VB.NET woes - should I use VB6 or C++

[Jim Dallas]

I have developed an Outlook com add-in using VB.NET (from a VBA demo),
but am finding that building a reliable install for Outlook
2000/2002/2003 is very tricky, due to
i) the need for primary interop (or recompiling outlook.interop)
ii) Because I don't really understand the relationships between all
the items that appear in the references (e.g. is it OK to mix COM
wrappers with GAC references)
iii) Because I don't know what the installer program ( I am building a
Visual Studio com add-in project)

I'm also finding the Visual Studio/VB.NET environment tricky as if the
references fail, then Outlook doesn't load the add-in, so I don't get
debugging, so I go back to the registry .....

My background is VB/VBA/C# - but not com/registry

The install is as an extension to a 3rd party product (which installs
Net 1.1 anyway) and I would like to have one install with no other
user intervention (e.g. pia), and preferably one code base across
2000/2002/2003

I've read up on this board and what Ken etc. have to say and can see 3
choices

i) Persevere with VB.NET
ii) Switch to VB6 (I have Vb5, but can pay the money if it saves time,
but what do I use for the installer ? - do I need to get wise or
installshield as well)
iii) Switch to C++ and really understand what's under the hood (I'd
really like avoid this if possible)
iv) Ignore the expert advice and write a well-behaved installer for
the original VBA project (which was faster and cleaner)

What do you recommend for my reliable install for Outlook
2000/2002/2003 add-in?

thanks
Jim Dallas

 

[Tom Winter]

I have developed an Outlook com add-in using VB.NET (from a VBA demo),
but am finding that building a reliable install for Outlook
2000/2002/2003 is very tricky, due to
i) the need for primary interop (or recompiling outlook.interop)
ii) Because I don't really understand the relationships between all
the items that appear in the references (e.g. is it OK to mix COM
wrappers with GAC references)
iii) Because I don't know what the installer program ( I am building a
Visual Studio com add-in project)

I'm also finding the Visual Studio/VB.NET environment tricky as if the
references fail, then Outlook doesn't load the add-in, so I don't get
debugging, so I go back to the registry .....

My background is VB/VBA/C# - but not com/registry

The install is as an extension to a 3rd party product (which installs
Net 1.1 anyway) and I would like to have one install with no other
user intervention (e.g. pia), and preferably one code base across
2000/2002/2003

I've read up on this board and what Ken etc. have to say and can see 3
choices

i) Persevere with VB.NET
ii) Switch to VB6 (I have Vb5, but can pay the money if it saves time,
but what do I use for the installer ? - do I need to get wise or
installshield as well)
iii) Switch to C++ and really understand what's under the hood (I'd
really like avoid this if possible)
iv) Ignore the expert advice and write a well-behaved installer for
the original VBA project (which was faster and cleaner)

What do you recommend for my reliable install for Outlook
2000/2002/2003 add-in?

thanks
Jim Dallas

I can't answer most of your questions, but if you want a good, reliable,
professional (and free) installer, check out Inno Setup (www.InnoSetup.com).
It has great support and works very well. It works great for VB6 installs
(which I use it for) and can do .NET stuff, though I have no experience with
it.

 

[Jim Dallas]

Tom - thanks for the installer reference - I'll take a look

To answer my own question - the simplest way I've found to do Outlook
add-in development seems to be to step back a few years - I think this
is what Ken has been hinting at

Use Win2k/VB5 EE/Office 2000 on a clean machine ( I recommend VMWare
to manage this and to manage install environments) - Use VB5 to create
an 'ActiveX dll', handle the registry yourself and remember to use
regsvr32 to register/unregister your dll when testing

You then need to install the dll, and any VB5 support (e.g.
msvbm50.dll etc.) - it would be nicer with no other Dlls, but that's
(non C) life

VB5 is so much simpler and faster than VB.Net - sigh

 

[Tom Winter]

You are very correct, but I would recommend VB6 instead of VB5.

 

[Ken Slovak - [MVP - Outlook]]

Most definitely use VB6 if available rather than VB5.

 

[Jim Dallas]

Interesting - what are the advantages ?
I can do what I need in VB5, and I initially chose it because it
didn't hide the registry work, so I had a clearer understanding. Apart
from obsolescence, why is VB6 a better choice for outlook add-ins
(rather than just in general)

thanks
jim

 

[Ken Slovak - [MVP - Outlook]]

My preferences are mostly general, I just like VB6 better than VB5.