a struct member, and then using CopyMemory after the call to put the data into the VB6 struct. There are also undocumented functions to retrieve the address of variables, but there is, of course, no way to dereference a pointer, short of copying the data into a VB struct, or doing some fancy copying to change what an object points to (but that plays havoc with the reference counting).
Next, you've got the instability issues. Using *any* of these features leads to instability. Under normal circumstances, things work alright, but if you try to run the application in the IDE while you've got a custom message handler set up for a window, then the moment you hit "Stop" to end execution, the whole IDE crashes. The reason for this is that the VB6 IDE runs the app inside the IDE's process, so if your app causes a GPF or similar, the whole IDE goes with it. It also makes it a real pain for debugging, since setting breakpoints inside the window procedure often causes crashes.
Finally, it's very difficult to debug a VB application. If you've ever looked at the assembly output of the compiler, it's absolutely horrendous. Trying to step through it in WinDebug or something similar is just about impossible. The only way to debug it is with source code and full symbols, but even that is rather difficult sometimes. For example, most of the magic happens within the VB6 runtime (just about every VB statement is implemented as a call to the runtime; even assignment), so it's very difficult to follow what is really going on underneath the hood.
Those are my main problems with it. I also don't like many other things. For example, VB is really slow. Slower than
That's actually some sort of bytecode. I've been hacking x86 assembly for 10 years now, and there's no way x86 has a "ldxb" instruction.
Error: password can't contain reverse spelling of ancient Chinese emperor
While I agree with most of your post, that's not actually true—tcpdump compiles to bytecode, which it then interprets much like a non-optimised JVM. To see this, run the same commands on the same version of tcpdump on different CPU architectures (I tried SPARC and i386): you’ll see the same instructions being generated (you can even check that the compiled bytes are the same, if you use the -dd option).
Need to type accents and special characters in Windows? Use FrKeys
I have one customer that specs VB.NET for all their apps. After getting comfortable with it there's just no reason for some of the comments here. VB isn't "easier" than C#, just different. If you're a bad VB programmer, switching to C# isn't going to make you a better one.
My opinion is that a lot of bias against VB stretches back to the day when it was not considered a "real" programming language. But it's grown up and turned into a capable language and if that's what the customer wants, there's no need to try to sell them on C#.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage