VS.NET is 10 times slower than VB6

Discussion in 'ASP .Net' started by John Rivers, Aug 23, 2005.

  1. John Rivers

    John Rivers Guest

    Hello everybody,

    I just wondered if anybody else has noticed this?

    It takes around 6 seconds to start debugging a very simple ASPX page
    with VS.NET whereas VB6 takes under 0.5 seconds, even with
    very large and complex projects.

    This is a real shame :(

    John Rivers
    John Rivers, Aug 23, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. John :

    I can count to 3 real fast.
    To count to 100 takes a little longer.

    Bottom line : debugging speed isn't everything.

    btw, how did you debug an ASPX file with VB6 ?

    ;-)



    Juan T. Llibre
    ASP.NET MVP
    http://asp.net.do/foros/
    Foros de ASP.NET en Español
    Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
    ======================

    "John Rivers" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hello everybody,
    >
    > I just wondered if anybody else has noticed this?
    >
    > It takes around 6 seconds to start debugging a very simple ASPX page
    > with VS.NET whereas VB6 takes under 0.5 seconds, even with
    > very large and complex projects.
    >
    > This is a real shame :(
    >
    > John Rivers
    Juan T. Llibre, Aug 23, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. John,

    Are you saying that you are developing web applications with VB6?

    Eliyahu

    "John Rivers" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hello everybody,
    >
    > I just wondered if anybody else has noticed this?
    >
    > It takes around 6 seconds to start debugging a very simple ASPX page
    > with VS.NET whereas VB6 takes under 0.5 seconds, even with
    > very large and complex projects.
    >
    > This is a real shame :(
    >
    > John Rivers
    >
    Eliyahu Goldin, Aug 23, 2005
    #3
  4. John Rivers

    Mark Rae Guest

    "Juan T. Llibre" <> wrote in message
    news:%23pXVWU%...

    > btw, how did you debug an ASPX file with VB6 ?


    Wow - we're in the presence of genius... ;-)
    Mark Rae, Aug 23, 2005
    #4
  5. John Rivers

    jasonkester Guest

    Before ASP.NET, it was standard practice to put your business logic,
    data layer, and what we currently call CodeBehind into a VB .dll and
    call it via COM. It would give you an order of magnitude performance
    improvement as well as letting you develop in a real IDE. You could
    fire up your project in debug mode by hitting F5, just like you can
    today.

    So yeah, he's saying he has developed web applications with VB6. If
    you were in the industry more than 3 years ago, you probaby would have
    too.

    Jason Kester
    Expat Software Consulting Services
    http://www.expatsoftware.com/
    jasonkester, Aug 23, 2005
    #5
  6. John Rivers

    John Rivers Guest

    you guys sure can confuse a poor little troll

    i have timed it as 6 seconds between pressing F5 and the page actually
    running

    at $50 per hour 6 seconds is about 8 cents

    that is real money!

    it is just not acceptable performance - somebody agree with me!
    John Rivers, Aug 23, 2005
    #6
  7. John Rivers

    jasonkester Guest

    How complicated are the applications you are comparing? I think you'll
    find that 6 seconds remains pretty much constant as you scale up your
    project. It's just the overhead involved in restarting IIS.

    The last large VB/ASP project I worked on would take about 10 seconds
    to fire up the debugger. I have an ASP.NET project of similar
    magnitude for another client that takes about the same amount of time.


    For tiny "Hello World" projects, I'd agree that VB/ASP is probably
    faster. But in real world situations I've never noticed a difference.
    As to whether it's acceptable to wait 6 seconds to debug? I'll have to
    defer comment on that, since I can still recall a time where I'd queue
    up a batch job when I left at night and hope it was finished by the
    time I got to the office in the morning!

    Jason Kester
    Expat Software Consulting Services
    http://www.expatsoftware.com/
    jasonkester, Aug 23, 2005
    #7
  8. John Rivers

    John Rivers Guest

    I have two VB6 groups which are 9mb and 12mb of source code
    I press F5 and I get a running app in under 1 second.
    Close debugging takes 1 second.
    I can compile a whole group in about 35 seconds.

    With VS.NET i'm looking at 6 seconds plus to start the app
    and about 4 seconds to close it again (that is hello world)

    I bought a new computer with 1Gb ram just to run it and its still super
    slow.

