Why are we bringing VB to Linux?
 by Marc Boorshtein, in Editorials - Sat, Oct 14th 2000 23:59 UTC

Projects are appearing that attempt to bring Visual Basic clones to Linux. Marc Boorshtein, a former VB programmer, thinks this is a mistake, and that we should be innovating with what we already have instead of spending time working at emulating what he considers a technological dead end.

I was very disturbed by first reading about KBasic on slashdot.org and then another VB clone on newsforge.com. Why are we trying to emulate Windows? Do we have to make the same mistakes? While the idea behind VB is good (an environment in which pre-built components can be glued together to build applications quickly), MS VB is NOT a good language at its core. It isn't object-oriented, it's object-based. There is no inheritance, and its implementation of interfaces leaves much to be desired. Python is fully object-oriented and cross platform.

What makes MS VB so strong isn't the language itself, it's the environment and support. While VB is a terrible language, it has an amazing IDE, probably the best on the market. If you separate the IDE from the language, it's an excellent tool. The IDE integrates form design, object browsing, code structuring, database integration, Web integration, and anything else you want it to include. Had VB instead been VPython, it would have been a nearly perfect tool.

The second piece of MS VB that makes it so powerful is its Windows support. With direct ties into ADO, MTS, and COM+, for internal projects, there is usually no need for anything written in C or C++. Everything from soup to nuts can be built inside of VB, including the middleware, database, and front end, whether that front end is Windows- or Web-based. This is very appealing to companies large and small because they are only buying one tool for an entire job, as opposed to one tool for middleware, one for the front end, and one for the database.

The problem with emulating VB is the technology VB is based on, COM and Windows. All of its components are Windows-based. To bring a VB app over to Linux, you would have to bring COM, ADO, MTS, and DCOM, not to mention all of the third party components that are used in VB apps. Getting it to work effectively in Linux is just not worth it.

There are several alternatives that already exist and have great IDEs. Java is my personal favorite. It's an industry standard that has been adopted by the largest companies in the world. While it's not as easy to learn as VB, it's more powerful. If ease of use is the issue, make an IDE for Python. It's as easy as VB to learn, and a much better core language.

While VB is a good language for learning, it is NOT a good language for production work. We shouldn't make the same mistakes as Windows, nor should we try to beat Windows by becoming the same beast that Windows is. We should innovate and create better technologies, not just copies of the poor original.

Why do I have these opinions? I worked in VB on Windows for four and a half years. About a year ago, I was brought to Linux and I switched from VB to Java. Since then, I have never looked back. Creating VB on Linux is a bad idea. There are simply too many problems with it, and there are already great alternatives.

Marc Boorshtein (mboorshtein@yahoo.com) is a sophomore at Western New England College in Springfield, MA, majoring in Computer Science. He began working in VB five and a half years ago, starting with VB 3. He worked in the MIS department at Process Software in Framingham, MA during the summer of his senior year, and as a consultant at PriceWaterhouseCoopers last summer. He has been using Linux for about a year and has since stopped using VB in favor of Java. He is currently running an Open Source project called the Internet Document and Report Server (http://idrs.sourceforge.net/), which merges a tag-based system for accessing databases in Web pages and external Java components to build powerful data-driven Web sites. The next release will also include scripting support for both the JPython and BeanShell languages.

T-Shirts and Fame!

[Comments are disabled]

Referenced categories Programming Language :: Java Programming Language :: Visual Basic

Referenced projects GNOME Basic - A 100% Visual Basic-compatible language. Python - A high-level scripting language.

 Comments

[»] VB Linux
by spike - Oct 11th 2003 23:51:09

I don't think some of the projects that are VB like are trying to emulate MS VB. Most of them are just trying to implement BASIC into Linux, not so much VB itself. Programming languages are not just for one OS. I agree that the VB4Linux project is wasting time. But others that just want to bring BASIC some fuctionality on Linux aren't wasting time. BASIC is somewhat of a "dog and pony" show but if written right by adding more functionality like OO, among other things it could become a very nice language that everyone can use to create simple or complex programs. I'm for writing a decent BASIC system on Linux, we just need one with more functionality and power.

[reply] [top]

[»] Re: VB Linux
by Iz - Feb 10th 2006 03:59:31

For those looking for a RAD/Basic equivalent to VB in Linux... I just stumbled across Gambas a couple days ago at gambas.sourceforge.net. It looks to be very promising, and claims it is not trying to be a clone of VB, but rather a Linux alternative to VB.

[reply] [top]

---

[»] The right tool for the job dammit!
by Erling - May 4th 2003 05:34:23

Python + some ide/gui toolkit like blackadder from thekompany (qt ), or boa constructor ( wxwindows )
is in my opinion a BETTER tool for RAD development than a vbclone. Not that VB nessecary is a poor tool, but why not try to make something even better? Python/Ruby is in my opinion a better choice than basic, and is not much harder to use.
Use that tool for most desktop applications, if it is not speedy enough you can develop modules for python in C++. If you have extreme speed requirements use C or C++ for the entire application.

[reply] [top]

[»] VB
by Carlos Daniel Ruvalcaba Valenzuela - Nov 13th 2002 21:29:23

I've used VB since more than 7 years now and i still use it, i think is a great tool for programing and a good languaje; yes, it has it's limitations, it lacks of C speed, and whatever. But what you say about it is just your own lack of abilities to push harder the languaje, you complain to much about the languaje, ok, if you don't like then don't blame the languaje, out there is a lot of talented people that pushed to the limits the languaje, i know people tha write games over it, yes as a hobby, but they are really Quality (Check out www.rookscape.com/vbgaming/). Also there are some Commercial VB games out there, most of them are 2D but there also impresive 3D RPGs.

Also VB IDE a impresive and efective GUI design tool by itself, why not to have something like it in Linux?, i find quite handy the languaje sometimes, i have writen lots of things on it from database stuff to graphic demos with OpenGL, scripts interpreters, and more. I think that the languaje is whorty to of porting and add new features to it.

Come on!, we are trying to atract more people to the Linux side by recreating the Windows tools and you just say we should't care about them!

Linux dosen't have to be just for geeks, why not for the VB programmers to?

[reply] [top]

[»] VB vs. C++?!!!
by Mitea Marius - Jul 22nd 2001 19:36:40

Well, VB is a so-called RAD [Rapid Application Development] and it wouldn't hurt for it to be 'ported' to Linux. On the other hand, it's speed leaves a lot to be desired :((
C++, which I think is the best language available (free or not) is much more flexible and a lot faster. Maybe VB is simpler at what it can do, but I'd like to see you try to use pointers in VB... (it can be done... but I'd like to see a guy who made it all by himself :)) )
As for python, I wouldn't worry... It's made in C, like the whole linux kernel, X, Qt etc. That shows what a good C programmer can do with it, right?

My half of cent :)

--
Marius mitea@bbs.ro - spid3r@home.ro - www.spid3r.home.ro

[reply] [top]

[»] VB
by Phactorial - May 27th 2001 07:03:29

VB has one of the best development IDE's. The only problem is that if we port it to Linux/Unix we might have to tamper with some of the system architecture to support VB. If we do bring VB, we will also most likely bring on Microsoft to the Linux/Unix world, which won't exactly be a good step as Microsoft will try to change some of our common standards to meet their standards. I think that the only right way to go is to create an IDE for Linux/Unix's existing and much more powerful languages. For example, kdevelop looks like a great project and with some more work with Visual implementation (dlg editor) it might even be better than Visual C++'s and VB's IDE. Another downpoint is that with VB we will bring on a whole new breed of lazy users. VB is a weak scripting language made for beginning programmers. VB programmers usually grow bad habits which usually affect their use of much more powerful languages such as C/C++, Java, etc....

[reply] [top]

[»] VB is for the lazy and uncaring programmers
by Omar Colocci - Apr 15th 2001 02:53:26

My wife is a trainee is a company that develops accounting software and in many integrated modules, making the program manage everything that is related to money in a company. Of course, as a matter of costumer compatibility, they based the software in Windows platform. In the first days she told me they used VB most of the time (her business is the accounting, not the programming), and I told her that it was quite strange that such a supposed big software package were based in something like VB. A couple of days later, I proved I were right : they actually use VB, but only for the interface, being the core made in pure C. Why? Because it's faster, and more reliable, and VB would probably handle a small company accounting needs, but what about the amount of processing required to a company that demands some extra zeros in its numbers?
What do I mean with all that stuff?? That serious companies making serious software for serious clients know what works and what doesn't...if the matter of VB is the IDE, so make some kind of Visual C for Linux, for Christ sake! Or even some kind of environment for developping graphical interfaces in a language-independent architecture, after all we are in the OOP age, aren't we? :)

Regards,

Omar Colocci

[reply] [top]

[»] Stuck between my heart and my brain
by Daniel Burke - Oct 31st 2000 11:00:53

I'm 19, and know a nibble of 8086 asm, C and C++. I personally hate VB, but I can only think that this is a good idea. IMHO the best tactic for linux is to inundate windows/dos with linux programs and vice-versa. If windows is full of Linux apps, then when the win-lamer decides to change it will be as painless as possible... The biggest reason I use linux is because I learnt C/C++ under DJGPP, and ASM under NASM. If it werent for programs like these, I'd probably still think *NIX is the spawn of Satan, but swiching to an OS that I already know some of the more esoteric programs is making it very cool. I've helped three of my mates install linux and these little things such as these that make it *so* much less painful. I've even conned them out of using X to log-in, and my familiarity with gcc is helping them to D/L source instead of binaries. Every little bit helps. Hopefully soon I'll figure out how to use Wine :-)
VB is evil but I feel a linux port will only help. If you build it they will come.......

