Bring back Visual Basic 6.0 ! We all need it.

Question

Please reconsider introducing VB6 to the market. It is needed by many.

Answer 1

Hi Reed,
Thanks for your two posts. Let me try to reply.
Discussion or Argument ?
You say "these forums are for discussions not arguments", and suggest that I want an "argument" or I am "trolling".
Yes they are for discussions and no it isn't the case that I want an argument (or that I am trolling). I am trying to have a reasoned discussion following the opening poster's genuine request to "Please reconsider introducing VB6 to the market. It is needed
by many."
I don't consider you treated him fairly. You have some sort of administrative status on this forum, implicit in that is that you should treat all posters equally and fairly. Yet your first post was "Bring back Windows 3.11, we need it. ......VB6 should
be retired and forgotten."  That post alone was unfair to the OP and it set the tone for other posts that followed.
In other posts you refer to "VB6 zealots" but never criticize those who oppose the return of VB6 even when they accuse posters of being someone else. (I'm not making a plea for more banning and more censorship, I'm asking that everyone be treated
equally).
You also say "At the end of the day it is a fool's errand to argue with fools, so there's little sense to continuing the 'discussion'". Hardly fair and equal treatment, and certainly not an encouragement of discussion rather than argument.
You also state "If this thread were meant to take itself seriously, it would have a title which was not so obviously false, and it would contain some content with a reasonable argument."  Again, the opening post was clearly a genuine call. You may
not agree with it but that is no reason to call it 'obviously false'.
Also the opening post doesn't even refer to VB.NET, it certainly doesn't suggest that VB6 should replace VB.NET - it is others who bring VB.NET into the argument. (And yet you move it to 'Off-topic posts' on the grounds it is not VB.Net related).
Let me state I am putting this forward as my genuine opinion of your actions, I am not attempting to 'troll', 'flame' or to attack you personally.
Valid arguments for VB6
You say Cor has clearly demonstrated there are no valid arguments for keeping VB6 around. Not so.
First of all the OP says "it is needed by many". Why should your and Cor's opinion be any more important than the OP's ?
Here are some reasons it is needed (I limit myself to just 5 otherwise this post will be huge):
1) VB6 is still widely used.  According to the TIOBE index it is the #7 most popular programming language - an amazing feat for a language last updated 16 years ago.  Particularly as Microsoft (& others) have spent 12 years trying to kill
it off. You may not like it, but there it is.
2) There are still a huge number of legacy VB6 applications in use, especially in corporates and government. Microsoft have (to their credit) recognized this and offer "it just works" support for the VB6 runtime until at least 2023 (soon to be extended).
But this support is for the runtime, not the IDE.
 Microsoft effectively offer 2 options for these VB6 applications
   a) If no modifications are required, continue running the VB6 application (presumably Cor disagrees with Microsoft).
   b) If modifications are needed, migrate to VB.NET. 
But in real life the most likely scenario is that the VB6 application will require a minor modification.
So what do you do ? According to Microsoft you migrate. But if the modification is just to change (for example) some text on a form that would be nonsense.  I saw a suggestion a while ago that it cost $1 for every 3 lines of code migrated.  So
a medium sized VB6 application could cost say $20,000 to migrate.  Clearly that is not an acceptable cost for the minor modification I suggested. (Don't get hung up on actual cost figures, I am just pointing out there are potentially significant
costs involved).
The obvious answer for this scenario is to use VB6 (at a cost of say $20 not $20,000). Yet Microsoft don't offer this, stating that the VB6 IDE is not supported on Windows 7 or 8. 
Does anyone disagree that doing minor modifications in VB6 is the only acceptable solution in this scenario? Or are some going to suggest it is better to spend $20,000 than $20 ?
Microsoft have painted themselves into a bit of a corner here, stating that they support unmodified VB6 applications until 2023, but you can't (theoretically) modify them.
For completeness on this point I'll cover some other typical scenarios too:-
One is that the VB6 program needs to become a web application - effectively this is then a re-write not a migrate, so you can decide what language is best to use. It may be, for example, that JavaScript/HTML5 is the way to go. (I've followed this route myself
for some old VB6 apps).
