VS.NET is 10 times slower than VB6

[Kevin Spencer]

No problem, dude. As I said, we are all humans here, and fallible. I guess
that makes you one of us!

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
Neither a follower nor a lender be.

 

[Guest]

The fact that VB.Net and VB6 both contain the letters "VB" is almost all they
have in common, that and clunky syntax.

When you compare the VB6 runtime with the .Net CLR you might as well be
comparing apples to oranges. to draw any type of performance comparison
between them seems silly, because they dont really have much in common.

 

[Guest]

We’re thinkin’ of going to .net from vb6 at my office. Now I’m country born
(know the names of most of the meat I eat, had me some of Jammer last night)
so let me see if I got the gist of this here thread.
The consensus seems to be (put to my way of thinkin’) is that if I took the
engine off my son’s 2005 Kawasaki and put in on my 196x Sears Craftsman
motorcycle (yep got me one of them Sears and Roebucks) I would win the
quarter mile (compile time) hands down. But when we go for a trip through the
mountains (production use) I won’t be able to keep up with him cause of all
the new fangled improvements to his frame. That ‘bout right ya’all?

 

[Alvin Bruney - ASP.NET MVP]

how much one of them sears cycles cost you, got my eye on those...

--
Regards,
Alvin Bruney [MVP ASP.NET]

[Shameless Author plug]
The Microsoft Office Web Components Black Book with .NET
Now Available @ www.lulu.com/owc
Forth-coming VSTO.NET - Wrox/Wiley 2006

 

[Alvin Bruney - ASP.NET MVP]

Actually, if you look at the literature closely now, it's just Visual Basic.
There is no Visual Basic.NET. It's rather subtle and slick and it may have
gone right past you - MS trying to pull a fast one on the folks!

--
Regards,
Alvin Bruney [MVP ASP.NET]

[Shameless Author plug]
The Microsoft Office Web Components Black Book with .NET
Now Available @ www.lulu.com/owc
Forth-coming VSTO.NET - Wrox/Wiley 2006

 

[Guest]

Gee, and I must have missed the small print that said that VB6 was compiled
into IL. Kind of a big difference if you ask me. With your logic, C# is the
same as VB 6 since I can conceivably compile VB.NET code and C# code into
pretty much the same IL.

Actually, if you look at the literature closely now, it's just Visual Basic.
There is no Visual Basic.NET. It's rather subtle and slick and it may have
gone right past you - MS trying to pull a fast one on the folks!

--
Regards,
Alvin Bruney [MVP ASP.NET]

[Shameless Author plug]
The Microsoft Office Web Components Black Book with .NET
Now Available @ www.lulu.com/owc
Forth-coming VSTO.NET - Wrox/Wiley 2006
-------------------------------------------------------

The fact that VB.Net and VB6 both contain the letters "VB" is almost all they
have in common, that and clunky syntax.

When you compare the VB6 runtime with the .Net CLR you might as well be
comparing apples to oranges. to draw any type of performance comparison
between them seems silly, because they dont really have much in common.

 

[Guest]

You know what? I've read all your posts on this thread and I've come to one
and only one conclusion. You're nothing more than a common bully. There's
no way you could possibly have a job because you don't know how to treat or
talk to people.

To the other side, can't you see that what you may lose in starting the
debugger you more than make up for in performance? There are tradeoffs for
everything, we as programmers know that more than anyone. And please, if you
want to make an analogy, have it make sense. Neither one of the car analogys
made any sense whatsoever.

Here goes:
It's like having a car that takes a long time to start it, longer than a car
did 10 years ago, but once it's started it takes 14 minutes to get from New
York to Los Angeles and you can put the thing on autopilot while you do your
business, hence making up any performance issues with starting the car.

 

[Alvin Bruney - ASP.NET MVP]

Did you read my entire post?
--
Regards,
Alvin Bruney [MVP ASP.NET]

[Shameless Author plug]
The Microsoft Office Web Components Black Book with .NET
Now Available @ www.lulu.com/owc
Forth-coming VSTO.NET - Wrox/Wiley 2006
-------------------------------------------------------

Gee, and I must have missed the small print that said that VB6 was compiled
into IL. Kind of a big difference if you ask me. With your logic, C# is the
same as VB 6 since I can conceivably compile VB.NET code and C# code into
pretty much the same IL.

