Visual Basic 6
-
C# and VB.net applications can easily be decompiled. Is there any way to protect the application made in .net from decompilation.
gold
there are obfustication tools available to hide your code. DotFusticator Community edition is bundled with Visual Studio. As wit all such tools, some are free, and will stop the casual code thief, after that you pay for what you get.
If you have knowledge, let others light their candles at it. Margaret Fuller (1810 - 1850) [My Articles] [My Website]
-
I don't know the specifics, as far as I remember VB6 runtime should be included with weven / 7 / windows vista whatever the hell it is now, but they have said it is a dead, unsupported language. Time to port to .net my friend.
Check out the CodeProject forum Guidelines[^] The original soapbox 1.0 is back![^]
-
VB6 is rubbish. Why on earth would you still be using it ? It's been a dead language for almost a decade.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Sadly, I have. And Microsoft agrees with me, that's why they killed it. VB.NET was going to be a lot LESS like VB6, before all the VB6 retards jumped up and down. They knew it was beyond redemption and set out to start again.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Yes, he has, as so have I. It is garbage compared to .NET.
A guide to posting questions on CodeProject[^]
Dave Kreskowiak Microsoft MVP Visual Developer - Visual Basic
2006, 2007, 2008
But no longer in 2009... -
Sadly, I have. And Microsoft agrees with me, that's why they killed it. VB.NET was going to be a lot LESS like VB6, before all the VB6 retards jumped up and down. They knew it was beyond redemption and set out to start again.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Microsoft made a good decision to start everything from scratch. Apart from the basic language syntax, everything is different in VB.NET, adding to this was the unhelpful MSDN which made the transition for VB6 programmers a really tough one. That is why many programmers were reluctant to switch over to VB.NET (and consequently to .NET) Despite all this, IMHO, I still feel that VB6 was not bad enough to be called "rubbish". If you consider pre-.NET era alone, you would appreciate why I made this point.
-
Yes, he has, as so have I. It is garbage compared to .NET.
A guide to posting questions on CodeProject[^]
Dave Kreskowiak Microsoft MVP Visual Developer - Visual Basic
2006, 2007, 2008
But no longer in 2009...Dave Kreskowiak wrote:
It is garbage compared to .NET.
I wouldn't agree with you although I admit that it was a lot "less" than .NET that a comparison itself is not warranted. But most people will agree with me that in the pre-.NET era, we did not have many choice as far as RAD tools were concerned.
-
Microsoft made a good decision to start everything from scratch. Apart from the basic language syntax, everything is different in VB.NET, adding to this was the unhelpful MSDN which made the transition for VB6 programmers a really tough one. That is why many programmers were reluctant to switch over to VB.NET (and consequently to .NET) Despite all this, IMHO, I still feel that VB6 was not bad enough to be called "rubbish". If you consider pre-.NET era alone, you would appreciate why I made this point.
VB6 was only ever useful for people who wrote apps in a very narrow band, and for people who could make up the shortfall by using C++ COM dlls to do the real work.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Dave Kreskowiak wrote:
It is garbage compared to .NET.
I wouldn't agree with you although I admit that it was a lot "less" than .NET that a comparison itself is not warranted. But most people will agree with me that in the pre-.NET era, we did not have many choice as far as RAD tools were concerned.
Shameel wrote:
But most people will agree with me that in the pre-.NET era, we did not have many choice as far as RAD tools were concerned.
Yes, pre .NET the basic choice was RAD or real programming.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Microsoft made a good decision to start everything from scratch. Apart from the basic language syntax, everything is different in VB.NET, adding to this was the unhelpful MSDN which made the transition for VB6 programmers a really tough one. That is why many programmers were reluctant to switch over to VB.NET (and consequently to .NET) Despite all this, IMHO, I still feel that VB6 was not bad enough to be called "rubbish". If you consider pre-.NET era alone, you would appreciate why I made this point.
Shameel wrote:
That is why many programmers were reluctant to switch over to VB.NET (and consequently to .NET)
No, not really. The switch was never made because businesses didn't want to spend the money on rewriting apps that were already written in VB6 and worked.
Shameel wrote:
Despite all this, IMHO, I still feel that VB6 was not bad enough to be called "rubbish". If you consider pre-.NET era alone, you would appreciate why I made this point
Yeah, it's still garbage because it used error handling constructs that were 15 years old at the time, had very limited support OOP concepts, terrible interoperability support with native functions of Win32 and third party libraries, and limited support with everything else "Windows".
A guide to posting questions on CodeProject[^]
Dave Kreskowiak Microsoft MVP Visual Developer - Visual Basic
2006, 2007, 2008
But no longer in 2009... -
Dave Kreskowiak wrote:
It is garbage compared to .NET.
I wouldn't agree with you although I admit that it was a lot "less" than .NET that a comparison itself is not warranted. But most people will agree with me that in the pre-.NET era, we did not have many choice as far as RAD tools were concerned.
Oh, you mean C, C++, Delphi, PowerBuilder, Java, ...
A guide to posting questions on CodeProject[^]
Dave Kreskowiak Microsoft MVP Visual Developer - Visual Basic
2006, 2007, 2008
But no longer in 2009... -
Yes, he has, as so have I. It is garbage compared to .NET.
A guide to posting questions on CodeProject[^]
Dave Kreskowiak Microsoft MVP Visual Developer - Visual Basic
2006, 2007, 2008
But no longer in 2009...:confused::confused::confused:VB6 is not a garbage. vb6 applications cannot be fully & easily decompiled, whereas .NET Applications can be easily decompiled to get the original source code. We have to use some third party expensive Obfustication tools for protecting our code. Although Obfustication does not protect the code completely. Even after Obfustication the code is decompiled. Source: Google.:confused::confused::confused:
gold
-
:confused::confused::confused:VB6 is not a garbage. vb6 applications cannot be fully & easily decompiled, whereas .NET Applications can be easily decompiled to get the original source code. We have to use some third party expensive Obfustication tools for protecting our code. Although Obfustication does not protect the code completely. Even after Obfustication the code is decompiled. Source: Google.:confused::confused::confused:
gold
So learn C++, what do you want, this is a choice you make when designing an application, not when already writing one.
Check out the CodeProject forum Guidelines[^] The original soapbox 1.0 is back![^]
-
:confused::confused::confused:VB6 is not a garbage. vb6 applications cannot be fully & easily decompiled, whereas .NET Applications can be easily decompiled to get the original source code. We have to use some third party expensive Obfustication tools for protecting our code. Although Obfustication does not protect the code completely. Even after Obfustication the code is decompiled. Source: Google.:confused::confused::confused:
gold
So you really want to put up with poor contructs and design restrictions to gain code protection? That's all?? You don't have to protect your entire codebase in an application. You really only need to protect business logic and data access. The rest is just UI stuff that really doesn't need protection. If it's that damn critical, you've even have to obfuscate the VB6 code. Face it, ANY code can be decompiled back to some form that is usable by a hacker. So what if they can't get the VB6 source back, they can still use a C equivilent that a decompiler can output of your VB6 app. And yes, there are tools out there that will defeat .NET Reflector. IMHO, what you gain from .NET greatly outweighs the "protection" you get when using VB6.
A guide to posting questions on CodeProject[^]
Dave Kreskowiak Microsoft MVP Visual Developer - Visual Basic
2006, 2007, 2008
But no longer in 2009...