    Its as bad as the java compilers.

    jasonkester wrote:
    > How complicated are the applications you are comparing? I think you'll
    > find that 6 seconds remains pretty much constant as you scale up your
    > project. It's just the overhead involved in restarting IIS.
    >
    > The last large VB/ASP project I worked on would take about 10 seconds
    > to fire up the debugger. I have an ASP.NET project of similar
    > magnitude for another client that takes about the same amount of time.
    >
    >
    > For tiny "Hello World" projects, I'd agree that VB/ASP is probably
    > faster. But in real world situations I've never noticed a difference.
    > As to whether it's acceptable to wait 6 seconds to debug? I'll have to
    > defer comment on that, since I can still recall a time where I'd queue
    > up a batch job when I left at night and hope it was finished by the
    > time I got to the office in the morning!
    >
    > Jason Kester
    > Expat Software Consulting Services
    > http://www.expatsoftware.com/
    John Rivers, Aug 23, 2005
    #8
  9. re:
    > it is just not acceptable performance - somebody agree with me!


    You're not talking about performance. You're talking about debugging.
    "Debugging" and "performance throughput" are two different animals.

    A 6 second debug response seems quite fast to me, considering that you're
    dealing with much more complex code than VB6 ever had to deal with.

    Get over it. VB6 for web apps is dead
    because it's not as efficient as VB.NET.

    For desktop apps you might have a point, but for web apps
    VB.NET gets at least 200% more throughput than VB6 ever got.

    Who cares if VB.NET debugging takes 6 seconds to start up!
    All I care about is that my web *clients* get more throughput.

    re:
    > at $50 per hour 6 seconds is about 8 cents


    If you're asking these questions
    and you're getting $50 an hour...you're overpaid.



    Juan T. Llibre
    ASP.NET MVP
    http://asp.net.do/foros/
    Foros de ASP.NET en Español
    Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
    ======================

    "John Rivers" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > you guys sure can confuse a poor little troll
    >
    > i have timed it as 6 seconds between pressing F5 and the page actually
    > running
    >
    > at $50 per hour 6 seconds is about 8 cents
    >
    > that is real money!
    >
    > it is just not acceptable performance - somebody agree with me!
    Juan T. Llibre, Aug 23, 2005
    #9
  10. John Rivers

    Mark Rae Guest

    "Juan T. Llibre" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > If you're asking these questions
    > and you're getting $50 an hour...you're overpaid.


    ROTFLMAO!
    Mark Rae, Aug 23, 2005
    #10
  11. John Rivers

    John Rivers Guest

    interesting logic
    i should be paid less if i question
    the bad performance of vs.net ide?

    so if you pick up your new car
    and it does 0-60mph in 45 seconds
    whilst red lining at 7000rpm
    you wouldn't question that?

    in my experience if a computer is
    at 100% cpu for 6 seconds just to
    output "hello world" to a browser
    something is very wrong indeed

    i wouldn't be confident to use
    such a system if my living depended on it
    would you?

    especially when you have a vb6 based system
    that has run quickly and bug free for 3 years
    why would you switch to such a system?

    as most experienced developers will agree
    there is more value in easy to maintain
    code (and that includes a good ide) than
    raw performance

    especially when the bottleneck in most
    applications isn't the runtime - it is
    usually something else
    John Rivers, Aug 24, 2005
    #11
  12. re:
    > in my experience if a computer is at 100% cpu for 6 seconds just to
    > output "hello world" to a browser something is very wrong indeed


    So, now you weren't "debugging" ? You were outputting "hello world" ?

    Your original post stated that :

    > It takes around 6 seconds to start debugging a very simple ASPX page
    > with VS.NET whereas VB6 takes under 0.5 seconds, even with
    > very large and complex projects.


    Which one was it ?
    Were you "debugging" or were you outputting "hello world" ?

    Liars need to have a good memory, if their lies are going to be believed.

    Here's a page that demonstrates that you are lying through your teeth :

    http://asp.net.do/test/helloworld.aspx

    That page has a button, a label, a textbox and one click event procedure.

    I added two Trace.Write statements at "Begin PreInit" and "End Render".

    Click on the link above, and see how long it took
    for ASP.NET to process and render helloworld.aspx.

    Hint : it's about 1.5 milliseconds, not 6 seconds as you claim.

    You are a lying troll!



