PDA

View Full Version : VSTO



Paleo
02-27-2005, 06:09 PM
Does any one is using VSTO with Excel yet? We can create terrific forms using it.

http://www.microsoft.com/brasil/msdn/images/Tecnologias/vsnet/artigoVSTO01.PNG

Learn more on http://msdn.microsoft.com/office/understanding/vsto/

You may download it from here http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/vs2005/

Ken Puls
02-28-2005, 09:57 AM
Okay, so we currently have 1 vote for Yes, and 7 for Whats VSTO anyway?

Since no one else has asked... Whats VSTO anyway? :dunno

Zack Barresse
02-28-2005, 10:41 AM
... Whats VSTO anyway? :dunno
http://www.vbaexpress.com/forum/articles.php ;)

And I voted Maybe. It was the closest thing to I have my fingers crossed and pray that they purse string controller gods relinquish their iron-clad grip long enough for them to buy themselves into my heart for a relatively small package which will ultimately help them in the end and increase their productivity .. ( breeeaaattthhee in ..). LOL!

Paleo
02-28-2005, 09:10 PM
Hi Ken,

yes , I think that article may answer your question and BTW what a text Zack! No breathing??

Well guys anyway I am just downloading VSTO to test it so in a few months I will be able to tell you all guys if its REALLY a must have app.

Ken Puls
02-28-2005, 10:41 PM
Hmmmm... pretty box... Microsoft logo... Looks expensive! Okay, seriously, I haven't really looked too deeply at it.

I'll wait for your review, Carlos, and then will have to investigate further! :)

Paleo
03-01-2005, 11:07 AM
Ok, Ken I just finished installing it and will start the tests, as soon as I have an opinion I will post it.

cmpgeek
03-01-2005, 12:58 PM
I have my fingers crossed and pray that they purse string controller gods relinquish their iron-clad grip long enough for them to buy themselves into my heart for a relatively small package which will ultimately help them in the end and increase their productivity .. ( breeeaaattthhee in ..). LOL!

My bigger problem would be if i called I.S. and asked them to install one more program on this PC... Last week when Felix was here trying to fix something he told me (yet again) that i have way too much "junk" on this system lol... i told him that i would gladly remove some if as soon as they decrease my job duties LOL...

i told him he just needs to walk into my boss's office and tell her that i need something bigger and better! LOLOL (now who is holding their breath...)

Paleo
03-02-2005, 10:19 AM
I think this is the most common problemm now-a-days. We always need a lot more software than we can arrange in our PC or than we afford (thanks I dont need to buy it anymore, MS gives it to me for free:thumb )


My bigger problem would be if i called I.S. and asked them to install one more program on this PC...

JonPeltier
03-06-2005, 07:57 AM
The question is, how many of you have clients using Office 2003, which is required for VSTO to run. In my case that's somewhere south of 10%.

- Jon

XL-Dennis
03-06-2005, 08:55 AM
C'mon guys - let's face the present situation:

VSTO is not ready for real world applications.

A good source that uncover all the limitations and bugs are "Professional Excel Development" by Bullen, Bovey and Green.
Except for that You must have Office 2003 Professional in order to use it.

Personally I dislike the extremely pushing for VSTO from MSFT and lot of people associated with them.

I can only hope that version 2.0 of VSTO and next version of Excel, 12.0, can work together much better.

Kind regards,
Dennis

JonPeltier
03-06-2005, 12:36 PM
My point exactly. If the clients aren't ready for it, it's premature to force it upon them. MS has been pudhing VSTO very hard, and there are some neat examples, but if you're developing solutions within Office, I don't see the point. Unless they remove VBA support (and they still support XLM!), there's no need for such an approach. I'm still using VB6 happily, for the times I need VB.

- Jon

XL-Dennis
03-06-2005, 12:41 PM
I'm still using VB6 happily, for the times I need VB.


Me too and even more my clients :yes

Last year one of my older clients asked me to build a solution based on VSTO. After two month we decided to drop the solution and I went back to VB 6.0
Still after nearly 11 months it's up & running :beerchug:

BTW, welcome to VBAX and it's nice to see You here.

Kind regards,
Dennis

WillR
03-09-2005, 04:05 AM
I'm still using VB6 happily, for the times I need VB.