[reply] [top]

[»] Does the efficiency argument apply to desktop apps?
by raindog2 - Oct 30th 2000 17:53:20

Think about it. You write a VB front end to some basic process, like entering time in a SQL database. The executable is like 85K but it requires ODBC to be installed, usually a 5 or 6 MB download, and of course it requires the VB runtime which is a meg and a half. So your 85K applet turns into a 7MB monster. Oh, the humanity.

Wait a minute though. Let's say you're writing a KDE app to do the same thing in C++. Certainly it's more lines of code to write in the first place. The executable may be a little smaller, I don't know.

But it still requires the database connectivity layer to be installed, and it probably depends on glibc, which is 5 megabytes on my machine, and much of its code resides in libkde*.so.*, which on my KDE1 machine is a little over 2MB. Suddenly your "efficient" lower level language looks like as much of a pig as VB, and it took you four times longer to write it and ten times as long to debug it. These same arguments apply on a Windows platform when you take into account the size of things like the C runtime DLL's, basically equivalent to glibc.

So I don't want to hear about how VB makes inefficient code from anyone who isn't writing hand-tuned assembler on bare metal. No matter what human-readable language you're using, it's not efficient. And from a performance angle, for any business app that relies heavily on user input, no user will be able to tell the difference between a VB app and one written in C++ except that perhaps the C++ one crashes more often because the author decided to write his interface by hand instead of letting a well-debugged form designer generate the code for him.

[reply] [top]

[»] Moore's other law -
by toc - Oct 26th 2000 03:38:58

I agree wholeheartedly with Lepus on this. Remember Moore's less accurate statement on hardware requirements, leading to the magic of DOS memory:
"No practical application will require more than 640kB of memory".
Well, one from two wasn't bad. The point is that efficient coding in a language that makes efficient use of system resources will never become an obsolete concept. The statement that fast (current generation) processors and 32MB of RAM is sufficient reason to abandon best programming practice seems misguided at best. Application complexity and size will continue to grow to make maximal use of the available system resources. Efficient coding in an efficient language will help to ensure that this growth in size and complexity will be matched by an equivalent growth in capability.
end $0.02 :)

[reply] [top]

[»] Code reuse is the issue I see
by Steve Brown - Oct 22nd 2000 15:32:12

One of the best reasons I can see for encouraging these efforts is that corporate programmers have a BIG chunk of hours invested in VB code. If they can use that code after switching to Linux on the desktops, there will be fewer barriers to Linux. I'll give you all the arguments about how bad VB may be, and I'd encourage programmers to use something different for new code, but we all know how much legacy stuff hangs around for years because it gets the job done well enough.

[reply] [top]

[»] I think it's a good idea!
by TheAdmiral - Oct 20th 2000 14:55:44

Call me an idiot (well, don't) but I think it's a good idea. It'll encourage more programmers to move over to linux, which can't be a bad thing. It'll make programming easier on linux (for those who want it easier) And I'll be able to program linux apps (apologies, i haven't got into C/Perl/Java yet. I'm only 13)! Anything that brings more users to linux has to be good eh?

[reply] [top]

[»] What we need is more open source components?
by James Simmons - Oct 17th 2000 17:49:40

I did VB programming back in 1995 and liked it. When VB for Win 95 came out it was a totally different animal and I started using Java instead. Java is an excellent replacement for VB. It is also a great language to write components in.

Back in 1995 that was the best thing VB had going for it: a huge number of powerful components that you could plug together to build applications. You couldn't create these components in VB, but there were plenty available in the market.

Java, unlike VB, does support creating components for itself. There are quite a few of them in the market too. What are missing (or harder to find than they should be) are open source Java components. I know they exist, but there isn't one good place to look for them. I want to write my own news reader, and I KNOW there must be an open source NNTP bean out there somewhere. Closed source NNTP beans are easy enough to find, but I haven't found an open source NNTP bean yet. It would be simple to write my own, but how could I make it easy for others to find it so they wouldn't waste time doing what I had already done?

A good collection of open source beans might spread open source into places it would not normally go. A company might be reluctant to use Linux or an open source application server. But that same company might have no problem at all using Java Beans that come with source code, especially since commercial beans are so expensive. Java Beans can be used with Windows too.

I understand that Java is actually MORE popular than VB these days. So give us a good library of open source Java Beans and a well organized site to keep then on any maybe we can bring those VB programmers into the fold.

[reply] [top]

[»] Why all the fuss?
by Andreas Trawoeger - Oct 15th 2000 20:34:03

Maybe there will be a VB clone for Linux. Well nice to have. I think it could be a never ending project ala Wine, but if someone wants to try it why not?

The future of Linux scripting will be Python and VeePee

It’s quite strange that the author suggest Python for Linux scripting and seems to be totally unaware that exactly this is going to happen.

[reply] [top]

[»] VB on Linux, what a waste of time and typing
by PaC - Oct 15th 2000 16:44:03

I used to be a VB "scripter", I must say I'm glad it only lasted 4 months. VB was horribly slow not to mention retarded.

VB isn't even a programming language. Its interpreted scripting language. No i'm not refering to VBScript, i'm refering to VisualBasic.
I reccomend the P.O.S to nobody, and I mean nobody.
While it does have a killer IDE, but all the IDE in the world isn't going to make your VB code faster, and thats what counts these days. Sheesh it's not even up to par with OOP.
I rather take a week to produce high quality, robust, efficient coding in C++ then do a days worth of coding in VB to only upset the end user.


Now i'm also commenting on Mathew Saffer.

You stated for a more low level language, as you were refering to C.

Hate to break the news but C is not even close to a low level language.

Theres only a couple true low level languages. Assembly,Binary.

This isn't a argument only a factorial to set it straight.

[reply] [top]

[»] Programming discipline
by Lepus - Oct 15th 2000 12:02:14

> Nowadays, with mostly everyone running a
> Pentium-class with at least 32M ram, you
> needn't worry about that.
Hah... THIS is the very theory that makes software that could have been made in less than 20 megs take up an entire GIGABYTE of disk space, and GUIs using up about 50% system resources while still running "empty"...
Of course, I am not telling that everything should be optimized for minimal RAM usage, but still...

> Lose the discpline, embrace the usability and
> simplicity!
We are headed for a society based on information. A society where software will be as real in effect and importance as a building or a machine...
I ask you: Do we REALLY want to make systems to make it possible for 12-year-olds to build skyscrapers people will live and work in?

The key is SCIENCE. The science of software engineering. We should not underestimate its value, its importance...
We should head in this way, not the total opposite you are suggesting.

Right now, computer programming on the PC is in many cases more of an art. Irreproducable, unique, probably a masterpiece, probably a piece of trash. Of course this level of software creation should always have a place (actually, IMHO open source cannot even work in any other way), but the artists should at least understand the basics of what they are doing.

[reply] [top]

[»] We don't need VB
by Adrian Urquhart - Oct 15th 2000 11:09:52

I agree entirely with the comments made by Phil Howard. The motivation for Microsoft in introducing VBA (IMHO) was to give Joe Non Programmer an ability to customise Office apps thereby increasing Joe's dependency on Microsoft products. VB itself allows other non-programmers to quickly create almost functional programs with no formal programming experience or knowledge. Yes we want to get people to move from Windows to Linux (or any *nix) but if the only way to do that is to give them a nice, soft, touchy-feely environment then I'd say we don't want them and they wouldn't be happy here anyway. No pain == no gain.

I hate VB and what its use represents, and its appearance on Linux can only result in an overall dilution of the quality of applications. Sure, I don't have to install and run any of these brave new apps, but come the day when VB script kitties appear, that's my cue to dump Linux as a serious OS.

I don't want to appear as an elitist, but who said programming (done properly) was ever meant to be easy?

[reply] [top]

[»] Re: We don't need VB
by Mrs. Karen Debbie - Aug 21st 2007 07:26:02

"[We should keep Linux an OS for programmers. If you're not a programmer you shouldn't use it.]" "[Why aren't people using Linux?]" Excuse me?

[reply] [top]

---

[»] BasicScript
by Ben Grimm - Oct 15th 2000 10:00:44

There really is no need to port VB to any other platform - it has already been done. It's been done in fact by the people who wrote it! Summit Software wrote BasicScript long ago and Microsoft licensed it from them. It's currently available (for a fee) to integrate into applications on Windows, and many Unix's including Linux. summsoft.com BasicScript. If only we could simply convince them to donate a license to KDE and/or Gnome then nobody would have to deal with the hassels of porting. Of course, this won't happen.. they seem to be very tight with their code, but we can dream.