    Juan T. Llibre
    ASP.NET MVP
    http://asp.net.do/foros/
    Foros de ASP.NET en Español
    Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
    ======================

    "John Rivers" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > interesting logic
    > i should be paid less if i question
    > the bad performance of vs.net ide?
    >
    > so if you pick up your new car
    > and it does 0-60mph in 45 seconds
    > whilst red lining at 7000rpm
    > you wouldn't question that?
    >
    > in my experience if a computer is
    > at 100% cpu for 6 seconds just to
    > output "hello world" to a browser
    > something is very wrong indeed
    >
    > i wouldn't be confident to use
    > such a system if my living depended on it
    > would you?
    >
    > especially when you have a vb6 based system
    > that has run quickly and bug free for 3 years
    > why would you switch to such a system?
    >
    > as most experienced developers will agree
    > there is more value in easy to maintain
    > code (and that includes a good ide) than
    > raw performance
    >
    > especially when the bottleneck in most
    > applications isn't the runtime - it is
    > usually something else
    >
    Juan T. Llibre, Aug 24, 2005
    #12
  13. Jason,

    You are talking about debugging the business logic module. If I understood
    you correctly, you debugged it in a Windows applicaction. To compare
    debugging in Windows and web environment is like comparing apples to
    oranges, isn't it? BTW in asp.net you also can debug yopur business logic in
    a similar way.

    Eliyahu

    "jasonkester" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Before ASP.NET, it was standard practice to put your business logic,
    > data layer, and what we currently call CodeBehind into a VB .dll and
    > call it via COM. It would give you an order of magnitude performance
    > improvement as well as letting you develop in a real IDE. You could
    > fire up your project in debug mode by hitting F5, just like you can
    > today.
    >
    > So yeah, he's saying he has developed web applications with VB6. If
    > you were in the industry more than 3 years ago, you probaby would have
    > too.
    >
    > Jason Kester
    > Expat Software Consulting Services
    > http://www.expatsoftware.com/
    >
    Eliyahu Goldin, Aug 24, 2005
    #13
  14. John Rivers

    Damien Guest

    John Rivers wrote:
    > Hello everybody,
    >
    > I just wondered if anybody else has noticed this?
    >
    > It takes around 6 seconds to start debugging a very simple ASPX page
    > with VS.NET whereas VB6 takes under 0.5 seconds, even with
    > very large and complex projects.
    >
    > This is a real shame :(
    >
    > John Rivers


    Of course it's slower. It's all being *compiled*, rather than
    interpreted. Before it can start, all of the code behind has to be
    compiled into a DLL, and then the start page (or possibly a batch of
    pages, depends on some settings) have to be compiled. With the result
    that once you're up and running and the pages you're using are
    compiled, access to them is a lot quicker.

    As opposed to ASP attitude of "we'll interpret it afresh every time" -
    which only needs a text file on the file system, but is going to be
    orders of magnitude slower for typical normal usage, and the VB6
    attitude of "I'll start running your program fine, but there may be a
    massive chunk of it that can't actually compile - we'll find out when
    you get there". Hence the seperate Ctrl-F5 method of starting debugging
    which takes a lot longer (and which was the worst bit, for me, of
    adapting to VB.NET - Starting a program with Ctrl-F5, and watching it
    zoom past all of my breakpoints)

    Damien
    Damien, Aug 24, 2005
    #14
  15. John Rivers

    John Rivers Guest

    ok you are right

    technology that is 10 years advanced SHOULD run slower, not faster

    that is progress right?

    that's right

    well done


    Juan T. Llibre wrote:
    > re:
    > > in my experience if a computer is at 100% cpu for 6 seconds just to
    > > output "hello world" to a browser something is very wrong indeed

    >
    > So, now you weren't "debugging" ? You were outputting "hello world" ?
    >
    > Your original post stated that :
    >
    > > It takes around 6 seconds to start debugging a very simple ASPX page
    > > with VS.NET whereas VB6 takes under 0.5 seconds, even with
    > > very large and complex projects.

