*Mark Gardiner
Post 11 of 12

Re: Use AutoCAD 2000 VBA or upgrade to AutoCAD 2006 for VBA .NET?

02-17-2006 07:18 PM in reply to: Tony.
"James Maeding" wrote in message
any reason why using classic VB6 is not a good choice?
I am curious if its going to be around for a long time or not. You would
think not, but it seems to be living on
despite what MS is doing...
I would rather learn .net than program something big in VBA though, seems
like that is a dead ringer of a language to be
replaced with VBA.net at some point.

Tony. <>
|>I'm posting this question here because when I originally posted in the VBA
group I was advised that this would be a better group for this question.
|>My company has recently accepted a proposal I made to develop VBA routines
in AutoCAD and Excel 2003 to replace our current suite of Fortran programs.
Since we currently use AutoCAD 2000, I'm wondering whether it makes sense to
embark on such a huge programming project with an old version of AutoCAD So
my question is, are there compelling re
|>asons to upgrade to AutoCAD 2006 before embarking on this development?
Specifically, I'm interested in .NET related advantages.
|>Briefly, the Fortran programs have been with the company for about 40
years, and they perform numerous geometrical calculations and display 2D
profile graphs for the tools we make. I've attached a copy of the sort of
polylines the program typically generates. Actually, a transition has
already begun since the generated graphs can be exported to .DXF files as
|> simple polylines. The most complicated graphics generated by the Fortran
programs can all be output as 2D polylines consisting of well-defined arcs
and straight-line segments. Thus the elements of the geometry are simple,
although there's a lot of relatively involved calculations involved in
finding tangent points where straigtline segments touch arcs. I've done VBA
in Excel and feel comfortable with that part.
|>What I envision is tying the data for all those polylines to data tables
|> in Excel 2003 so that manipulating, say, a cell corresponding to a
certain angle in an arc, will then change the shape of that portion of the
|>This program is huge, having been developed and refined over 40 years, but
the basic geometry underlying it is all straight 2D AutoCAD type stuff.
While one module will be developed at a time, eventually completing the
project will likely take 2 to 5 years.
|>I know that Microsoft lists details about .NET has advantages over regular
|> but all these details are a little hard to absorb by someone like me at
this point. II'm hoping that a more experienced AutoCAD programmer will be
able to provide advice about what issues are really important here.
Specifically, what compelling reasons are there to do this development in a
.NET framework?
|>Also, if I do end up upgrading and then develop a combined VBA Excel 2003
and VBA .NET AutoCAD 2006 package, does this means that users will have to
have AT LEAST Excel 2003 and Au
|>toCAD 2006 in order to use my routines?
|>Thanks in advance,
James Maeding
Civil Engineer and Programmer
jmaeding - athunsaker - com
*Mark Gardiner
Post 12 of 12

Re: Use AutoCAD 2000 VBA or upgrade to AutoCAD 2006 for VBA .NET?

02-18-2006 02:34 PM in reply to: Tony.

From what I can recall the replacement for VBA is to be VSTA (Visual Studio
Tools for Aplications) ie .net
I have moved on to .net from VB6 and I find going back to VB6 quite

The dificulty in moving from VB6 to .net is that VB had to be changed to
make it an Object Oriented Programming Language, and conform to the .net
model, meaning changes to source code, so rather than going to VB.NET I went
to C#.net which I find easier to read now.

I think 'classic COM' aka VBA VB6 will be around for a while yet.
But once your on the otherside you don't want to go back

Post to the Community

Have questions about Autodesk products? Ask the community.

New Post
Are you interested in helping shape the future of the Autodesk Community? To participate in this brief usability study, please click here. Your time and input is greatly appreciated!