[reply] [top]

[»] A Basic for Linux
by John Duchek - Oct 15th 2000 09:48:13

I agree that VB is not the vehicle to bring to Linux. I do think that Linux needs a Basic language. I am not a professional programmer, and I don't wish to learn a new language every 3-5 years. I do want my computer to do what I tell it to. I wrote several valuable quick basic programs and put them in the shareware market. I am a scientist (chemist) and have written quite a few programs for my own use. I gave up on writing programs after mastering VB1,2,3,4 because the learning curve of a new incompatible version every year became too much. I don't care if it runs slower than C++, as long as it does the job I need done, and it is quick to crank out the code. If Linux is to serve users well it needs a complete complement of languages. It has many, but a compiled Basic is too important to ignore. My wish list would be to get PowerBasic ported to Linux. It has the best of basic, and some C like functions (in line assembler, and great sort/search commands) Put Xwindows interface on it and it would beat the socks off VB...

[reply] [top]

[»] BASIC is good stuff
by mirabilos [TM] - Oct 15th 2000 09:30:04

I have been using BASIC for years, until I got to know assembly, and even then I am trying to mix those two.
For linux, I had to learn C, and still I make many mistakes, since I grew up as a GW-BASIC kiddie.
So, many people might want to kill me, but in my opinion, VB (I once tried Ver 1.00 for Win 3.00/286) was a good idea in order to get more people peogramming code. And since in the actual version of VB (6? 7? dunno) it _still_ depends on a runtime (like java, it's just an interpiler) it should no problem to write a linux or even (for the purists out there) java-based RT.
If I could code in BASIC for linux, I even would install X11 on my machine :)
And to the point that it is not OOP language: does this really matter? Has VB ever be planned as an OOP language? No.
And IMHO this is _good_ as e.g. neither C nor assembly, the two langs an OS usually is written in, are OOP. And Objective-C is "dead" (and noone can tell me where to get good info on it, probably in German as my English isnt that good) and C++ is _not_ C but a very different language (with too much overhead). And IMHO the paradigma of classes ("objects") used by Turbo Pascal 6 is much easier to understand than the Obj-C or CPP ones.
And java is like VB: slow, interpiling, depends on a RT.
Just, that it _is_ easier (and even my little brother now can code in VB).
So, ppl interested in BASIC, please don't listen to those ppl wanting you to stop since I think that making VB portable is a great idea.
to Microsoft: With VB you have proved that you know what programmers need (IDE, context-sensitive help, etc.) So please help those programmers by publishing the API.

[reply] [top]

[»] Because then we can rewrite KDE in VB and port KDE apps to Windows
by timecop - Oct 15th 2000 07:51:38

But wait, all KDE apps already clone Windows apps, that means that would be completely useless and a waste of time. Doh.

[reply] [top]

[»] we abandoned "innovation" and "quality" years ago
by jetson123 - Oct 15th 2000 07:49:08

I love Linux, and I think it's a great deal better than Windows. But let's not kid ourselves: if innovation or quality were our yardsticks, we wouldn't be using C/C++ as our programming language and a kernel design from the 1970's (this applies to both Linux and Windows). We use them not because they are innovative or technically good choices, but because they are simple and work acceptably well for most problems.

And the same is true for VB. If it satisfies a practical need, it makes sense to port it. And many would argue that being able to deal with Office documents is a practical need.

If, on the other hand, you want to further innovation and quality, there are better things to do than worry about VB one way or the other. Rather, pitch in and help out with some new kernel designs (Hurd?), or start applying some less antediluvian programming languages to systems programming.

(Incidentally, I don't share your enthusiasm for the VB IDE. I think Smalltalk was better than that even 20 years ago. Of course, Smalltalk did require a bit more thinking.)

[reply] [top]

[»] hmm
by karellen - Oct 15th 2000 07:45:39

Well I shall not resort to flames but the day Debian comes with K[gay]Basic I'm going to abandon Linux and start using some *BSD flavour extensively.

[reply] [top]

[»] No app is better than a bad app
by Bastian Friedrich - Oct 15th 2000 07:38:36

Sure, the community is free. If folks want VB, clone VB. I do not want it.

I switched to Linux about 5 years ago, coming from the Win 3.1 world which just had been infected by the "Delphi wave" which was quite comparable to the (even worse) "VB wave". The main reason was the stability not only of the core system, but of most of it's applications (how many bugs have been found in TeX during the last years?).

If I need software for a certain job to be done, I point my browser to freshmeat, enter some search topic or browse the appindex. Often enough, I find only a single software. I download it and am happy.

Under Windows (which I haven't really used for 4 years now; I gave it a couple of tries, though), you find dozends of packages, give them all a try (fill your System-path with a couple of unnecessary DLLs and fsck up your Registry) and get 90% of pure crap. One reason is the ease of programming. VB programming is like the possibility to drive without a driving license.

With tools like VB, more or less everybody is able to write programs. This definitely leads to a low quality in the average software quite quickly (sure, there are "real" VB programmers). In other words: one of the main reasons for people to switch to Linux vanishes.

[reply] [top]

[»] We MUST !!!
by gresh - Oct 15th 2000 06:28:41

Why -- in our obsession with bringing open systems to everyone -- can't we let people port whatever software they want to Linux? Are we becoming hipocritical or what? No one, after all, is asking YOU to install it?

I can tell you now that VBA and excel are very powerful tools, which I have worked with for years, simply because there is no other choice ... I know double PHd quantative mathematicians using exactly that for building derivative models and tying together C++ libraries into tools for their daily work ... Now their code might well be a mess, but I wouldn't exactly call them lamers!! .... now if I could encourage them to come over to Linux ... if they can easily port their C++ libraries and their spreadsheets using Linux tools, then I'm happy. And if these things work easier, and I'm able to fix their buggy spreadsheets, improve performance etc, etc, all in a Linux environment, then I'm beggining to get very excited ... However I know that we are far away, until the COM+ like technologies mature.

So what then do we boycott COM+, say NO gnome and kde, I will not use you if you are compatible with any microsoft product? NO WAY, that goes against our hacker ethics of freedom ...

IMO ... SUPPORT any effort which encourages MicroScoff users onto Linux ... its worth it, its beneficial to us all, it makes sense, you don't have to use the software, you don't have to talk to them, it won't give you a rash, and I believe it's not contageous to be in the same room as them. Last but not least, it is after all their right - Right ?

[reply] [top]

[»] Stupid!!!!
by The_Saint - Oct 15th 2000 03:43:47

Come on think people!!! If we go and port/clone VB to Linux. You are just giving anther tool to the script kitties. They will be like woooooo you mean I can program in linux now and make all these little programs that do nothing cool! For some reason VB is a haven for lamers and lame programs. Let not bring that to Linux.

[reply] [top]

[»] disagree
by error27 - Oct 15th 2000 03:39:31

I believe programers should be allowed to program whatever they want to. Patents stopping programmers from programming are evil. RIAA stopping programmers from programming is evil. People telling other programmers to stop programming is wrong.

Also it's futile. Programmers will program what ever they want. People said that Linus was a crack head but now it turns out his program was fairly usefull after all. The MPAA tells people they won't be able to watch DVD's on Linux but programmers found a way. I get sick of all the people telling programmers not to port Linux to the TI 93. Telling a programmer not to do something or that it can't be done is the surest way to make them stay up all night and all day until they are finished.

If you don't like a technolodgy proper etiquette says that you don't complain about it. You write your own open source alternative. You fight to gain mind share. Wait until everyone has tried both programs and says your program is clearly superiour. THEN you can feel free to go on irc and call those other punks who wouldn't listen to you rude names.

You think that visual python would be better? Write it and give us a link to download it to see if you are right.

Until then let the programmers program.

[reply] [top]

[»] Use the right tool for the job
by ash - Oct 15th 2000 03:10:27

VB is actually very good for a front end GUI, or a quick and easy application, something that is very handy indeed. But if you want to do something complex, then VB isn't the right tool to use. Use it for what it's good at then it is actually very good, the same as with any tool. Linux lacks this RAD tool and it would be good to see it on this platform. VB does tend to be a bit overused though, as there are plenty of programmers who know it, so it is usually pushed way over what it should be used for.

[reply] [top]

[»] VB bad habit
by andu - Oct 15th 2000 02:50:54

I tried several times to learn VB and failed. I'm convinced it was not my stupidity but VB's.
Those looking for a splendid RAD on UNIX, Windows and Mac can try MetaCard (metacard.com) which is both very easy to learn and fast. It delivers scripts which need an engine to run or standalones. It has all the features you want and more but it's not free. The demo allows for 10 statements per object but I did write real applications with just that until I bought a license.

[reply] [top]

[»] Enhances human-programming interface...
by CowbertPrime - Oct 15th 2000 02:09:04

Qt, the toolkit used to make KDE and all of its cool widgets, etc, is relatively easy to code in. It's a lot better than plain old C++ or even Motif. I have coded for X in both of those toolkits, and believe me, it takes a lot of code, even with reusable modules. When I first saw Qt, it was almost a dream come true. I write five lines to create a working applet. I write 3 more lines to initiate file i/o. It was like visual basic, handwritten.

