

Microsoft won't "Bring back Classic Visual Basic" - acqq
http://pastebin.com/1rudmXTC

======
andyjohnson0
This seems to be a copy-and-paste of [1], which is dated December 2012.

I'm not sure why anyone would think that resurrecting VB6 is a good idea. If
com is the reason then VB.net does com interop just fine. But really its way
past time to move on.

[1] [http://visualstudio.uservoice.com/forums/121579-visual-
studi...](http://visualstudio.uservoice.com/forums/121579-visual-
studio/suggestions/3440221-bring-back-classic-visual-basic-an-improved-versi)

~~~
acqq
The response matters and is dated "June 03, 2014."

------
daigoba66
Primary source: [http://visualstudio.uservoice.com/forums/121579-visual-
studi...](http://visualstudio.uservoice.com/forums/121579-visual-
studio/suggestions/3440221-bring-back-classic-visual-basic-an-improved-versi)

------
yuhong
I once asked michkap on the now-dead blog about a new version of Classic VB
based on VBA 7 (used in Office 2010 and later). BTW, I wonder why LongLong
isn't in 32-bit VBA 7.

------
girvo
Is there really a market for "Classic VB" in 2014? I mean, hell, I have fond
memories of it (and learned DirectX using it, _shudder_ ) from when I was
young, but I honestly can't see any use-case for it these days that isn't
suited better by other languages, runtimes, and tools.

~~~
GnarfGnarf
You are overlooking the myriad legacy apps that are entrenched VB6. The owners
of these apps would like to graduate to 64-bit and Unicode, to satisfy the
customers that continue to use the apps and generate revenue. Without
rewriting a million lines of code.

~~~
sssilver
Their current problem seems like a fair price to pay for having used a
proprietary corporate-backed technology for something as fundamental as the
programming language.

I hope they'll learn. _Looks at C#_

~~~
yuhong
I think the .NET Framework will last a very long time though. Some part of
Windows itself depends on it for example.

