”We have read all of the comments on this thread and I’d like to thank you for providing your constructive feedback on this issue. Instead of merely repeating our support and migration guidance that has been laid out on http://msdn.com/vbrun, I’d like to address some of your specific comments here. To play back the feedback themes we’re hearing: - VB6 is awesome - VB6 needs to be brought forward and maintained: in a new release or OSS VB6 was and still is without a doubt awesome. VB6 made developers incredibly productive building a breadth of applications and as a result we have a wealth of applications and passionate developers to this day in 2014. One way I see our mission in developer tools is to empower developers to solve problems. This includes both today’s problems AND the problems of tomorrow. VB6, as you all have stated repeatedly in this thread, is an excellent tool for solving the problems of its day. We also stand behind our decision starting in 2002 to meet the current demands of our developers and the industry with .NET. For the scenarios VB6 set out to do, we see VB6 being “complete”. We feel good about VB6 being able to continue maintaining their applications for the past 15 years. Current needs ranging from distributed applications and services, to web applications and services, to devices, to new architectures and languages, required fundamental changes to the whole stack. We looked at how we could accommodate these needs through incremental changes to VB6 while maintaining its essence, and that was not possible. To address the modern needs we would need to go far beyond updating the language. We have to remember that VB6 is not just a language. VB6 is a language, a runtime, a platform library, a tool/IDE, and an ecosystem tightly packaged together in a way that made all of them work well together. We’ve worked with many customers on migration from VB6 to .NET and found that while yes, there are language changes, the dominating factor in migration difficulties isn’t the language differences. Even open sourcing the language/runtime wouldn’t solve the fact that VB6 was thought for a different set of problems, and the fact that its strength came from the end-to-end solution provided by all these five pieces working together. Take a change like 64bit, the complete runtime, tools and ecosystem chain would need to be retooled. So, moving forward what can we do? Where we have been able to help move forward is in our stance around support and interoperability. The VB6 runtime it is still a component of the Windows operating system and is a component shipped in Windows 8.1. It will be supported at least through 2024. This ensures your apps and components continue to run as you incrementally move forward to .NET. The support policy is here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/vstudio/ms788708. There are numerous interop strategies that we developed and evolved to enable incremental migration as you upgrade your skills, described here: http://msdn.com/vbrun. In summary, VB6 was awesome. We agree. We don’t expect or demand anyone to throw away their code or rewrite from any of our technologies unless it makes business sense for them to do so. We have to innovate to enable our customers to innovate. It is not a viable option to create a next version of VB6. We stand by our decision to make VB.NET and the .NET Framework. We think they are awesome too. It is not feasible to open source VB6 tools chain and ecosystem. The VB6 runtime was last shipped in Windows 8.1 and will be supported for the lifetime of Windows 8.1. Support and interop are great tools to move forward incrementally. I hope you feel we’ve listened to your feedback and that I’ve explained things well enough that you understand our decision. Paul Yuknewicz Group Program Manager Microsoft Visual Studio Cloud Tools”
Analysis on Paul Yuknewicz message:
Frequency
and top words :
|
Word
|
Occurrences
|
Frequency
|
Rank
|
|
our
|
9
|
2.4%
|
1
|
|
language
|
6
|
1.6%
|
2
|
|
you
|
6
|
1.6%
|
2
|
|
net
|
5
|
1.3%
|
3
|
|
forward
|
5
|
1.3%
|
3
|
|
your
|
5
|
1.3%
|
3
|
|
runtime
|
5
|
1.3%
|
3
|
|
tools
|
5
|
1.3%
|
3
|
|
applications
|
5
|
1.3%
|
3
|
|
problems
|
5
|
1.3%
|
3
|
2
word phrases frequency :