At this point, I would like to mention that I am a big fan of RAD, rapid application development. If someone calls me and asks for a database application, I want to take the minimum amount of time writing it and have it work. I use VB a lot, because of its simplicity in working with SQL and also ASP.

But bringing Kbasic in would make RAD for QT even faster to write code. Instead of writing 5 lines for a form with buttons, etc. I merely have to point and click.

The 21st century should welcome the ability of everyone to program an interface to their computer. Programming need not be reserved for those few who know how (remember the punch cards? I still have some FORTRAN punch cards laying around). Programming should be as easy as surfing the web:
point and click. Press another button to compile and install, then click the icon to run. The computer as a labor saving device is still inefficient because it requires programming. Now, if more people could program everything they need quickly and easily - that means not having to learn syntax, not having to learn keywords - maybe everyone will know how to use one in their own way.
I hear linux/unix geeks complain about 'dirty inefficient code' and 'bad habits' that VB programmers gain. Those were the words of the 1960s and 70s when you were forced to optimize for RAM and CPU usage. Nowadays, with mostly everyone running a Pentium-class with at least 32M ram, you needn't worry about that.
Lose the discpline, embrace the usability and simplicity!

KBasic brings us closer to this reality.

[reply] [top]

[»] Why is Basic automaticly VB?
by Jeffery - Oct 15th 2000 01:05:58

Any given effort to write a Basic for Linux dosn't need to be Visial Basic.
I've had fun with Chipmunk Basic... a basic ported over from the Mac that is pritty obsolete now.

KBasic brings up images of what Commodore Basic 7 might look like on the Amiga.. Not Visual Basic....

Why should KBasic be anything but "Yet annother basic"?
It's not K Visual Basic... It's just KBasic..
Microsoft hardly has a lock on it...

[reply] [top]

[»] What Visual Basic for Linux?
by John Califf - Oct 15th 2000 00:23:34

KBasic is not Visual Basic at all. There is no way that it can bring Visual Basic to Linux although there may be some similarities. Similarly, there is no way that Gnome Basic can bring MS COM to Linux, though it may be able to use Gnome's Bonobo in a similar way. Actually there is a way, but it would require yet another cumbersome interface layer and is very, very unlikely.

What we have here is the same old arrogance and elitism directed at volunteers who dedicate some time to free software projects. From my perusal of their web page, KBasic apperears to be a Basic for building Kde applications using Kde objects. The language may or may not be object oriented. If it just uses existing, standard Kde objects and widgets without extending them so what. What is this to you and why do you feel a need to put it down? Who knows how the language will evolve? It's in its early stages.

You can't do much worse than Perl if you want to quickly build gui apps. Python is better and we already have wxPython for Linux and Windows. Personally, I prefer Ruby and there are some gui builders for that great language in the early stages. But none of these languages are perfect. Java? Please don't inflict that on newbies and others wanting to quickly develop gui apps which run with reasonable performance and stabiity, or which run at all. Java may be fine for corporate servers and applets, but not for desktop applications.

Even better, we have builders for C++ like fltk's fluid and Kde's KDeveloper and Qt's Designer. We have Glade and VDK Builder for Gtk. There are even more, but you get the picture. We are rapidly approaching the point where you can use almost any moderately popular language to develop apps for Linux, with or without a gui builder and ide, at any level you choose.

It's possible to do a lot with Basic. There were some Basics for the Amiga which performed better than the Amiga's native C for many kinds of games. And do you know what language most REAL scientists, not computer scientists, use to test their theories and build demos for colleagues? Basic. It's easy to use and has enough graphics to prove the point with simple simulations. Not even Visual Basic, usually. Traditionally it's been QBasic for plain old DOS or a MacIntosh variant of Basic.

Implementations of Basic which run on Linux will take nothing away from other languages or your freedom to use them. And no matter how much you protest you cannot live down your own use of Visual Basic for Micro$oft Windows for several years (shame on you) because it paid well with such put-downs. Java pays well now. Nothing has changed except which side of your bread is receiving the butter.

[reply] [top]

[»] Is it what we really want?
by slappy - Oct 14th 2000 23:03:38

One simple question would be this: In order to gain the commercial support so many think that linux really needs, should we actually ensconse ourselves in the sub-quality technology that made companies start considering linux in the first place?

It seems to me that making linux more windows-like defeats the point entirely. If we use the failing techniques that the "competition" uses, we will be doomed to the same level of mediocrity that they currently enjoy.

[reply] [top]

[»] environment not language
by Alex V Flinsch - Oct 14th 2000 22:20:23

What I would love to see is a IDE that allows the functionality of VB, with the following additions

- pluggable language support
- pluggable toolkit support

Want to design a new app? Just fire up the IDE, select the language most appropriate for the desired task, and select the toolkit that you prefer. Python & GTk, no problem. C++ & QT, no problem.

[reply] [top]

[»] VisualPython and the MS IDE
by jdfox - Oct 14th 2000 22:05:35

I agree with Jeff C's comment that the MS IDE is excellent, and that it's a shame that it doesn't offer a decent language (like "VPython") in place of the execrable VB. But there is (probably) good news ahead: the man from ActiveState told me on their stand at the O'Reilly conference in July that they are working on two IDEs:
1) the Mozilla-based IDE that they are building for ActivePerl and ActivePython
2) Perl and Python add-ins for the MS IDE. Here is the Visual Python page, but not much info on there I'm afraid. So it looks like you'll get your wish Jeff. Maybe.

[reply] [top]

[»] so basically...(no pun intended)
by Hitchhiker - Oct 14th 2000 19:22:32

What most people here are saying (and what I agree with wholeheartedly)
is that we DON'T need VB for linux, but we need an IDE of the same caliber as VB has, while using a better language (like C++ or PERL)
right?
that way, everyone is happy. VB users, Linux users, and we're not "Diluting" the Linux OS w/software written in "crappy" languages.

[reply] [top]

[»] THIS is why.
by raindog2 - Oct 14th 2000 18:10:44

I'm going to ignore the application scripting issue for now.

I'm no fan of BASIC, despite years of using it by default, but I am a huge fan of RAD (rapid application development) tools. They allow quick working models of neat ideas, and despite its flaws, VB makes fast enough code that your prototype can be your finished product if it's mostly just a user interface to a back end. Most corporate desktop apps fit this description exactly.

Now, I'd much prefer PerlComposer over a VB clone, and Visual TCL is here and works wonders if you're willing to tweak the code a little by hand, but neither of these is VB. We need a visual RAD tool that uses something like BASIC as its language. Here's why:

My contact at one of my clients is a programmer with 20 years of experience. He knows many different languages but has worked mostly in COBOL and VB. He likes procedural languages because they're "self documenting" in his words, and holds great disdain for "OOPS", as he calls object-oriented programming. You're about to write him off as a bad programmer, but he wrote the entire back end and UI to his company's main system, a combination of VB on NT and COBOL on SCO Unix, and they're stable, full-featured, extremely maintainable and very fast. He has been looking for ways to roll out Linux on his desktops, and the one sticky point has been getting the VB app to run under Wine.

One of his pet peeves about "Unix languages" as he calls perl and TCL is that they "look like C." By this I assume he means they use curly braces for code blocks, are case sensitive, etc. He also complains that even with interface designers like GLADE, you still have to manually write all the methods rather than just double clicking on the components and writing the event methods, then hitting F5 to run your app.

It doesn't matter if anyone thinks his style is bad or whatever from this description, because there are like 10 million of him in the corporate world and they're all asking the nerds in the computer room suggesting they roll out NetBSD everywhere, "So how do I get my VB apps to run on it?" What we need looks like this:

• A clean form designer with double-click access to the code attached to each widget.
• An easy to understand properties sheet for each widget.
• A backend language that's procedural and looks somewhat like English. Object hooks are fine; our friend doesn't realize that when he uses OLE components he's doing pseudo-OOP.
• Context-sensitive language documentation. This means the user presses F1 on a keyword and its manpage-equivalent comes up. With this comes easy access to a language summary with examples. This may be the single strongest feature of Microsoft's IDEs.
• Forgiving syntax - drop the case sensitive stuff and be less anal about parens than most of our languages of choice. No funny indentation requirements either. And forget about things like $p =~ s/n/rn/gi. (Backslashes removed because they messed up freshmeat's validation.) Great for us, not so great for them.
• Weak types - the introduction of the "variant" made thousands of slightly buggy projects come in early.
• A debugger with a crash-edit-compile-run cycle that can be measured in single-digit seconds.
• A rich component environment with complete support in the IDE. Kparts or Bonobo should fit the bill soon.
• Most important: Easy distribution. You don't want to have to tell your $10 an hour PC support guys to download some.library.0.6.1.tar.gz and make, make test, make install before getting your app to run. You want to run a wizard that analyzes your dependencies, builds your code, and generates source and binary RPM's within a couple minutes, along with a README telling exactly what else is needed. (Or, there's always the statically linked binary approach - bad in general, useful for vertical apps on corporate desktops.)