Actually, if you look at the literature closely now, it's just Visual Basic.
There is no Visual Basic.NET. It's rather subtle and slick and it may have
gone right past you - MS trying to pull a fast one on the folks!

--
Regards,
Alvin Bruney [MVP ASP.NET]

[Shameless Author plug]
The Microsoft Office Web Components Black Book with .NET
Now Available @ www.lulu.com/owc
Forth-coming VSTO.NET - Wrox/Wiley 2006
-------------------------------------------------------

The fact that VB.Net and VB6 both contain the letters "VB" is almost

all
they

have in common, that and clunky syntax.

When you compare the VB6 runtime with the .Net CLR you might as well be
comparing apples to oranges. to draw any type of performance comparison
between them seems silly, because they dont really have much in common.

:

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

 

[Sparky Arbuckle]

This thread will NEVER die!

 

[Guest]

Well, I know this is way off topic, but as to your car analogy :

here's an idea.
why can't something be done to shorten that time ?
just as an example, when I open the door to enter the car, the car
*automatically* begins that startup sequence so that when I turn the key, it
will start up instantly ?
if I don't do that, no harm's done - it just did some sequences that are
turned off.
(after a pre-designated time- or never - everything can be thought of).

in essence, my idea is, that runtime is important, and features are
important, but startup time is nothing to be casted aside.

 

[Guest]

When I want to smile, I just read John Rivers' quotes.

It is humorous that a VB "programmer" can also be arrogant. You may be able
to cover up your incompetence around your workplace, but you can't run that
past this forum.

Keep it up John.

I am still giggling.

 

[Guest]

The topic title is not only misrepresenting the subject your complaint is
about, it is simply wrong.

In response to the topic title and the question which drew most of here in
the first place, before we saw the completely ignorance-based original post I
challange you all to agree with or deny (either with evidence) the following
(asuming the original poster meant to compare VB6 to VB.NET instead of the
entire VS.NET suite).

The question is: Is VB.NET 10 times slower (or slower at all) than VB6
(developing similar applications):
0) In General (Start of any given project to initial release to test or
deployment)
1) Developing Web Applications
2) Debugging Web Applications
3) Developing Standard Applications
4) Debugging Standard Applications
5) Project collaboration
6) Application Version Lifecycle and code block reusability


In general I have not noticed a performace decrease from VS6 to VS.NET debug
environments; either with web apps or standard apps but I am not a heavy
developer. I work for a small company and have not yet used either IDE to
it's full capabilities.

Overall debug times are much lower in my .NET apps and overall development
time is much lower for same-scope apps. In-line code debugging save my
flurry of fingers stayle programming from getting the best of me over short
bursts of coding and a more robust debug environment helps me track down
problems much more efficiently.

We all know who the real knowledgable developers are when reading through
these posts (I don't claim to be one of them) and we all know that ignorants
will post whatever whim passes through their intuitive fancy at any given
moment, so lets ignore the Igs and listen to what the Savvy's have to say
about the actual topic title.

Thanks,

The Wylie

 

[Guest]

Don't talk to me about a 6 second debug time. I work in a shop with a large
Microsoft application plugged into SourceSafe. When I open it to work on it,
it requires 45 seconds for SourceSafe to spin through all of the objects,
before it'll let me work (on a 2.8 Ghz Pentium IV with 1Gig of RAM). Sorry,
but I have no sympathy for you.

VB.NET has a lot of plumbing in it to implement its rich feature set. There
are bound to be tradeoffs.

 

[Rob Nicholson]

Microsoft application plugged into SourceSafe. When I open it to work on
it,

it requires 45 seconds for SourceSafe to spin through all of the objects,

That must be a big project! Has the SourceSafe database been pruned at all?
We used to have one large SourceSafe database for all projects - we now tend
to break it up a bit more. The SourceSafe architecture is not particularly
well designed in that it's a file system based database. Those zillions of
small files in lots of sub-folders tend to stress a network.

