Talk:Visual Basic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


  1. Inability to create multi-threaded applications, without resorting to Windows API calls
    Um, a lot of stuff needs API calls. And they are easy.
  2. Lack of unicode support
    Actually it does support it
  3. Inability to create console applications
    Actually it does support it, I've made one before
  4. Variant types have a greater performance and storage overhead than strongly typed programming languages
    Um... They have to.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

what the heck is wrong with using the WinAPI for creating threads? why critize VB6 for needing WinAPI to make threads? makes no sense to me, it's a perfectly valid way of making threads. did any1 critize C++ for using WinAPI to create threads prior to c++11? (talk) 02:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Support in Windows 8[edit]

Hi folks - my first ever Wikipedia entry! Happy to be on board. Added brief info (w source) about Windows8 support for VB6. Also added a link to an article about same. Appreciate feedback if anything was inappropriate. Apollograce (talk) 23:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The article says under Timeline that "Windows 7 no longer support[s] the Visual Basic 6.0 development environment, but still support[s] the runtime. ...they support the runtime in Windows 8." Windows 7 has always supported the VB6 development environment ("IDE") and so does Windows 8.0 and 8.1, although installation in Win8 is somewhat quirky. It has also been reported that VB6's IDE runs in the beta versions of Windows 10. So I am updating the article. A 3-monitor screen shot showing the Win8.1 Metro interface, a VB6 program, and the VB6 IDE can be seen at (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I just visited this site to see if anyone is still using VB6 and was surprised to see the 3-monitor screen shot from my site linked above (which is fine by me). I've been using VB6 with Win10 all this time without any problems. Nfordwkp (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

promotional edits for Alan Cooper[edit]

Essentially none of the paragraph discussing Alan Cooper is sourced; the small residual (see linked topic) is not referenced to any reliable third-party source TEDickey (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Likewise, adding a link to Cooper's website is not an improvement. Rather, a suitable source would be independent TEDickey (talk) 00:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Language Features - no speaka[edit]

The very first sentence of the very first section after the lede:

< Visual Basic was designed to accommodate a steep learning curve. >

Can we have that in English, please? (talk) 00:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Ongoing community support[edit]

Hello, I propose the inclusion of a subchapter addressing the topic of ongoing significant user interest despite being EOL which found significant media response. This includes support of VB6 by this community in many forms: petitions, fix projects, even a crowdfunding project. The proposed text is here cheers Shaddim (talk) 09:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

That phrasing about tens of thousands is jarring, since there's no support in the (weak, old) sources. If you had not started this thread by dredging up old edits, there would be something to explore TEDickey (talk) 09:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
please, drop this unfounded claim about old edits. If there is an correlation between my new edit and older one, it should be taken as indication that this topic and matter was and is relevant. On the constructive side, thanks for the reformulation suggestion, very welcome. Shaddim (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
There's little point in arguing, because it's trivial (though time consuming) to go back through the history and show, point-by-point where you have reused the old edits. TEDickey (talk) 08:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Than resist your urge on making unfounded claims. Back on topic, where do you see WP policies in conflict for including of information about an vivid user community post-EOL? Shaddim (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
So far, none of your comments have been constructive or to the point. I pointed out that the statement which you pasted in from an old edit is not found in the given source, and rather than pointing to a better source, continue to make random comments unrelated to the topic. TEDickey (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
for the last time, my contribution was my text. Proof it otherwise, drop this claim or I will get angry. On the topic, give please explicity feedback how this cobtribution can be improved or fails a specific policy. Up to now it just looks like you overreacted under wrong assumptions Shaddim (talk) 10:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


A recent edit asserts that Visual Basic is limited to single lines. Actually, VB6 supports continuation lines. Here is an example of it being discussed TEDickey (talk) 00:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Note that I wrote to assert conventionally, not limited in the sense of restricted, and only because there is no distinct line terminator. The only mistake I made is not remembering which version introduced it, which becomes the dubious part. I can't find a reference to it, nor remember it, and I've been working with VB since 3 in 1993. Note that point of your linked article is that multiline becomes limited at 24 lines. It would be best not to get into the merits of the feature at this point in its life[1], since I'm sure it has been beaten to death in forums, except to say that most statements are one line, which was and still is the convention for Visual Basic. The main point of my edit was that the section was comparing to C, or other brace-based languages, which is a restricted point of view. Group29 (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC) I dug up my VB 3.0 manual, and continuation is there too. So since the beginning of my history with VB it has been there. Group29 (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
However, to support the editorialization "conventionally", you still need a reliable source. By the way, this reminds me of a similar situation with JavaScript TEDickey (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
What else would work? "Typically", "usually". And you are correct, even though that is the convention, there is no article saying "that's just the way it is" because of no line endings. How did the JavaScript discussion resolve? Group29 (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
A while back, I was interested in running JavaScript through an indent program, but found that semicolons on the end of statements were optional. Thinking about it, the same applied to Fortran (the compiler just knows when it's had enough). For the other, I'd just leave out the qualification "typically" and just note that unlike some other languages such as C, there's no statement terminator for Visual Basic. TEDickey (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)