On the bright side, consider that Visual TCL has about half of those issues covered already. That alone will get people to develop in it, especially since their code will run in Windows as well as Unix. But don't disparage the BASIC writers, because their audience is really much bigger than that of Freshmeat, maybe all the VA sites put together. Don't make them resort to proprietary stuff like Delphi, either. We want all those people to discover that not only are their skills applicable to a modern Unix desktop environment, and to free software/open source, but that the added capabilities of that environment make Windows look like GWBASIC in comparison.

[reply] [top]

[»] Why are we trying to bring Windows to Linux?
by Ryan Pavlik - Oct 14th 2000 17:36:03

I'm very disturbed by the trends to bring Windows to Linux. (Read: GNOME, KDE, etc.) Why are we trying to emulate Windows? While the idea is good (a desktop environment), MS Windows is not good at its core.

Yadda yadda. You get the point. This is not a flame or a troll (oh, but that would be so easy ;)). Think for a second about the point that you've brought up. A VB clone is the logical extension of an environment which doesn't innovate, but copies blindly.

Some days when I'm in a bad mood I'd like to think this is because people are lazy or stupid. Or both. It's certainly easier that way.

Honestly though, I think the real reason is worse: people just don't realize there can be something different. MS Windows and MacOS and related interfaces and systems have been pushed on us for so long that we fail to see that it isn't the only way to do something. We can come up with something new.

You say, "We shouldn't make the same mistakes as Windows, nor should we try to beat Windows by becoming the same beast that Windows is." You know what? It's too late. The desktop environments we have are already so set in their ways that they are the same beast. Except with all the generational loss of a copy. VB clones are just a small logical step. Maybe it's at this point that everyone will realize exactly what has happened, and what we have, and that VB will give a wakeup call. Then again, people will likely just accept it as an inevitable piece of the pie.

I'm telling you this: It isn't. The desktops we have aren't the end-all be-all, even though they'd like you to think such. Their design and their direction are wrong, they are copies of the things we have tried to get away from. And there are new, truly innovative, truly useful things we can make.

Developers just need to wake out of the half-sleep they're in, stand up, take a look around, and see them.

[reply] [top]

[»] Why Not InterfaceBuilder/ProjectBuilder
by spamtrap - Oct 14th 2000 16:06:53

After programming in NeXTSTEP/OpenStep OSX (whatever Steve calls it today) I judge all IDE's agains Interface Builder and Project Builder and find them wanting. AFAIK There is nothing even close in the Linux world. The real power of interface builder is that it used Objective-C's runtime messaging and object serialization to avoid being a "code barfer" like all of the IDE's in the Linux world. The object you connect to in the IDE is really the very same object that will be running after you compile.. It really did "just work" and would make a great Open Source project. I could ramble for hours, but I suggest folks beg/borrow an old 3.3 version NextSTEP intel and load it long enough to see what a development system could be.. Now back to my GTK programming.. chuck

[reply] [top]

[»] VB gives Linux even more flexibility
by drolenc - Oct 14th 2000 15:59:43

I think bringing VB to linux would continue a trend in flexibility. Right now we can read and write to windows filesystems. Run some windows apps through wine, etc. Although I have run apps that contained virii through wine, I didn't do so as root and my system was not affected. Similarly, I don't think security will be an issue if VB is ported to Linux. Security is generally good anyway, and as long as you don't do stupid things as root your system should be fine. If someone wants to work on porting VB to Linux , more power to them. I probably won't use it to develop, but I definitely don't think it will *hurt* Linux.

[reply] [top]

[»] Why are we bringing VB to Linux?
by B_Savoie - Oct 14th 2000 15:31:39

Ada 95 is a much better language, and GNAT 3.13 brings it to Linux. GtkAda provides the GUI that is cross platform and open source. Ada has protected objects which makes concurrent programming almost easy. Why build programs that are not going to be reliable? Ada 95 is 30 times faster than Java (execution speed at run time) and further you can write Ada and then run it on Java byte code interpreters, it you are looking for Java Beans without errors in them. As an older programmer (55)- I like having a good programming environment that isn't being changed by each vendor on each platform. As a person I like both Sister Hazel and Ada 95, you can keep the Beach boys and VB.

[reply] [top]

[»] Why are WE??
by aaronl - Oct 14th 2000 15:21:41

No, why are THEY. Becuase they're stupid.

[reply] [top]

[»] Don't screw with security!
by bhartman - Oct 14th 2000 14:50:37

The one serious misgiving I have about VB for Linux is in security. What's the point of having Linux if we're going to introduce all the system vulnerabilities in Windows anyway? One of the nice things about having Linux is you don't have to worry about VB viruses. Please, in the name of all that is good and true, please don't take that way from us!!

[reply] [top]

[»] Re: Don't screw with security!
by Sudo - Feb 8th 2001 02:49:19

Now I hate to sound like the downer in this party, but don't you think you're being a little over dramatic? I realize that VB Viruses spread like wild fire through windows, but most people who use Linux, aren't usually stupid enough to execute a VBS attachment via Email. And even if you are, I doubt you're going to be intelligent enough to install the VBS packages. Now I'm not all for this VBS thing, I agree, it shouldn't be done. The complexity of trying to port over literally 1/3 of Windows to get the crap language to work does not seem viable, but what about for the VB programmer who is sick of Windows, and I've got a couple of hardcore VB programmer friends, mostly co-workers, but still. I'd love to point at Linux and say "Here, now you can program on a REAL OS!" Now as most of you have already stated, VB is not true programming, well this is to be argued by myself included. VB is programming, but it's more of a beginner's programming. I was however, one of the lucky ones to start off in C on an old 3.1 DOS machine. (Don't everyone puke at once), so I missed out on that "Oh so great VB experience", but I really wouldn't want to have started there. But for those who are rather new to the programming experience, I suppose it's nice to have a pretty interface to do it in. Anyways, I hope I didn't offend anyone, or make anyone feel bad, but I had to toss my two cents in. --Sudo
> The one serious misgiving I have about
> VB for Linux is in security. What's the
> point of having Linux if we're going to
> introduce all the system vulnerabilities
> in Windows anyway? One of the nice
> things about having Linux is you don't
> have to worry about VB viruses. Please,
> in the name of all that is good and
> true, please don't take that way from
> us!!

--
--Sudo

[reply] [top]

---

[»] I'd better see support for Python in Windows apps than VB on Linux
by Eugene Morozov - Oct 14th 2000 14:20:52

I'm wondering why there're new languages (e.g C#) appears, when there're already nice languages for every purpose I can imagine: C/C++ for system programming, Shell/awk/Perl/Python for scripting, etc. Anyway, trying to create VB analog on Unix is futile because the language changes with every release of IDE (as far as I know). When I have to work on Windows I always miss Python when writing macros for MS Word etc.

[reply] [top]

[»] On the issues of training vs languages
by PerlChild - Oct 14th 2000 14:16:01

First the VB aspect: I think that while porting VB to linux might be a good idea on principle, it will not bring the success that people seem to expect from it. On one hand, having more languages, and more options is not a bad thing.
On the other hand, VB itself seems more based on letting just anyone program apps, even system-level apps, without an understanding of what they're doing (I would call this, the "Look ma, no helmet!" syndome.
The number of people conversant in the structure of linux(anyone trying to give barely technical personnel a crash course in unix file modes, permissions and case-insensitiveness, will probably know what I mean) if not in its fine details, will not increase much with VB. (IMNSHO that's the first thing that went wrong with windows: letting people program before they understand the implications)
VB by its very definition, is programming for non-technical people, so putting a language for non-technicals, on a platform where use is non-technical, but proper programming is(think thread-safe, buffer overflows and such...) would be a dangerous proposition, unless the vb code could "force" proper programming. (And in the unlikely event that someone could force someone else to do the right thing, it probably won't get done... call me cynical).
IMNSHO, VB is popular, especially with IT management, because it doesn't seem to suffer as much from the rarity of talent as some other technological challenges, thus impacting, the bottom line, and the ever present deadlines. Given the choice of a proper, stable, technological environment where workers are rarer and more in demand(enough to delay a solution) and choosing a less stable, less technically advanced environment, IT management seems to prefer the latter.
Case in point: adabas, had at one point an DCO SDK for linux, which I seem to remember brought linux into the ole world. It wasn't publicised, and I can't even find it on their site anymore. Coincidence? I choose to think not, thinking the development teams needed for such an SDK had other stakes, elsewhere

The VBA aspect:
In a similar vein adding VBA in an application which doesn't use the microsoft conventions of behaviour seems fraught with peril, as the event model, for one thing is most likely different between the two, and one function, which does one thing, in vba might do a different thing in the new application, by using the application's api. And while a spreadsheet is a spreadsheet, programming a spreadsheet is not a trivial operation one may do in an evening's entertainment. As such, it is more than likely, that the event model, and what I would call the user-experience model, are different between the two applications.

In conclusion, while those who choose to forge ahead and bring vb and vba to linux, I find myself conscience bound to warn them that it is a very difficult mission they are undertaking, one in which I don't see much hope of wide-ranging benefits.

[reply] [top]

[»] Corporate Enterprise Systems Design and Integration, for dummies
by Phil Howard - Oct 14th 2000 13:51:57

Languages like VB just raise the bar and let in even more programmers. Those who are good at doing correct program and system design already do it. These "easy" languages now let people who are simply not that good do at least something they can call programming.

