4 ms·

Exploring Visual Basic 1.0 for MS-DOS

41 points by marcodiego 5y ago

tomcam 5y ago
It was a neat product, largely ignored even at Microsoft. Likewise for their QuickPascal product.
pcdoodle 5y ago
I still think VB 6.0 was the most productive IDE for small businesses that didn't have the budget for a software department. We still run VB6 code that is delightful to use (CRM with a almost restaurant style map of customer repairs and their physical location)
- marcodiego 5y ago
  Delphi was great too. It is a good thing we have gambas basic and lazarus-ide today.
- hahamrfunnyguy 5y ago
  > VB 6.0 was the most productive IDE for small businesses that didn't have the budget for a software department. This is one of the reasons I really dislike working on old VB apps. Some guy who worked for the company 20 years wrote an app in VB6 and they had an intern port it to VB .NET a few years later. The code is spaghetti and no one knows is left that even worked on the app. Beyond that, no one really knows how it is supposed to work but they they're using it to run their business. That's been my experience with just about every single VB application that needed to be maintained or moved to a new platform. Granted, the same probably holds true for any application that's developed in an ad-hoc manner with no planning or requirements. VB just make that approach particularly easy.
  - tonyedgecombe 5y ago
    That's not specific to VB, there is a lot of legacy code out there.
h2odragon 5y ago
Even though they had a pair of great BASIC compilers, IIRC VB/DOS didn't include the ability to create a standalone .EXE file. It was a "bytecode" compiler with a required "VM/Interpreter" runtime that was rather large. This was about the time that Microsoft was buying up all the 3rd party BASIC libraries and pulling the redistribution licenses from customers, too.
- p_l 5y ago
  The article shows the process to generate a standalone EXE file even ;) (It's one option switch in compilation)
- pjmlp 5y ago
  VB only got a proper native code compiler on VB 6.0, which was when it got support to produce COM libraries just like C++, until then it could only consume them. Ironically it was taken away with .NET (NGEN was only designed for quick startup scenarios), then got it again with .NET Native (again dropped), and may finally get it back in .NET 7 (lets see if they actually deliver it).
  - Koshkin 5y ago
    Curiously, according to Wikipedia, A free, downloadable Control Creation Edition [of Visual Basic 5.0] was also released for creation of ActiveX controls. Visual Basic 6.0 was the best thing since sliced bread.
    - pjmlp 5y ago
      Indeed, although I think on VB 5, only IDispatch was supported given the ActiveX references. https://news.microsoft.com/1996/12/11/microsoft-visual-basic-5-0-control-creation-edition-launches-explosion-in-component-market/ https://news.microsoft.com/1996/12/11/microsoft-visual-basic...
- wdb 5y ago
  What about PDS Basic?
wan23 5y ago
VB for DOS was pretty awesome. It was essentially the final evolution of QuickBasic, which many people were exposed to by the QBasic version that came with MS-DOS systems.
the_only_law 5y ago
Wow, wasn’t aware it originally ran on DOS, but it looks pretty cool. I may have to find a copy somewhere and play around with it.
- lproven 5y ago
  It wasn't originally on DOS. VB 1.0 was released for Windows 3.0 in 1991; VB for DOS followed the next year, the same year that Windows 3.1 came out. MS bought in a graphical drag-and-drop forms designer called Ruby, written by Alan Cooper in 1987: https://computerhistory.org/profile/alan-cooper/ https://computerhistory.org/profile/alan-cooper/ It coupled this to its existing BASIC to create VB: http://www.ojodepez-fanzine.net/network/qbdl/history_of_visual_basic.html http://www.ojodepez-fanzine.net/network/qbdl/history_of_visu...
tonyedgecombe 5y ago
Turbo Pascal[1] with Turbo Vision[2] was nicer. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo_Pascal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo_Pascal [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo_Vision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo_Vision
- pjmlp 5y ago
  Kind of, while more powerful and proper native code, it lacked the drag and drop experience. Even Turbo Pascal for Windows with Object Windows Library lacked it. Only with Delphi did Borland properly surpassed VB. And with C++ Builder they provided a similar experience for C++ that remains quite unique. Sadly their mismanagement scared many devs away, including their own.