    >
    > Which one was it ?
    > Were you "debugging" or were you outputting "hello world" ?
    >
    > Liars need to have a good memory, if their lies are going to be believed.
    >
    > Here's a page that demonstrates that you are lying through your teeth :
    >
    > http://asp.net.do/test/helloworld.aspx
    >
    > That page has a button, a label, a textbox and one click event procedure.
    >
    > I added two Trace.Write statements at "Begin PreInit" and "End Render".
    >
    > Click on the link above, and see how long it took
    > for ASP.NET to process and render helloworld.aspx.
    >
    > Hint : it's about 1.5 milliseconds, not 6 seconds as you claim.
    >
    > You are a lying troll!
    >
    >
    >
    > Juan T. Llibre
    > ASP.NET MVP
    > http://asp.net.do/foros/
    > Foros de ASP.NET en Español
    > Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
    > ======================
    >
    > "John Rivers" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > interesting logic
    > > i should be paid less if i question
    > > the bad performance of vs.net ide?
    > >
    > > so if you pick up your new car
    > > and it does 0-60mph in 45 seconds
    > > whilst red lining at 7000rpm
    > > you wouldn't question that?
    > >
    > > in my experience if a computer is
    > > at 100% cpu for 6 seconds just to
    > > output "hello world" to a browser
    > > something is very wrong indeed
    > >
    > > i wouldn't be confident to use
    > > such a system if my living depended on it
    > > would you?
    > >
    > > especially when you have a vb6 based system
    > > that has run quickly and bug free for 3 years
    > > why would you switch to such a system?
    > >
    > > as most experienced developers will agree
    > > there is more value in easy to maintain
    > > code (and that includes a good ide) than
    > > raw performance
    > >
    > > especially when the bottleneck in most
    > > applications isn't the runtime - it is
    > > usually something else
    > >
    John Rivers, Aug 24, 2005
    #15
  16. You still haven't answered.
    Were you outputting a page, or were you debugging ?

    First you said you were debugging.
    Then you said it took 6 seconds to *output* a page.

    I proved to you that it doesn't take 6 seconds to output
    a "Hello World" page. It only takes about one millisecond.

    So, answer my question, instead of using evasive tactics.

    Were you lying...or were you confused ?

    I really hate to say this, but you *really* look like a troll.



    Juan T. Llibre
    ASP.NET MVP
    http://asp.net.do/foros/
    Foros de ASP.NET en Español
    Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
    ======================

    "John Rivers" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    ok you are right

    technology that is 10 years advanced SHOULD run slower, not faster

    that is progress right?

    that's right

    well done


    Juan T. Llibre wrote:
    > re:
    > > in my experience if a computer is at 100% cpu for 6 seconds just to
    > > output "hello world" to a browser something is very wrong indeed

    >
    > So, now you weren't "debugging" ? You were outputting "hello world" ?
    >
    > Your original post stated that :
    >
    > > It takes around 6 seconds to start debugging a very simple ASPX page
    > > with VS.NET whereas VB6 takes under 0.5 seconds, even with
    > > very large and complex projects.

    >
    > Which one was it ?
    > Were you "debugging" or were you outputting "hello world" ?
    >
    > Liars need to have a good memory, if their lies are going to be believed.
    >
    > Here's a page that demonstrates that you are lying through your teeth :
    >
    > http://asp.net.do/test/helloworld.aspx
    >
    > That page has a button, a label, a textbox and one click event procedure.
    >
    > I added two Trace.Write statements at "Begin PreInit" and "End Render".
    >
    > Click on the link above, and see how long it took
    > for ASP.NET to process and render helloworld.aspx.
    >
    > Hint : it's about 1.5 milliseconds, not 6 seconds as you claim.
    >
    > You are a lying troll!
    >
    >
    >
    > Juan T. Llibre
    > ASP.NET MVP
    > http://asp.net.do/foros/
    > Foros de ASP.NET en Español
    > Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
    > ======================
    >
    > "John Rivers" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > interesting logic
    > > i should be paid less if i question
    > > the bad performance of vs.net ide?
    > >
    > > so if you pick up your new car
    > > and it does 0-60mph in 45 seconds
    > > whilst red lining at 7000rpm
    > > you wouldn't question that?
    > >
    > > in my experience if a computer is
    > > at 100% cpu for 6 seconds just to
    > > output "hello world" to a browser
    > > something is very wrong indeed
    > >
    > > i wouldn't be confident to use
    > > such a system if my living depended on it
    > > would you?
    > >
    > > especially when you have a vb6 based system
    > > that has run quickly and bug free for 3 years
    > > why would you switch to such a system?
    > >
    > > as most experienced developers will agree
    > > there is more value in easy to maintain
    > > code (and that includes a good ide) than
    > > raw performance
    > >
    > > especially when the bottleneck in most
    > > applications isn't the runtime - it is
    > > usually something else
    > >
    Juan T. Llibre, Aug 24, 2005
    #16
  17. John Rivers

    John Rivers Guest

    I am discussing debugging performance.

