3 ms·
Did you forget Visual Basic? That was a COM-consuming, easier to use language.
by lmz 2y ago
Did you forget Visual Basic? That was a COM-consuming, easier to use language.
- giancarlostoro 2y agoI low-key wish they would open source the compiler so the open source community could make an attempt at rebuilding the IDE. I have heard they cannot open source all of it, wish they would open what they can.
- chungy 2y agoYour wish is granted. https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn
- lmz 2y agoMy guess is they want VB6, not VB.NET.
- giancarlostoro 2y agoCorrect. There was something really nice about VB6 not needing any special runtime, just bundle any DLLs or OCX files you need and you're golden.
- chungy 2y agoMemories of missing vbrun60.dll come to mind. (or whatever the name of its runtime was)
- giancarlostoro 2y agoIt was an installer, installed all the DLLs, which if you bundled with your application, meant you were golden to run it as-is. Though you are technically correct that you need them, I think my statement still stands: You just need to bundle the required DLLs and OCX files and you're golden. https://www.betaarchive.com/wiki/index.php?title=Microsoft_KB_Archive/192461 https://www.betaarchive.com/wiki/index.php?title=Microsoft_K...
- chungy 2y agoThat's not very comforting for the dozens of times (that I personally experienced) that the developer didn't make sure it was "golden" and instead left a headache on the end user.
- rbanffy 2y agoAs long as you used the bundled installer, everything worked. If you didn’t, you’d need to bundle extra components but, IIRC, component selection was automatic - any DLLs, VBXs, and OCXs used would be detected and bundled. I think the installer itself was licensed from a third party.
- pjmlp 2y agoOnly after version 5, VBX weren't COM.