[Mono-list] I want to get in on this.

Bob Salita Bob_Salita@SoftworksLtd.com
Wed, 11 Jul 2001 10:07:37 -0500

We are talking about two different things. From a compiler writers point of 
view, the most difficult problems in writing a VB6 compiler must be recoded 
for VB.Net (typelib interface - considerable recoding), lots of new stuff 
must be added. Then there's all that testing stuff. Lots of work.

I would guess converting a VB6 to VB.Net compiler is half again as much work 
as VB6 was. If Mono needs a GB.Net compiler, my advice is start from scratch 
today and in parallel with GB.

From a VB programmers point of view, the current consensus is that it is so 
difficult to convert VB6 to VB.Net, it isn't worth the effort. So the 
majority of VB6 code will never move until MS makes the process a whole lot 
easier -- which may happen.

The platform API's difference is just one of many differences and not 
necessary in the most difficult group since the implementation details are 
very well known.

I consider VB6 and VB.Net the same language in name only.

Regarding the use of a yacc-like parser for VB6, its quite problematic. So 
don't use one.


> > > This is incorrect. The VB.NET language is mostly compatible with VB6's
> > > dialect of the VB language. It is possible to produce a VB6.NET and a
> > > VB.NET compiler in fact although the vastly different platform
> > API in VB6
> > > might pose some serious problems.
> >
> > How can they be "mostly compatible" and have "vastly different APIs"?
>The syntax & semantics of both languages are "mostly compatible". One is an
>evolution of the other.
>The platform APIs are different. One was targetted at Win32, the other at
>the .NET platform.
> > The may be syntactically similar (but by no means the same), but
> > this is only
> > superficial. VB.NET is an entirely new, different language.
>Not at all. It is just the latest iteration of VB from MS.
>Mono-list maillist  -  Mono-list@ximian.com

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com