- Jon

Ditto

Zack Barresse
03-09-2005, 10:21 AM
That really stinks - those VSTO requirements. One cannot argue the logic here.

Will: Great to see you again buddy!! Long time no see!! :)

Paleo
03-09-2005, 10:46 PM
C'mon guys, have you ever looked at .net framework? It's plenty of functions that simply dont exist on VBA or VB 6. Building solutions on VSTO is a lot more robust anyway because of what you can do and the way you can integrate it to another systems.

XL-Dennis
03-10-2005, 03:09 AM
Paleo,

Let see what next version of VSTO and Excel will bring :)

Yes, I've been working with .NET for the last 18 months and sure we can handle things better, smarter and smoother throught the Framework but as long as we lack possibility to solve present issues with VSTO / Excel I prefer VB 6.0 / VBA.

BTW, are You associated with MSFT in any way?

Kind regards,
Dennis

JonPeltier
03-10-2005, 06:21 AM
Here's a thoughtful commentary by Stephen Bullen, an Excel/VB expert, who has tried .Net with Office, and found it wanting. He writes about it in a chapter of the new book, Professional Excel Development. He also is involved in a campaign to encourage MS to revive Classic VB support.

http://www.dicks-blog.com/archives/2005/03/09/support-classic-vb/
- Jon

Paleo
03-10-2005, 11:28 AM
BTW, are You associated with MSFT in any way?

Hi Dennis,

gee I was reading my post and I felt it sounded a little rude so I apologize, I didnt mean that. I just think VSTO + Office (Excel/Word) + VS.Net have oppened a new world of possibilities for developpers, but of course they have their problems still.

No, I am not associated to MSFT directly but yes I am associated to MS. I run a users group and give some seminars.

BTW Jon I dont think VBA will die at least for the next 10 years or so, nor I have ever listened to anyone on MS that they ever planned to ban VBA out of office, so we will still having both.

Kind regards,

Carlos.

Brandtrock
03-10-2005, 12:00 PM
BTW Jon I dont think VBA will die at least for the next 10 years or so, nor I have ever listened to anyone on MS that they ever planned to ban VBA out of office, so we will still having both.


When MS rolled out VBA, they didn't "ban" the older macro functionality, they just let it wither on the vine. That sounds suspiciously like what they intend to do to VB6 and VBA. Although the internet communities like VBAX were not prevelant back when VBA took over, the effect of MS officially moving on will eventually force users to switch. This massive abuse of the end consumers trust is, in my humble opinion, a bad idea. This is the crux of Mr. Bullen's argument as well.

One of the first projects I got when I started my business a couple years ago was upgrading from the old macro style to VBA for a very large international vacation company's call center. Not difficult to do, but costly for them. The switch from VB/VBA to .Net technology is more difficult; therefore more costly as well; than the transition to VBA.

MS may have a visionary approach and see the need to go to a new technology. I won't argue with them, or anyone else for that matter, on the issue of whether the new approach is better/faster/more secure/needed or whatever. I simply think it is short sighted to leave such a large number of your customers blowing in the wind.

Just my :2p: worth.

Paleo
03-10-2005, 12:07 PM
Hi Brandtrock,

I agree on you about VBA, I think it should be incorporated at Visual Studio and then we could develop our macros with our old and good VBA AND we would be able to write EXEs and DLLs using VBA too. I just cant agree on VB 6. I believe its proposal is way too similar to VB.NET proposal and VB 6 is a lot worse so why keep it?? Lets keep VBA and VB.NET, but lets make then work the way we use VB/VBA today.

My humble opinion.

XL-Dennis
03-10-2005, 03:09 PM
Carlos,

No need to apologize but since You did it's accepted ;)

There are two keypoints from my point of view:

#1 MSFT must improve the interoperability between NET/VSTO and Office.

#2 MSFT must take their responsibility to let developers maintain and to some extend keep some possibilities to develop in the "old" language VB.

Every product has a life-cycle and sooner or later it will reach its end so it's not a question of trying to ask MSFT to maintain VB 6.0 just to fit our needs and wishes.

With the focus on and the hard pushing of VSTO one can only hope that MSFT pay attention to the group of VBA-developers and upgrade coming Office to a modern platform for developing. The present VB-editor is from about 93 and no improvements have been made since then. It would be a welcome contribution to get it upgraded as well as what we can do with it.

