←back to thread

377 points porterde | 7 comments | | HN request time: 1.306s | source | bottom
Show context
makmanalp ◴[] No.42142286[source]
Oh my GOD I have to comment. This is how I learned to program as a kid.

I found a copy of "Write Your Own Adventure Programs" (1983 - Usborne: https://colorcomputerarchive.com/repo/Documents/Books/Write%...) as a kid in my primary school's bookshelf. I remember the code was written in BASIC and my family didn't really own a computer back then.

Fast forward a few years later I saw this "Visual Basic" thing and thought it would be similar ... it was, but only sort of. I had no book to learn from at first so I remember clicking through every single menu and button available to see what it did. Then I remember using our dialup to download every possible 3rd party VB form control and throwing them in a Form to see what they did. I don't know why I found this entertaining enough to keep doing it.

Eventually by copy pasting and changing stuff I was able to write some basic "homework helper" programs: calculate the area of a circle and stuff like that. Soon after I tried to look up tutorials which taught me basic win32 programming to do things like have an icon in the status area next to the clock, and then hiding my window to run in the background and make annoying sounds so I could build a silly little prank program to install on my friend's computers which was fun but often would fail because they were missing some .dll file which wouldn't fit on the same floppy.

It could be frustrating at times but also I feel so blessed to have lucked myself into learning programming this way and my parents pretty much just letting me do whatever I wanted to this expensive device that probably was not a small thing for us to afford at the time.

Even tutorials felt more fun at the time, it'd be "hypnoMan37's windows registry tutorial!!! HEyyeyeyy Guuyzs :-)))) gzgzgz to my irc channel #blabla on EFNet! so first you call RegistryCreateNewKey32(...." because god knows I did not have an MSDN CD either.

Learning via a code camp feels way more efficient but also so much more dry in comparison. I wonder if there isn't a substantial cost to boring the newbies to death.

replies(9): >>42142679 #>>42142859 #>>42143066 #>>42143457 #>>42143619 #>>42144259 #>>42147804 #>>42148463 #>>42155834 #
rd07 ◴[] No.42144259[source]
We have similar experience with VB6, though I was the opposite. Instead of reading a book about BASIC, I was reading a book about VB.NET.

My first interaction with Visual Basic was through VBA in MS Word. The first time I opened it, I know that it was a place to code, but I don't know what kind of code I have to type. I don't know any programming language at that time.

And then sometimes later, I found a VB.NET book at a bookstore. I was overjoyed at that time, and immediately tried it on VBA to be dejected because the code didn't run at all. I still remember how I several times, until I swear that if the last trial I do also didn't run, I will give up. Fortunately, it does run!!!

Turns out, I didn't know that the VBA on MS Word in my computer is based on VB 6 while my book is about VB.NET. The code is a little different, and that's why my code didn't run.

After that, I bought every book I can find about VB 6. I also somehow stumble upon a VB 6 IDE installation on my relatives CD stash, and installed it on my computer.

And till today, I still think that VB 6 GUI Builder is the best I have ever tried.

replies(2): >>42145854 #>>42153651 #
1. mmerlin ◴[] No.42145854[source]
twinBasic.com is a revamp of VB6 using current tech
replies(1): >>42146393 #
2. 1oooqooq ◴[] No.42146393[source]
why all those products keep backwards compatibility with vb6?!?

it's this a niche for some industry? or all those products are aimed at people's nostalgia of running their old programs?

replies(2): >>42148467 #>>42148531 #
3. sigzero ◴[] No.42148467[source]
Maybe. I have a friend that only does VB6 programming support even today. He seems to be doing okay with it.
4. wvenable ◴[] No.42148531[source]
VB6 is arguably the most popular and influential version of Basic it only makes sense to keep backwards compatibility with it. Why would anyone not want that from their Visual Basic clone?
replies(1): >>42156670 #
5. 1oooqooq ◴[] No.42156670{3}[source]
because that's immensely backwards! what if vb3-6 had the same syntax as msbasic and same ascii text based UIs? it wouldn't have been as popular.

these tools could be the modern vb6, having modern UX paradigms such as responsive design etc... yet it is just producing something one would use only for nostalgia or explicitly support for a niche market still needing actual vb6... which i didn't know existed till now.

replies(1): >>42158155 #
6. wvenable ◴[] No.42158155{4}[source]
There's nothing stopping anyone from building responsive UI components in this or even in Visual Basic itself. I thought were were talking about VB6, the programming language, not the UI toolkit. They are closely related but not necessarily the same thing.

Given that there are already other, more modern, languages and frameworks that do you want you describe I don't think there is a market for that kind of modern Basic. That's why nobody has done it.

replies(1): >>42163471 #
7. 1oooqooq ◴[] No.42163471{5}[source]
i don't think anything modern or not got even close to vb3-6 usability in creating practical UI programs.