41 points by marcodiego 5y ago

It was a neat product, largely ignored even at Microsoft. Likewise for their QuickPascal product.

I still think VB 6.0 was the most productive IDE for small businesses that didn't have the budget for a software department. We still run VB6 code that is delightful to use (CRM with a almost restaurant style map of customer repairs and their physical location)

marcodiego 5y ago
Delphi was great too. It is a good thing we have gambas basic and lazarus-ide today.
hahamrfunnyguy 5y ago
> VB 6.0 was the most productive IDE for small businesses that didn't have the budget for a software department. This is one of the reasons I really dislike working on old VB apps. Some guy who worked for the company 20 years wrote an app in VB6 and they had an intern port it to VB .NET a few years later. The code is spaghetti and no one knows is left that even worked on the app. Beyond that, no one really knows how it is supposed to work but they they're using it to run their business. That's been my experience with just about every single VB application that needed to be maintained or moved to a new platform. Granted, the same probably holds true for any application that's developed in an ad-hoc manner with no planning or requirements. VB just make that approach particularly easy.
- tonyedgecombe 5y ago
  That's not specific to VB, there is a lot of legacy code out there.

h2odragon 5y ago

Even though they had a pair of great BASIC compilers, IIRC VB/DOS didn't include the ability to create a standalone .EXE file. It was a "bytecode" compiler with a required "VM/Interpreter" runtime that was rather large. This was about the time that Microsoft was buying up all the 3rd party BASIC libraries and pulling the redistribution licenses from customers, too.

p_l 5y ago
The article shows the process to generate a standalone EXE file even ;) (It's one option switch in compilation)
pjmlp 5y ago
VB only got a proper native code compiler on VB 6.0, which was when it got support to produce COM libraries just like C++, until then it could only consume them. Ironically it was taken away with .NET (NGEN was only designed for quick startup scenarios), then got it again with .NET Native (again dropped), and may finally get it back in .NET 7 (lets see if they actually deliver it).
- Koshkin 5y ago
  Curiously, according to Wikipedia, A free, downloadable Control Creation Edition [of Visual Basic 5.0] was also released for creation of ActiveX controls. Visual Basic 6.0 was the best thing since sliced bread.
  - pjmlp 5y ago
    Indeed, although I think on VB 5, only IDispatch was supported given the ActiveX references. https://news.microsoft.com/1996/12/11/microsoft-visual-basic-5-0-control-creation-edition-launches-explosion-in-component-market/ https://news.microsoft.com/1996/12/11/microsoft-visual-basic...
wdb 5y ago
What about PDS Basic?

wan23 5y ago

VB for DOS was pretty awesome. It was essentially the final evolution of QuickBasic, which many people were exposed to by the QBasic version that came with MS-DOS systems.

the_only_law 5y ago

Wow, wasn’t aware it originally ran on DOS, but it looks pretty cool. I may have to find a copy somewhere and play around with it.

lproven 5y ago
It wasn't originally on DOS. VB 1.0 was released for Windows 3.0 in 1991; VB for DOS followed the next year, the same year that Windows 3.1 came out. MS bought in a graphical drag-and-drop forms designer called Ruby, written by Alan Cooper in 1987: https://computerhistory.org/profile/alan-cooper/ https://computerhistory.org/profile/alan-cooper/ It coupled this to its existing BASIC to create VB: http://www.ojodepez-fanzine.net/network/qbdl/history_of_visual_basic.html http://www.ojodepez-fanzine.net/network/qbdl/history_of_visu...

tonyedgecombe 5y ago

Turbo Pascal[1] with Turbo Vision[2] was nicer. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo_Pascal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo_Pascal [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo_Vision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo_Vision

pjmlp 5y ago
Kind of, while more powerful and proper native code, it lacked the drag and drop experience. Even Turbo Pascal for Windows with Object Windows Library lacked it. Only with Delphi did Borland properly surpassed VB. And with C++ Builder they provided a similar experience for C++ that remains quite unique. Sadly their mismanagement scared many devs away, including their own.