For many VBA-developers it will propably be a too large gap to adapt VB.NET compared with VB 6.0. VB.NET is a total different platform and it's based on OOP (Object orientated programming) which VBA lack.

Of course VB.NET is much better then VB 6.0. We finally have OOP, SEH (Structured Error Handling) and classes (no need for Windows API) etc but there is also a responsiblity that MSFT must take.


Kind regards,
Dennis

Paleo
03-11-2005, 08:53 AM
Hi Dennis,

yes, you right they should pay more attention to the VBA IDE and I believe they might because VSTO is a reality (or not) just for Excel and Word, but what about Access, PowerPoint, Outlook, and many others even from not MS producers like Corel, etc?

I agree on you that changing from an event oriented language (VBA) to an object oriented is not as fast as we would want but the benefits are great. So why not adapt VBA?

VB 6 -> VB.NET
VBA -> VBA.NET

Wouldnt that be great??

JonPeltier
03-11-2005, 02:10 PM
Carlos -

It sure sounds great. But VB6 -> VB.Net was hardly a smooth transition. VBA interfaces smoothly with VB6, not so with VB.Net. VSTO only works with some versions of Excel, and downgrading VBA will only defer some customers from upgrading to the next Office. Many of my customers are still using 2000, because they perceived 2002 and 2003 as so much additional baggage with no real benefits. This was without facing a large learning curve that VSTO and "VBA.Net" would entail.

I think VBA will be around a long while. Excel was Microsoft's killer app, and so they've kept alive support within recent versions for XLM, which hasn't been upgraded since Excel 5. A good thing they've continued support, too, because XLM does some things that VBA can't. Who knows what VBA can do that VB.Net/VSTO can't? (Rhetorical question: I've seen the lists.)

The bigger question for all you .Net hopefuls: If you're going to have to learn a nearly completely new language (VB.Net), why not go all the way and learn C#? One major advantage of VB was the ability to develop a significant app pretty quickly, but VB.Net has lost that advantage. But it has a number of disadvantages w.r.t. C#.

- Jon

Paleo
03-11-2005, 03:06 PM
Hi Jon,

as VSTO is valid only for Word and Excel VBA wont die in the near future. So I totally agree on you with this statement

I think VBA will be around a long while.

I just cant agree on this

If you're going to have to learn a nearly completely new language (VB.Net), why not go all the way and learn C#?
VB.NET isnt a completely new language and the learning curve to VB.NET is way smaller than to C# for VBA developpers.

You can do exactly the same things using VB.NET or C#, you just need to code differently.

What are the disadvantages of VSTO? Did you check this article?
http://www.vbaexpress.com/forum/articles.php?action=viewarticle&artid=6

JonPeltier
03-11-2005, 03:43 PM
Hi Carlos -

Well, now I have read your article. I agree that on paper there are many advantages to VSTO. The first demo I saw (two years ago) was pretty impressive.

My comment about VB.Net being a different language was based on an introductory course I audited. There were hundreds of things you had to keep track of that were unnecessary in VBA and ClassicVB, and while the language looked the same, that was deceiving. You would get into something, it looked familiar, but the old comfortable ways out were not there.

I've heard that the learning curve for C#, while steeper than for VB.Net, is not too much more difficult. I've also heard that some things which are routine in C# are hard to impossible in VB.Net. This is all hearsay, but I got it from programmers and instructors, not from Joe's blog.

Chapter 22 of the new Bullen-Bovey-Green book covers VSTO pretty thoroughly, and discusses advantages and disadvantages. The most notable problem is that VSTO mishandles customized locales, but there are a host of other usability issues.

I know that sometime, in Excel 12 or 13, I'll be doing VSTO and VBA.Net and all that. But there's no reason to switchover just yet.

- Jon

Paleo
03-11-2005, 03:56 PM
Hi Jon,

yes you right as Elvis songs ("Only the fools rush in":giggle ) its not time to rush in VSTO. Its not a great tool yet but we can start playing with and then when its great we will be used to it already.