Part of the problem is that what business wants in programming and what is correct in programming don't mesh. Many of us know all too well that programs done quickly, usually without even a design effort, join the ranks of garbage software that continues to be peddled by many vendors, continues to run many corporations, continues to foul up your bank account, and continues to alter your DSL installation date (or schedule you for September 31). And in all my years I have never ever seen a business that delivers on it's promise "we'll go back and fix it later, so just get it done now".

The majority of Y2K bugs I actually encountered were written in Perl. That's not saying that Perl has a Y2K problem as it does not. The problem is Perl makes it possible for dummies to write code and call themselves programmers. They are the ones that didn't think and created a Y2K error in a program. More than 50% of the Perl Y2K problems I saw were in programs less than 2 years old, too.

VB will just make it worse. We'll just end up with even more garbage applications on Linux and BSD.

One thing the open source world does have over corporate code mills is that in many cases, programmers who develop on their own time will go back and fix code, taking alpha to beta, and beta to final. And at the same time, business continues to run on version 0.1.2alpha and/or programs not even designed at all.

Order your copy of "Corporate Enterprise Systems Design and Integration, for dummies", today!

[reply] [top]

[»] Bringing VB to Linux
by Aroobie - Oct 14th 2000 13:20:45

While I am not a professional programmer and do not know the ins and outs of any programming language, I would oppose bringing the VB mess to any enviroment. All of the VB programs I have to deal with on my corporate WAN are costing much more to maintain than if the corporation would develop their own IDE for Python and removed M$ from the enterprise. I think it could be possible, from the corporate point of view, that VB programmers are less expensive than programmers using other tools. While I have no data to support this claim, corporation may think or at least have a preception that VB programmers are more plentiful and easier to train and thus cost less than programmers using other methods. Which may be driving some of the motion to bring VB to Linux. I say leave all VB stuff out of the Linux enviroment.

[reply] [top]

[»] It's just about VBA.
by Charles Duffy - Oct 14th 2000 12:55:05

None of these projects seek to bring the full Visual Basic environment to Linux. Their purpose -- check the home page of either -- is to make office software compatible with Visual Basic for Applications scripts.

This is a Good Thing. Scripts are used in lots of fancier spreadsheets/forms/etc to great effect. If we want people to make the transition easily, their documents need to load.

On the other hand, other scripting languages are already supported in the places where this will be used. Gnumeric already has scripting support for Python and Scheme, and I think a few more -- why not add VBA to the list, if it permits current users to easily switch to Linux? Anyone doing *new* programming will be better off doing Python, and so let them do.

Finally, remember -- open source works because a developer is scratching an itch. You can't just say, "no, don't scratch that one, we need you more *here*"; A person gets more done on a project they're interested in and enthusiastic about, so even if you could "assign" programmers to different projects, they wouldn't get nearly as much done that way.

[reply] [top]

[»] It's not about Office Compatablity....
by Gorkon - Oct 14th 2000 12:53:30

It's about having another, easy to use, already popular language on Linux. It's also about porting all of thos VB apps in use to Linux with ease. There are hundreds of VB apps that are in use besides commerical VB apps (quicken is one). Business uses alot of VB to get things done because of it's ease of use. Now if they could port those apps to Linux..... :)

More users for Linux, more drivers more recognition as a valid OS choice!

[reply] [top]

[»] Linux *needs* VB
by Displayed Name - Oct 14th 2000 12:41:55

There are thousands and thousands and *thousands* of VB programmers out there.

During my college degree, we did 3 years of VB and only 6 months of C++.

Yes, I know VB sucks hard (I prefer Delphi/Kylix), but if 99% of the programmers which switch to Linux to write VB programs are bad, we're still left with the 1% (how many thousand?) which are writing good programs which are useful.

The more people we have working to make the "jump" easier, the better. As Michael Johnson and Matthew Saffer has said - *yes* it'll be a hard conversion (the OS hooks, I imagine, must be almost impossible imitate), but once it's done a sufficient level, the community will gain a whole new group of people who had previously never given Linux a second look.

I understand and agree that Java is immeasurably superior to VB, but even with some of the best IDEs out there (JBuilder 3 is my personal favourite), it's not as accessible to newbies and amateurs.

Good luck to the VB hackers! :)

Regards,


--Paul "ThunderHud" Hudson

[reply] [top]

[»] Attracting MS users
by R. G. Mayhue - Oct 14th 2000 12:37:36

I have seen (in the past and present) many complaints about differant projects that involve porting or emulating MS products under Linux. Is this really such a bad thing?

While I use Linux for most of the same reasons that many of us do, my wish is to also see many more people discovering and using Linux as their OS of choice. How is that going to happen?

By bringing more people over from the MS Windows world. How do we do that?

We show them that Linux is not so hard to use by showing them a GUI and tools that look, feel and act very, very similar to the Windows GUI and tools that they are so familiar with. That is (IMO) exactly why KDE gives the user a GUI that can look and act very similar to the Windows GUI but also be configured to act very differantly. It is once the new user is easily using Linux and having fun with their new friendly OS that they start to look around at some of the things that exist in their new environment. Next they discover that the possibilities are endless and that computing can be both fun AND productive and the same time. Now we have them hooked! (At least that's what happened to me almost 3 yrs ago.)

Why is that so important?

Because the bigger the Linux user base becomes, the more willing hardware and software producers are to supply drivers and port or write software because they are seeing a possible profit instead of just a goodwilled donation to the Linux communtiy. Once this happens in a big way, we will all benifit.

Besides, although "I" would probably never use VB under Linux, there are people who will. So let them! Linux "IS" about choice and about learning. Something the people working on the project are doing, learning! Who knows, they might discover something along the path that may prove to be very benifical to us all, but they never would have if the project hadn't existed. Who knows!

That is and aways will be the Linux way. People doing what THEY want to do, and haveing the right to do it. Freedom in it's simplest form. For me that simple freedom is one of the biggest reasons Linux is so attractive.

Everything that makes Linux what it is now and what it will become is a direct result of the people who work with it. And the more people that discover Linux and come onboard, the bigger and bigger the possibilities become.

All of this means attracting MS users in any way we can. Even if it means porting MS VB to Linux. Every little bit helps!

Thanks for letting me share my $.02

Have a great day everyone!

[reply] [top]

[»] It is NOT windows...Please don't make it
by Alex - Oct 14th 2000 12:37:28

If you have the time to waste, I guess that is one thing. But the part that sucks is when other people start using the same "technology" in their applications. Then we in the Linux world will be plagued by the same stupid crap that haunts the windows world; all because someone had the time to waste.

[reply] [top]

[»] Why corporations use VB
by Eric Fialkowski - Oct 14th 2000 12:16:25

Many corporations need apps quickly. This is somethng VB excels at. Anyone with a minimal amount of programming knowledge can turn out a fairly professional looking GUI program in a matter of days. Faced with the need for quick turn around times, a plethora of "average" programmers looking only to make big bucks not good programs, and the fact that end users don't understand "proper" software engineering techniques, VB becomes a very good tool for them.
I'm not advocating VB's use. I used it, became pretty good at. and then promptly hit a brick wall of "you can't do that in VB". I have a saying, there are only average VB programmers. It does enough for you to make poor programmers average but it also ties the hands of decent programmers.
So, why are people trying to bring VB to Linux? If we want Linux to suceed in the mainstream, we need to provide the same functionality that exists in the mainstream. Good or bad. If we get them over to Linux, maybe they'll look into other "better" languages.
Personally, I'd rather have Java take over and would like to see more work put into Java tools and components.

[reply] [top]

[»] IDE? Done.
by Leon Brooks - Oct 14th 2000 12:04:38

Neuron.com's Visual TCL project has had a VB-like IDE for years. Total size of project? 120KB. Eat code, suckers! (-:

I can't imagine doing the same thing in Python or any modern language to be too hard. Translating VB is not hard, since there ain't many concepts to translate (the ASP2PHP project already has the hard parts well squared away).

As the nice man says, what do we want to drag all of this DCOM crap along for? If you need compatiblity, write an interface layer to something decent (Bonobo?) for now: later you can take a big knife to the translated code and make it perfect. Which you will want to do in any case to take advantage of the genuine OO features of the target language.

[reply] [top]

[»] Are "We" the Borg?
by Rob Dale - Oct 14th 2000 11:58:51

It is disturbing it when someone starts some project that involves porting
an 'old' or 'poor' technology to Linux and people say "we shouldn't
be wasting our time with this." Well, who the hell asked you?
They're not using any cycles from you. They're not even asking you
to contribute. People will work on what they want to work on.
Isn't that part of the spirit of Open Source - the ability to do what
you want?

Support your fellow Open Source hackers regardless of age, race,
sex, creed, or project.

--
-- Rob

[reply] [top]

[»] Well said
by B. Wayne Lewis - Oct 14th 2000 11:52:14

I worked for a corporation that was enamored of VB. We tried to depoly several large client-server apps via DCOM over an all NT network. It was a mess. VB is just too weak for serious application development, but the IDE is fantastic. The Linux community would be wise to heed your advice.

