|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Visual Basic article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Computing / Software||(Rated C-class)|
|Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7|
- Inability to create multi-threaded applications, without resorting to Windows API calls
Um, a lot of stuff needs API calls. And they are easy.
- Lack of unicode support
Actually it does support it
- Inability to create console applications
Actually it does support it, I've made one before
- Variant types have a greater performance and storage overhead than strongly typed programming languages
Um... They have to.
- 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? 188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Support in Windows 8
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 http://www.aeyec.com/vb6_in_Win81_5760x1080.jpg. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
CodeProject comments vs Reliable sources
See the overview of WP:RS - the [ISpliter] link lacks each attribute. Rather, it looks like something based on one of the blogs which are (usually) reverted without argument (other than, of course, by their respective authors) TEDickey (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- The attempt at providing a better source missed the point entirely, since the provided link was irrelevant to the comments made by the editor. Use the discussion page if there are any useful WP:RS for this topic TEDickey (talk) 08:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I am glad to talk to you again.
There is NOT a matter of trust in the middle with the CodeProject article, since now it has 58-60 of 5 stars votes from reviewers (which are all programmers and IT specialists). I repeated the experiment from the "Blog" and similar results emerged from my own analysis with Google and Bing. Do it yorself and see the results.
VB6 with embedded machine codes makes app's faster than those compiled in C++ (not just faster, but a lot more faster than C++, even I did tests like this). In some instances VB6 does not need any machine code to be faster than c++, it can do that without any help: http://discuss.fogcreek.com/joelonsoftware/default.asp?cmd=show&ixPost=7598
Also, Visual Basic 6.0 rises to 5th place in the official Index of programming language popularity for May 2014 while C# drops to 6th, and VB.Net is 11th: http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html
- hmm - 50 people out of 10 billion like the blog. Your comments are consistent, if nothing else. TEDickey (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
A 60 of 5 star votes is very good ranking on CodeProject. Imagine my surprise when I saw that article there, because CodeProject has a phobia regarding Visual Basic :)
I have a suggestion. It would be good to have the rankings of different programing languages on their own pages ? or it will be a subjective thing ?
OMG -- VB faster than C++. CodeProject a "reliable" source from "IT professionals". Learn a real language and use it for a few years, kid -- then you'll understand that VB should never have even existed in the first place! Good luck!
promotional edits for Alan Cooper
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)
Language Features - no speaka
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?
Ongoing community support
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)
- 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)