I have learned VB.NET pretty fast (experience with VB 6 and VBA, prior to start learning), but C# wasnt so fast to learn as its based on C/C++ which has a slightly different syntax. Doesnt even seen logic for VB developpers.

At the beggining I believed C# was a lot better and easier than VB.NET, then someday I went to a Microsoft seminar and stated that for the presenter. He laughed on me and said "you are completely mistaken, should study harder". After that he said "choose anything you do in C# and I will do it in VB.NET for you right now". I asked for a couple of things that I was convinced were impossible in VB.NET and he did them, so other people started asking for things and he did them all.

Well, that day I learned there are plenty more things we can learn than what we read on the web. I am still not great on VB.NET but a lot better than I was and now I figured out we MUST know the .net framework if we ever want to get in this world because the power resides on the framework and not the language we choose. So I would say the best language is the language you feel more confortable with, and this is it. It may be VB.NET, C#, Pascal, Cobol, Delphi, or any other, you choose the language and start coding. Sure for VSTO only VB.NET and C#, AND as I heard VB.NET is better for VSTO still, because there are some problems using C# in it.

Howard Kaikow
03-11-2005, 04:33 PM
VSTO may give an idea of what's in store for a fully .NET-ized Office, but until that day comes it is oh so much easier to automate Word using VB 6, not to mention that VB 6 can be used with Office 97 and up.

More interesting may be, in the short run, to use VB .NET (or C# if one is a masochist) to automate Office 97 and up.

Office 2003 and Office XP have a MSFT supplied PIAs.
In theory, one could use VB .NET with Office 97 and Office 2000, but without an official PIA, I would refuse to even try.

Andrew Whitechapel's book Microsoft .NET Development for Microsoft Office has a wealth of info on using C# with Office 97 and up.

As I have stated elsewhere, I started reading the book and converting the code to VB ,NET. It's painful, but a good way to learn some more about C# and a better understanding of .NET stuff.

XL-Dennis
03-11-2005, 04:49 PM
The bigger question for all you .Net hopefuls: If you're going to have to learn a nearly completely new language (VB.Net), why not go all the way and learn C#?

One major advantage of VB was the ability to develop a significant app pretty quickly, but VB.Net has lost that advantage. But it has a number of disadvantages w.r.t. C#.


You can develop a "quick & dirty" app with VB.NET. Although I still prefer to do it in Delphi 4.0 (!). Like creating exe-files around 18 KB and it does not need to include 8 MB systemfiles to get it up & running...

I'ts funny that programming nowadays is subject to the tools we use. In the past we learned programming. The tools was not in focus as it seems to be today.

C# is part of the OOP-world which make it difficult for any VB/VBA-programmers but less complicated if You have learned programming from a general stand.

So if we have backgrund in general programming it really doesn't matter if the tool is VB.NET / C# / Delphi / or what so ever.



In theory, one could use VB .NET with Office 97 and Office 2000, but without an official PIA, I would refuse to even try.


You can create the PIA's yourself but as You say why bother when we still can do it with a twist in VB 6.0 and get both reliable and stable solutions.



As I have stated elsewhere, I started reading the book and converting the code to VB ,NET. It's painful, but a good way to learn some more about C# and a better understanding of .NET stuff.


I agree but unlike Bullen, Bovey and Green's book it does not point out any of the disadvantages with VSTO just carrying out the VSTO-message. Now I remember! It's published on MS Press...

This end my interest on the subject but I recommend everyone to "pop over" to Dick's blog and read Mike_R's excellent post with some interesting technical aspects.

Kind regards,
Dennis

Howard Kaikow
03-12-2005, 09:24 AM
You can develop a "quick & dirty" app with VB.NET. Although I still prefer to do it in Delphi 4.0 (!). Like creating exe-files around 18 KB and it does not need to include 8 MB systemfiles to get it up & running...

I'ts funny that programming nowadays is subject to the tools we use. In the past we learned programming. The tools was not in focus as it seems to be today.

Programming concepts have not changed at all for 40+ years.

The tools that are provided nowadays just eliminate/reduce the overhead of doing the actual programming.


C# is part of the OOP-world which make it difficult for any VB/VBA-programmers but less complicated if You have learned programming from a general stand.

If one understands the OOP aspects of VB/VBA, unless one really wants to get deeper, there is not that much of a conceptual difference between VB/VBA and VB .NET (or any of thge other NET languages, syntactic differences aside).