[reply] [top]

[»] VB on Linux - Java on anything
by Andy - Oct 14th 2000 11:51:00

I've been using java now for 2 years. I have completed a couple of smallish projects with VB, but previous development was mainly C/C++.

If its breadth of functionality you want, IMHO, Java's a great alternative.

From PDA programming, to Enterprise its all there.

Corba (and RMI) give you the equivelant to COM/DCOM, and are open standards.

Networking is a breeze.

There are several excellent IDE's (I've been using JBuilder for the last few months) that have all the functionality of the VB one - many of them are low cost or free to use, under differing conditions.

There are a couple of V1.3 JVMs available for Linux now, and many OS's have VMs for them (www.blackdown.org)

Component oriented development using beans
Enterprise development useing EJBs (ok, so a little more difficult to get your head round, but once written the work on any J2EE compliant app server (see www.javasoft.com/j2ee and www.jboss.org for another GPL'd product)

Database access is pretty standard stuff with JDBC. Most leading DBMS's have drivers (including MySQL & PostgreSQL)

Web programming is impressive with java servlet and JSP technologies (see javasofts site, java.apache.org for links to the JServer servlet engine and GNUJSP engine and jakarta.apache.org)

Forms based programming is available in most modern IDE's, and Java is no exception.

Easy multi-threading, comms support the list is endless.

This diversity of support also leads to a great potential for code re-use, and I don't even have to recompile to put it an another platform.

IMHO its important to experiment and, at the end of the day, people will use what they need/want - and quite rightly so. However, there is a wealth of different technologies to choose from, at different price tags and compatabilities. Java meets most of mine.

Andy.

[reply] [top]

[»] Is it such a bad thing?
by Matthew Saffer - Oct 14th 2000 10:35:56

I personally despise VB, I moved to C after 1 year of VB, and I appreciate the better control. But learning VB was crucial to my later education in C. What's my point? Visual Basic is a horrible language, yes, but it is perfect for beginners, or people who are just mild programmers, and do it for a hobby and don't want to get into low level programming. I think that VB in Linux might actually help bring average Windows users over who use windows for VB, and Web Surfing.

[reply] [top]

[»] Delphi / Free Pascal
by Michael Johnson (Father) - Oct 14th 2000 10:24:22

BTW, Delphi had the IDE before VB (little note) way back in the Turbo-days of Pascal... and TPW (Turbo Pascal for windows)..

FreePascal and Lazarus represent an open version of RAD tools you are looking for, and are relatively easy to use... even for someone whose been livin the MS life too long...there are MANY cross-platform tools available and Delphi/Kylix will be one more... everyday you could probably find another.

The thing is, developers are trying to find ways to open their bosses eyes to open software, to get away from MS and take the leap. But you can't walk into a meeting and say "Hey, Let's use Linux!" when you have a bunch of VB coders... they'll sit in front of the KDE/Gnome login (or shell login), and say.. ok.. now what. EVEN if it is 75% the same, they'll still balk. For such a "Forward" industry, we thrive on people who can not adapt very well. So the idea is, I'm guessing, "If I make a tool they can sit down and use immediately, then they'll use it".

Not to "dumb down" linux, but to make it accessible. Thats what all the API's and interfaces are about... Make it possible to use ANY scripting language... or code language.

I agree, I hate VB much, but I use it because by customers want it. I also use Delphi, and C... but I've got a few running Interbase 6.0 on Redhat, and slowly getting others into the idea of open source... they have to be comfortable that if lightning strikes me today, they can find someone quickly who can do the same work tomorrow.

[reply] [top]

[»] stuff
by squidinkcalligraphy - Oct 14th 2000 10:22:57

VB is a bad language to learn on. Puts u into bad programming habits from the start.

Having said that, it does have a lot of advantages as mentioned. But the work in progress on GUI tools for linux (Glade, VDKBuilder, etc) are a much nicer way (IMHO) of doing a IDE without binding it to a specific language or OS. Sure, put BASIC bindings into it if people want it. I think any attempt to port VB to linux will fail unless the entire windows API is ported, and hey, why bother? use Windows for that. People that want to port VB apps to linux will probably have to to a fair bit of modification anyway, why not port it all the way into a real language?

Linux isn't (to me) about redoing windows (as KDE seems to be trying to do) - its about an OS that takes the best bits from whats around or makes new better ones from scratch. Unfortunately MS seems to have instilled into a lot of people's heads that windows is the _only_ GUI.

[reply] [top]

[»] On the money - Innovation not duplication
by Jonathan - Oct 14th 2000 10:21:12

What is the point of attempting to duplicate a flawed product (MS-VB) and failing? Applications like VB are very difficult to duplicate primarily because of issues related to OS hooks, libraries, and GUI facilities. There is no one in the Open Source community with the resources and interest to duplicate both the form and function of VB. No GNU/Linux based attempt at duplicating VB will ever catch up with the MS product. Duplicating the language is easy, but duplicating the functionality in such a way as to not make us look worse for having done a half assed job is very, very difficult.

On the other hand there are valuable things to be learned from this product. In particular having an easy to use rapid prototyping tool for developing full featured client applications which leverage native GNU/Linux platform features. By using a combination of OO Python, GTK, Gnome, Postgres in a well designed Rapid Application Development IDE targeted at the casual client application developer GNU/Linux would have a major jump start into the corporate application deployment world.

[reply] [top]

[»] AppleSoft Basic for Linux and Perl for Windows
by buggymac - Oct 14th 2000 10:05:50

The real mistake is to port PHP and MySQL for Windows. Portable is the key for all of stuff on Earth, including the MP3 music.

If you think VB is not a good stuff, now they have chance to trial, maybe this is the way to help them give up their VB life.

Lets see.

[reply] [top]

[»] Putting anything mainstream on Linux is a good thing
by Frank V. Castellucci - Oct 14th 2000 09:43:28

With OS/2 (which in measurements of "success" has languished for years), the biggest cries were "Where are the apps?". For whatever reasons, the opportunity to make the popular apps available on OS/2 was never seized.

So bring VB on over and, in the process, clean up the "bad" aspects as pointed out by the author. You can have a technologically superior OS, but without the development support you don't have the developers, and without those...

It is not feasible to tell everyone to switch to Python or some other language just because you don't like VB.

[reply] [top]

[»] MS Office compatibility
by nuno amaral - Oct 14th 2000 09:11:37

My question is: "Do we need/want that level of compatibility ?"
I ask myself, how many of the Office users use VB to add something to their docs (I know i'm thinking more of word than excel/access, but these can be handled diferently) ?
I know for sure that one of the not so minor issues this will bring are all the virus, worms, macros, wich is undesirable. If this efforts were concentrated in wine/freevmware for instance, one can use MS own office viewers to see those documents. There's also the foundation to create native viewers in wv (former mswordview, now going to be integrated in OpenOffice)

I'm not all against VB anyway, because I believe if there are people working in it is because they want to use it anyway and that what freedom is all about. I know I won't but it's up to them anyway.

Well those were my 2 cents, I hope I maked any sense because I'm not fully awaked yet

[reply] [top]

[»] One reason: MS Office compatibility
by Alan Shutko - Oct 14th 2000 08:43:37

To have complete Office compatibility, you need VB. That's the only reason that various projects are working on clones, to the best of my knowledge.

[reply] [top]

[»] you people make me laugh
by John Hooper - Jul 12th 2002 11:58:48

I have written programs in almost every language, from LISP to Assembler over 20 years. If you want to live in your "hacker" delusions because you only code in C, more power to you -- but please stop making all of your ignorant comments about Visual Basic.

I remember all the ranting about the VB runtime, and then along came Java and the very same people started waxing poetic about the virtues and portability of the Java runtime, Oooo Oooo Oooo what a great thing it is to have a runtime! Look at the advantages!

There is a reason why nobody uses Linux: it sucks. It won't even install. It is cryptic. Sure, sure, it makes for a fast server -- and that's where it belongs. No non-technical human being wants to use it on their desktop, and they never will because of people like YOU. TechnoSnobs.

C is for compilers and operating systems. Visual Basic is the best application language ever created, and tens of thousands of excellent applications have been written in VB in 10% of the time it would take in even C++ with libraries, much less some crappy GNU compiler that won't even install.

What you are saying is that Linux does not need a good applications language. I guess that explains the lack of Linux applications now, doesn't it?

This is why Microsoft is laughing so hard at the Linux community. Linux will never compete with Windows on the desktop. It is about as much of a threat as Netscape. Hey, did you notice how nobody uses the great "open source" version of Netscape, opting to stay on the old one?

Does that give you a clue?

I doubt it.

Thanks for wasting your time on Linux and Python, it allows me to make a ton of money with Windows and Visual Basic. Just keep sitting in your trailer eating cheese puffs and telling yourself "I'm a REAL programmer!" BWAHAHAHAHAAA!