Another is that the VB6 application needs a mobile version. A few years ago that may have been VB.NET for Windows Mobile. (I've done that myself too, great for Windows CE/Windows Mobile 6.x). But doing this today you are really looking at iPhone,iPad
and Android - again you can choose the best approach (native or web app ?) and language.
The final scenario I'll mention is the one Microsoft do cover - migrate your desktop VB6 app to desktop VB.NET.  I can't think of any occasion in the last few years where I have found a genuine need to do this.  I have certainly seen cases where
IT (or whoever) have decided that VB6 apps must be migrated because VB6 is 'obsolete' (I guess a view not too dissimilar from many in this forum). I've even done a few of these myself (though I had the sense to only do smaller migrations, not wanting
to tie myself up with large scale migrations). I don't think of any of  these new applications (done by myself or others) were any better than the ones they replaced, but at least the customers were happy (and paid well).
3) VB6 is the same language as VBA. VBA is a current, Microsoft supported language. It is in Microsoft's flagship product Office 2013. And it is the same language as VB6. You can cut and paste code between VB6 and VBA (and vice-versa). It is the same
language.
Both VB6 and VBA use the Visual Basic Runtime Library. In fact it is more than that, VB6 actually uses VBA to define it's language. In effect the VB6 IDE is a host for VBA in the same way that Word or Excel are hosts.
It is strange that Microsoft support (and sell and extend) the language when it is named VBA but not when it is named VB6.
Microsoft say VBA will be supported for the foreseeable future stating "This means that if you have an existing VBA project that you are satisfied with, you can be confident your investment is safe". Where is the logic in having this for VBA but not VB6
They assure you your VBA investment is safe but won't give the same assurance for your VB6 investment.
(OK, for the more pedantic posters VB6 is the same as VBA6.  VBA7 is the latest release and includes a handful of modifications to support 64 bit Windows. Prior to VBA7 the languages were kept identical, it is these same modifications that many
of us now would like to have incorporated into an updated VB6).
4) A suggestion to bring back an improved version of VB6 is the fifth most popular (out of almost 8,000) on the Visual Studio UserVoice site. Vote
for VB6
5) Microsoft's program manager for Visual Studio stated (Channel 9) "It isn't cost effective to keep rewriting code to get back to functional equivalence".  Quite so. So why re-write existing VB6 applications ?  (Again, Cor presumably disagrees).
General Points
You mention LightSwitch and SmallBasic. A good point.  But I'm sure you know neither support VB6 code so it doesn't address the concerns of the OP.  But it is nice to see that you aren't opposed to all languages that aren't called 'VB.NET'.
So why the opposition to an updated VB6 ?  If you prefer, it could be named LightSwitch 6.1 rather than VB6.1 ? Or maybe SmallBasic 7.0 ? Or if you see VB6 as a threat to VB.NET you could name it VB Junior. As long as it can open and compile VB6
code that's fine by me. Incidentally, there is certainly no call for VB6.1 to be part of "the .Net family".
You say "you want these hard working people to DO MORE WORK so that you can continue to generate income from your ancient endeavors."   I'm not sure I see your point here.  How is asking for Microsoft to bring back VB6 (together with the modifications
they have already done for VBA7) doing that? I suspect Microsoft could do this for a fraction of the money they have wasted on LightSwitch or SmallBasic. And if it is going to be more work than Microsoft can handle (as if) they should open source
VB6.
You mention that your 8 year old website is 'crap'. Well, that's what happens with websites. But the analogy doesn't really hold for a typical VB6 desktop program. A desktop CRUD program written in VB.NET doesn't really look (or behave) any different
to the same program in VB6.
You ask what I will be doing in 5 years when nobody uses PCs anymore ?  Well who knows what the future will bring, but it is likely to be VB6 for those (mainly corporate) users still using desktops and laptops or Windows tablets, JavaScript for
Web apps - including iOS and Android - (I note Microsoft are recommending JavaScript/HTML5), and something (maybe Basic4Android ?)  for native Android apps if Android phones and tablets become more acceptable for corporate users. I'll probably
also be migrating my VB.NET apps to JavaScript too.
As things stand, Microsoft have sent a clear message: 'If you are planning to make a substantial investment in developing your software, if your application is mission-critical, if you expect to use it for years to come - don't use Microsoft languages.'
Have Microsoft learnt from this ? The killing of Silverlight would suggest not.