So if we have backgrund in general programming it really doesn't matter if the tool is VB.NET / C# / Delphi / or what so ever.

In general, yes, but:

1. Most folkes who call themselves VBA programmers are not really programmers.

2. Syntactically, VB .NET is far easier to use for working with VBA than is C#, it's not even close. So if one already knows VB/VBA, it is foolish to ignore VB .NET. If one does not know VB/VBA, VB .NET is still easier to use if the prime goal is to work with VBA.





Creating PIAs oneself turned out to be not a good way to go. That's why MSFT issued the Office XP PIA.

It makes no sense to migrate to .NET and use anything earlier than Office 2003.

[quote
I agree but unlike Bullen, Bovey and Green's book it does not point out any of the disadvantages with VSTO just carrying out the VSTO-message. Now I remember! It's published on MS Press...

Not correct.

Bullen's books have never been published by MSFT Press.

Most authors kiss MSFT's arse, that's no surprise.

The Andrew Whitechapel book is published by MSFT Press and Andrew Whitechapel is a MSFT employee.

He states several times in the book that VB .NET is a better tool or Office DEVELOPMENT, then in other parts of the book, he speaks out of the other side of his mouth and tries to convince us that C# is better.


This end my interest on the subject but I recommend everyone to "pop over" to Dick's blog and read Mike_R's excellent post with some interesting technical aspects.

Kind regards,
Dennis

Me too.
No time for such discussions.

XL-Dennis
03-12-2005, 09:34 AM
I referred to Andrew Whitechapel book as being published by MS Press and as far as I know all books published by MS Press support MSFT no matter what.

For furhter comments about BBG's book please see:
http://vbaexpress.com/forum/showthread.php?p=18285#post18285

Kind regards,
Dennis

Howard Kaikow
03-12-2005, 09:53 AM
I referred to Andrew Whitechapel book as being published by MS Press and as far as I know all books published by MS Press support MSFT no matter what.


Sorry, I misread the auntiecedent.

Paleo
03-12-2005, 08:20 PM
Well guys, this stands pretty well at free will choice. I used to build ASP pages using VB Script because its very similar to VBA that I like, then I found out VB.NET which made me write very smaller code to achieve the same results, so if at least in the future VSTO does the same for VBA as ASP.NET did to ASP we should consider it as a viable option.

Here you may find tips on converting code from VBA to VB.NET.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/odc_vsto2003_ta/html/VBAConvert.asp

Howard Kaikow
03-12-2005, 09:47 PM
Well guys, this stands pretty well at free will choice. I used to build ASP pages using VB Script because its very similar to VBA that I like, then I found out VB.NET which made me write very smaller code to achieve the same results, so if at least in the future VSTO does the same for VBA as ASP.NET did to ASP we should consider it as a viable option.

Here you may find tips on converting code from VBA to VB.NET.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/odc_vsto2003_ta/html/VBAConvert.asp

VB .NET is technically superior to VB in every way, especially due to the Windows Forms.

I think the main concerns are:

1. How easy is MSFT going to make it to port VBA to VB an equivalent in VB .NET, i.e., macros could be in VB .NET instead of VBA.

2. Will MSFT provide a way to protect code at least as well as the protection afforded by compiling a VB 6 DLL? I'll be pleasantly surprised if they do.

Paleo
03-13-2005, 09:05 AM
Hi Howard,



2. Will MSFT provide a way to protect code at least as well as the protection afforded by compiling a VB 6 DLL? I'll be pleasantly surprised if they do.

Why do you think it would be different using VB.NET? You can still create a DLL.

I think the main problem is to force the user to have .Net Framework installed on his/her computer in order to use a VB.NET DLL.

Howard Kaikow
03-13-2005, 11:14 AM
Hi Howard,



Why do you think it would be different using VB.NET? You can still create a DLL.

I think the main problem is to force the user to have .Net Framework installed on his/her computer in order to use a VB.NET DLL.

a .net dll is a different critter.

4 the next few weeks, i will not be posting to forums.

Paleo
03-13-2005, 09:26 PM
4 the next few weeks, i will not be posting to forums.

Gee, I hope this has nothing to do with my posts...