    Debugging in VS.NET is much much slower than VB6.

    That is a fact.

    My point is that it is not acceptable to have new technology that
    takes 20 to 30 times longer to start debugging than the 10 year old
    technology it is replacing.

    VS.NET is supposed to be a tool for increasing developers productivity.

    It should debug much faster.

    Anybody who can disagree with that is a fool.
    John Rivers, Aug 24, 2005
    #17
  18. Yadda, yadda.


    Thank you for clarifying that you were not referring
    to outputting a page. You were referring to debugging it.

    You made two confusing, contradictory, statements.

    Now, I ask you :

    What's the use of debugging in 1/2 second instead of 6 seconds,
    if the end result is a VB6 web application which is 1/3 as fast
    as a comparable ASP.NET application ?

    Using VB6 for a web app, instead of VB.NET/ASP.NET,
    means you have to take a huge performance hit.

    I'd rather have my developers spend a few more seconds
    when debugging a page, if the end result is an ASP.NET app
    which performs 3 times as fast as a VB6 web app.

    What do you think about that ?



    Juan T. Llibre
    ASP.NET MVP
    http://asp.net.do/foros/
    Foros de ASP.NET en Español
    Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
    ======================

    "John Rivers" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I am discussing debugging performance.
    >
    > Debugging in VS.NET is much much slower than VB6.
    >
    > That is a fact.
    >
    > My point is that it is not acceptable to have new technology that
    > takes 20 to 30 times longer to start debugging than the 10 year old
    > technology it is replacing.
    >
    > VS.NET is supposed to be a tool for increasing developers productivity.
    >
    > It should debug much faster.
    >
    > Anybody who can disagree with that is a fool.
    >
    Juan T. Llibre, Aug 24, 2005
    #18
  19. And, btw, your subject line was quite misleading.

    VS.NET is *not* "10 times slower than VB6".

    It might debug a bit slower than VB6 but, on the performance end,
    it produces web apps which outpace -by far- anything VB6 can offer.

    I'd rather have that.



    Juan T. Llibre
    ASP.NET MVP
    http://asp.net.do/foros/
    Foros de ASP.NET en Español
    Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
    ======================

    "John Rivers" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I am discussing debugging performance.
    >
    > Debugging in VS.NET is much much slower than VB6.
    >
    > That is a fact.
    >
    > My point is that it is not acceptable to have new technology that
    > takes 20 to 30 times longer to start debugging than the 10 year old
    > technology it is replacing.
    >
    > VS.NET is supposed to be a tool for increasing developers productivity.
    >
    > It should debug much faster.
    >
    > Anybody who can disagree with that is a fool.
    >
    Juan T. Llibre, Aug 24, 2005
    #19
  20. John Rivers

    jasonkester Guest

    Eliyahu Goldin wrote:
    > You are talking about debugging the business logic module. If I understood
    > you correctly, you debugged it in a Windows applicaction.


    Sorry if I was unclear. In this setup, you would build a COM .DLL in
    Visual Basic, and debug it by attaching to the ASPNET process. So it
    wasn't quite the same as simply firing up a windows form in the
    debugger.

    That's not to say it was particularly elegant or fun. VB had a habit
    of leaving stale .dlls in the GAC, so you would occasionally find
    yourself furiously stepping over the line "x=4" and watching in rage
    and disbelief as the value in the watch window stayed at 0.

    In short, I started porting all my clients to ASP.NET on day one, and
    have not looked back.

    Jason Kester
    Expat Software Consulting Services
    http://www.expatsoftware.com/
    jasonkester, Aug 24, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. croeltgen
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    489
    Andrew Thompson
    Oct 25, 2004
  2. Replies:
    15
    Views:
    503
    Roy Harvey
    Oct 26, 2006
  3. Jack Steven
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    416
    Chris Rebert
    Mar 9, 2009
  4. Philip Semanchuk

    Re: C-extension 2 times slower than exe

    Philip Semanchuk, Jun 23, 2009, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    400
  5. sanket
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    981
    Tsung
    Nov 3, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page