[reply] [top]

---

[»] Re: you people make me laugh
by mike - Aug 1st 2002 04:28:11

i registered on this site just to be able to reply to your message....have you been following news lately? Microsoft still acknowledges Linux ( and IBM) as the main threat... regarding vb, it is ok for a desktop application programming but when you do serious stuff i doubt you can have all the necessary characteristics for an application...SCALABILITY, SECURITY, MAINTAINABILITY, STABILITY... you cant say that you are so successful that you laugh at other programmers...you might one day realize how good other programmers are doing cheers

[reply] [top]

---

[»] Re: you people make me laugh
by Nemesis - Aug 21st 2002 05:29:50

I registered on this site just so I could reply to YOUR message. While Microsoft might consider Linux a mild threat, its to it's Server market share. Desktop users aren't moving to Linux for one reason: Applications.
There's a severe shortage of decent Linux applications, and most of the ones that do exist are second-rate.

Example: Microsoft Office -- In the days I *was* using Linux, I rebooted to Windows for important documents. Linux Office suites lack the functionality.

Example: Visual Basic -- I'm a Visual Basic programmer. Jeer all you want. I removed my Linux partition because It was wasting space. Until there's a working VB port on Linux, don't expect me back.

As for stability and VB, it's not even an argument. I've seen countless, countless, C++ programs fall over because of memory leaks, overflows, or a stray triple-pointer.

Besides, why fight? Is everything a fight to the people in the Open Source community?
Redhat vs. Debian. KDE vs. Gnome. Even as bold as to tell some people what NOT to write. Perhaps instead of squabbling you should work to make Linux something worth fighting for.

[reply] [top]

---

[»] Re: you people make me laugh
by mike - Aug 30th 2002 09:25:36

clarifications first:
1. i am not a linux user and although ive tried red hat
i finally abandoned it...but i might try again one of these day..
2. i am not in here for a fight, but yes i advocate open-source
3. i am not talking about just c++ in terms of comparison with VB


What microsoft did right is hook up users, developers, God knows even governments :) so you might say there is a lack of applications for linux its because there are more developers for the windows platform and obviously because its much easier. But remember the trade-off between ease of use and control. You can see it everywhere, when you are given more power, more options things will definitely get more complex but if you are given just a switch (on and of for example) its easier to use but no much power.
Speaking of threats, microsoft cant live long with desktops alone, now that we are getting more connected by the day. C'mon, open your eyes and see that microsoft has been invading the 'server-side' with their sql server, passport, .net,etc which are geared for the enterprise. Linux also is trying to capture desktop as well as server market shares, big blue is already everywhere, can this be threats enough?
Anyway, one day im gonna contribute something to open-source as well as linux.

[reply] [top]

---

[»] Re: you people make me laugh
by Akiti - Feb 8th 2003 11:42:38

Lest some one be mistaken, let me first clarify that I am no MICROSOFT lover - thought I am a great lover of the BASIC language. I simply love its interpreter, the IDE, etc,etc,etc.
I have had more than 10+ years experience in programming - having used from low level asm to various high level languages, I agree with you.
My have you seen some of the Most wondrous flames against BASIC on these pages -- especially from the C lovers looking throught the most taineted yellow glasses - who can seem to like a programming language unless they see those most beautiful braces {{{{ }}} . Hey sorry I forgot to have a closing }
Well for the C lovers, if it is real speed or code size I am interested in, I use assembly - and not C or C++. A large part of my coding is done in BASIC + some speed critical requirements in asm. This gives me more than what any C programm can. Gone are the days when Computers had less memory and less speed and C seemed a good choice. In fact today C would be a bad choice - it you are time conscious. I have found BASIC to be very good RAD tool. Most of my useful stuff has been done in BASIC. Yes, you are right to say : " lots of excellent applications have been written in VB in 10% of the time it would take in even C++ with libraries"
About buggy code - that C programmers almost always seem to bring up -- well I have seen the most buggy programs written in C and the like. Have you ever heard that Windows 95 has than 3000 plus ( should I say 3000++ ) bugs marked out.
Yes BASIC was also criticised for the run times by some poeple. And yes, when JAVA came along, the same people did sing out great praises for the JAVA runtimes. I was most surprised myself...Oh my !!! do they have any shame.
Certain limitations do exist in BASIC - not because the language is bad, but because of MICROSOFT. This is where I think KBASIC can drop in. I am ready to switch to LINUX development -- I only I get the same ease in development that I have had in BASIC. ( Yes BASIC has spoilt me )
A BASIC program of equal functionality to that of a C program can be written with just 10% of the headache associarted with a C program. A language should be user friendly. Being cryptic is not a criterion that decides whether a language is a real programming language or not.
C has failed to attract me, inspite of promise of more power and speed. BASIC does give more than it takes. By letting go 5% of programming power ( which isnt really much useful for most of us by the way ) I can realise doing much more using BASIC itself. I do not fancy myself as - "a real C or whatever programmer" - who can count those brackets or spend time digging out the bugs . I do not intend to live under false delusions of being a real programmer
The most useful work in by most business / mathematicians / scientists is not done in C. It is done in BASIC - simply they do not have all that time or money to waste on some other crypyic language - BASIC gives them easy - BASIC they will use - inspite of what other say. Yes, I my opinion it is BASIC thats the language that will live -- whether C user will like it or not.

[reply] [top]

---

[»] MAKE IT BETTER FAST EASYER AND SMALL>>>>
by Hassle - Oct 30th 2003 06:06:08

Bring Microsoft VB, or VS to Linux
BAD IDEA.
I understand that your only Brining the Script or Whatever. But still, people Say well Linux Now has VB Im changing Over then.
They End Up going to Linux then seeing that VB (Which is KB) is Not the same. Under Stand This VB Compiles .EXE Files And Other DLL,OCX,CH. and More.
Linux Has no Use for them Files There Would be no Reason to Put them on KB so You Would not then you get these people writing out there Program and Thinking Cool them They goto Compile it, they think whats the hell is this and what did i get myself into.
I only thing I can think for Linux Would Be good Make a New Type Of Programming For LINUX ONLY. something, Fast, Small. Easy, User Friendly, GUI, IDE, RAD. Everything you guys talk about. but for Linux.
they Can be Easy or Hard to make its just what you want it to be and do, ( I would want it to be the best)
Young People Want to Something easy to use and easy to learn. If linux give them there own version of this people may want linux more and more.
I made a GUI base Programming tool, They are Very Easy to Make and I did it With Note Pad and Borland Turbo De-Bugger And My Own Compiler. Called it TMK its and small app to let people program game cheats in windows, using Hex editing and easy commands, Simple yet powerful, I even added tools and such.
They are easy to Make It just want you want it to do for you. the easyer the code the longer it takes and the harder the code less time. If you want to do it so that other people dont mess things up, then use Easy code to get people to come over and check it out. and people like to code easy and fast. they will come to see it.

Think With the World the Way it is and Microsoft Doing the things its doing (trying to keep up with Linux) Releasing Windows 2003 Server Ed. Right After Red Hat Released there Red Hat EnterPrize Server. People See that Microsoft you never see Linux unless your looking at it.

anothor thing I have used C builder and compilers in Linux and Windows and everything. I can Write a Program for Windows In Linux and Compile in less them 10 Minutes Most the Time, (large programs) In windows I use the Same Code Takes Over 40 Minutes to do the same thing, Linux is faster and if they do bring VB/KB to linux it will be a lot faster then on Windows Its just the OS slowing things down.



[reply] [top]

---

[»] VB on Linux
by Arthur Abon - Jan 5th 2006 23:35:05

I think its a good idea - if done right. Meaning, you don't take the entire thing and drop it unto Linux. You get what you must out of it while leaving the clutter behind.

The IDE - as pointed out before - is superb, I do not think there is any richer IDE that can compare other than that of Powerbuilder's.

Power-wise, Basic is a rich language all its own - plus the addition of VB and VB.NET syntax make for the beginning of the OOP revolution in Basic (of course everyone else is already into aspect oriented programming :p ).

Anyone can name a bunch of things that C++ or Java can do that Basic can't - but I betcha Basic programmers spend half the time doing what little Basic can do than a C++ programmer would, doing the same tasks.

Besides, VB was built as a RAD tool - while C was made as a powerhouse to replace ASM and B. Its like telling me that a plane is infinitely faster (performance-wise) than a bike. Then I go, "Ok I'll race you down the street". Betcha, you haven't gotten through customs yet by the time I get there.

It's 2 different tools for different purposes. You can't say a spoon is the best kitchen utensil if you can't cut a turkey with it. Same goes for C and Basic - no comparisons there.

So please enough on the flames to VB already! Don't hate the language because of Bill Gates, give it a chance to evolve and let it bring over more developers to the Linux fold.

--
Arthur Abon

[reply] [top]

---

[»] VB on Linux
by m1423 - Apr 17th 2006 20:10:42

My idea is if you want to keep Linux free of VB.NET code and still support VB.NET programmers is create a decent IDE(maybe a clone of Microsoft's) that allows debugging and ect. of VB.NET code but convert it to C in the background.Another possiblity is to make the IDE only put out windows executables that can be run in the IDE using something like WINE. This way if a VB.NET programmer finds themselves in a situation where they only have a Linux system available they can load up the IDE and still get work done on their project. This is just a possible comprimise .

[reply] [top]

---