|
Expression
|
Expression count
|
Frequency
|
Prominence
|
|
we have
|
5
|
0.8%
|
57.1
|
|
and the
|
4
|
0.6%
|
49.8
|
|
applications and
|
4
|
0.6%
|
73.6
|
|
windows
|
3
|
0.5%
|
12.5
|
|
it is
|
3
|
0.5%
|
17.3
|
|
move forward
|
3
|
0.5%
|
20.5
|
|
is not
|
3
|
0.5%
|
24.8
|
|
as you
|
3
|
0.5%
|
41.4
|
|
support and
|
3
|
0.5%
|
43.2
|
|
http msdn
|
3
|
0.5%
|
45.8
|
|
for the
|
3
|
0.5%
|
46.8
|
|
the language
|
3
|
0.5%
|
48.6
|
|
vb6 was
|
3
|
0.5%
|
49.5
|
|
vb6 is
|
3
|
0.5%
|
65.8
|
|
to
|
3
|
0.5%
|
73.5
|
|
to innovate
|
2
|
0.3%
|
13.3
|
|
be supported
|
2
|
0.3%
|
16.4
|
|
will be
|
2
|
0.3%
|
16.5
|
|
in windows
|
2
|
0.3%
|
17.3
|
|
shipped in
|
2
|
0.3%
|
17.4
|
|
to enable
|
2
|
0.3%
|
17.6
|
|
vb6 runtime
|
2
|
0.3%
|
18.9
|
|
the vb6
|
2
|
0.3%
|
19.1
|
|
and ecosystem
|
2
|
0.3%
|
21.8
|
|
here http
|
2
|
0.3%
|
22.5
|
|
net and
|
2
|
0.3%
|
28.7
|
|
a component
|
2
|
0.3%
|
30.7
|
|
have to
|
2
|
0.3%
|
34.6
|
|
there are
|
2
|
0.3%
|
35.2
|
|
to net
|
2
|
0.3%
|
36.9
|
|
our decision
|
2
|
0.3%
|
41.5
|
|
to do
|
2
|
0.3%
|
41.9
|
|
is a
|
2
|
0.3%
|
41.9
|
|
fact that
|
2
|
0.3%
|
42.6
|
|
the fact
|
2
|
0.3%
|
42.8
|
|
of our
|
2
|
0.3%
|
43.7
|
|
need to
|
2
|
0.3%
|
46.8
|
|
would need
|
2
|
0.3%
|
46.9
|
|
that vb6
|
2
|
0.3%
|
49.2
|
|
able to
|
2
|
0.3%
|
50.8
|
|
a language
|
2
|
0.3%
|
53.8
|
|
com vbrun
|
2
|
0.3%
|
56.1
|
|
msdn com
|
2
|
0.3%
|
56.3
|
|
problems and
|
2
|
0.3%
|
59.8
|
|
changes to
|
2
|
0.3%
|
61.1
|
|
to be
|
2
|
0.3%
|
62.4
|
|
services to
|
2
|
0.3%
|
64.2
|
|
and services
|
2
|
0.3%
|
64.3
|
|
of the
|
2
|
0.3%
|
64.5
|
|
vb6 being
|
2
|
0.3%
|
68.1
|
|
in a
|
2
|
0.3%
|
69.2
|
|
all of
|
2
|
0.3%
|
74.2
|
|
to address
|
2
|
0.3%
|
74.7
|
|
problems of
|
2
|
0.3%
|
75.6
|
|
the problems
|
2
|
0.3%
|
75.7
|
|
in
|
2
|
0.3%
|
76.6
|
|
developers to
|
2
|
0.3%
|
80.1
|
|
of applications
|
2
|
0.3%
|
82.8
|
|
this thread
|
2
|
0.3%
|
86.3
|
|
vb6
|
2
|
0.3%
|
87.6
|
|
like to
|
2
|
0.3%
|
94.3
|
|
i’d like
|
2
|
0.3%
|
94.4
|
|
on this
|
2
|
0.3%
|
96.4
|
Details of Writer: 39 year old Male
Date/Time: 9 February 2015, 1:10 pm
Date/Time: 9 February 2015, 1:10 pm
| LIWC Dimension | Your Data | Personal Texts | Formal Texts |
|---|---|---|---|
| Self-references (I, me, my) | 4.32 | 11.4 | 4.2 |
| Social words | 7.90 | 9.5 | 8.0 |
| Positive emotions | 2.83 | 2.7 | 2.6 |
| Negative emotions | 0.30 | 2.6 | 1.6 |
| Overall cognitive words | 5.96 | 7.8 | 5.4 |
| Articles (a, an, the) | 6.41 | 5.0 | 7.2 |
| Big words (> 6 letters) | 26.23 | 13.1 | 19.6 |
The text you submitted was 671 words in length.
Reading Text ...
Reading Ease
A higher score indicates easier readability; scores usually range between 0 and 100.
Readability Formula Score Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease 67.8
A higher score indicates easier readability; scores usually range between 0 and 100.
| Readability Formula | Score |
|---|---|
| Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease | 67.8 |
Grade Levels
A grade level (based on the USA education system) is equivalent to the number of years of education a person has had. Scores over 22 should generally be taken to mean graduate level text.
Readability Formula Grade Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 7.2 Gunning-Fog Score 10.8 Coleman-Liau Index 10.7 SMOG Index 8.2 Automated Readability Index 6.7 Average Grade Level 8.7
A grade level (based on the USA education system) is equivalent to the number of years of education a person has had. Scores over 22 should generally be taken to mean graduate level text.
| Readability Formula | Grade |
|---|---|
| Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level | 7.2 |
| Gunning-Fog Score | 10.8 |
| Coleman-Liau Index | 10.7 |
| SMOG Index | 8.2 |
| Automated Readability Index | 6.7 |
| Average Grade Level | 8.7 |
Text Statistics
Character Count 3,047 Syllable Count 999 Word Count 676 Sentence Count 49 Characters per Word 4.5 Syllables per Word 1.5 Words per Sentence 13.8
| Character Count | 3,047 |
| Syllable Count | 999 |
| Word Count | 676 |
| Sentence Count | 49 |
| Characters per Word | 4.5 |
| Syllables per Word | 1.5 |
| Words per Sentence | 13.8 |
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)