As an aside, I assume that Microsoft are looking at moving SourceSafe into a
"real" database?

Cheers, Rob.

 

[Guest]

Its good to hear that MS is getting the slow debugging issue resolved in VS
2005. It was a big annoyance. VS.net and .net framework does bring other
great features but debugging is definitely a critical portion of programming!
If you don't think so, then you must be one of those college grads thinking
you are the best programmer since you have written your first 20,000 lines of
code! I am not the best programmer myself but do realize that debugging is a
critical skill as a developer and should not be overlooked at. VS.net does
bring great new features to the table compare to VB6 but I also do think MS
could have done better for us developers. Java IDEs were extremely slow in
the beginning but they always emphasize performance as well as features when
developing their releases. Just look at Eclipse and NetBeans. Both have
increased their performance greatly comparing it with previous releases.
Also, it is surprising that there are so many VB.net developers. I would
have thought old VB 6 developers should have migrated to C# by now. If
sourcesafe seems slow then try CVS server running on Linux. I find that CVS
and VS.net seems to be fine in my environment.

 

[Guest]

Overall the .NET environment is great.
BUT .. Windows Forms ... simply dragging a control from the toolbox to the
form is in fact a bit more time-consuming, perhaps due to the
Designer-generated code in
the InitializeComponent(). I don't really know.

They could improve this a bit ... otherwise the intro of true OOP principles
into VB
is GREAT. Finally - I can inherit behavior!

 

[Guest]

Are we comparing the same things here? .Net is compile on demand from the ILS
code. So when we try to debug it has to quickly compile the code, before we
can attach to the code and debug the process. If we attach to a server that
has already used the code it is instant

 

[Guest]

Now we have the argument made out of ignorance.

Of course VB6 apps load much faster in debug than VB.NET applications. Let's
run through the reasons:

1. The VB runtime is loaded when you start your PC; the CLR is not invoked
until you begin debugging.
2. VB compiles to PCode; VB.NET compiles to IL and then JIT compiles to native
3. VB debugs in PCode; VB.NET creates a PDB (program database) and compiles
natively

The question is not speed of debug, but speed when running.

Here is one for you:

You can completely debug a VB6 application and still find errors in the
runtime version. The same is not true of VB.NET. Why? Because you are only
debugging PCode in VB6.

--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA

***************************
Think Outside the Box!
***************************

 

[Guest]

you debugged aspx code from VB6,
tell me about this magic.

 

[Guest]

Hey John,

You're right, it's awful, don't use it.... Uninstall the compilers and
donate them to Good Will or the Red Cross. Keep using VS 6.0 or better yet
dump all your MS products and go the Linux route.
If I had a penny for every piece of code that I've had to scrap and
rewrite because someone purchased a set of compilers and suddenly became a
programmer I wouldn't be here reading this post. And to make matters worse,
having to explain why the client has just paid $350,000 for code that's
virtually useless and utterly unsecure.
Please do me a favor and READ some books on programming or take a course
or something. Who cares if a "Hello World" app takes 6 whole seconds to
load?? I don't. The .Net platform is light years ahead of VS 6.0. Just
yesterday, I had this programmer (and i use this term lightly) tell me that
the .Net platform had major problems and that's why he didn't rewrite or at
the least port his handheld apps over to the new stuff. However when I said
"Really what specific problems are you referring too?" He couldn't elaborate
and suddenly had another call to take. Can you say I'm just to lazy to
rewrite my crappy code? He still charged the client (victim) a whopping 142
grand for this obsolete unsecure chunk of garbage that has so many bugs in it
that this client now calls me "The Orkin Man".
My only wish is that Microsoft would put some kind of filter in VS.Net
that would disable its use in the event that it fell into incompetent hands
(unintellisense). The error message could read something like "Error, MS
Visual Studio can't compile jibberish. Please enter student ID Number to
reactivate this product".


Thank you,
Stric