How long will Autodesk support VBA in AutoCAD?

[Anonymous]

I developed tools from AutoCAD VBA and luckily that AutoCAD 2010 still supports VBA, but I don't want to continue to create programs if they will remove it in the next release.

Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Hi,

There is an official Autodesk announcement that they have "no current
plans to include VBA in the next release"

This situation could be changed by sufficient screaming from their clients.

Their is no way I would visualise starting any new work with VBA, but
rather planning how I'm going to replace existing programs with .NET
(or, if appropriate, lisp).


Regards


Laurie Comerford

jovil78 wrote:
> I developed tools from AutoCAD VBA and luckily that AutoCAD 2010 still supports VBA, but I don't want to continue to create programs if they will remove it in the next release.
>
> Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Thanks.

[Anonymous]

jovil78 wrote:
> I developed tools from AutoCAD VBA and luckily that AutoCAD 2010
> still supports VBA, but I don't want to continue to create programs
> if they will remove it in the next release.
>
> Thanks.

See:
http://support.autodesk.com/getDoc.asp?id=TS14889082

--
R.K. McSwain
http://cadpanacea.com

[Anonymous]

Here is a link to an interesting article about Office 2010 and VBA...
http://visualbasic.about.com/b/2010/03/27/vba-forever.htm?nl=1





"jovil78" wrote in message news:6377017@discussion.autodesk.com...
> I developed tools from AutoCAD VBA and luckily that AutoCAD 2010 still
> supports VBA, but I don't want to continue to create programs if they will
> remove it in the next release.
>
> Thanks.

[Anonymous]

We found a solution to the problem of AutoDesk not supporting VBA in the next release... we're not going to buy it. Realistically, there's been nothing of real value in any AutoCAD release since R12, and new releases of Inventor, while they do always contain some glitzy toys, the "regretting having upgraded" phase is now stretching all the way to the date of the next release. Just not worth it any more.

[Anonymous]

Well, that's not entirely true.

Dynamic blocks were a major milestone that helped to
eliminate the need for a lot of customization that didn't
work as well as dblocks do.

From AutoCAD 2007 on, there certainly are many new
things that many do not need, in order to do what they do,
especially those who rely heavily on customization.

--
http://www.caddzone.com

AcadXTabs: MDI Document Tabs for AutoCAD
Supporting AutoCAD 2000 through 2011

http://www.acadxtabs.com

Email: string.Format("{0}@{1}.com", "tonyt", "caddzone");

wrote in message news:6398985@discussion.autodesk.com...
We found a solution to the problem of AutoDesk not supporting VBA in the next
release... we're not going to buy it. Realistically, there's been nothing of
real value in any AutoCAD release since R12, and new releases of Inventor, while
they do always contain some glitzy toys, the "regretting having upgraded" phase
is now stretching all the way to the date of the next release. Just not worth
it any more.

[Anonymous]

On Thu, 27 May 2010 14:00:44 -0700, LonesomeJoe <> wrote:

>We found a solution to the problem of AutoDesk not supporting VBA in the next release... we're not going to buy it. Realistically, there's been nothing of real value in any AutoCAD release since R12, and new releases of Inventor, while they do always contain some glitzy toys, the "regretting having upgraded" phase is now stretching all the way to the date of the next release. Just not worth it any more.

Software development follows the typical S curve. When computers first
came out, development was slow because of the power of the processor.
There was only so much that could be done. As the power of the
processor increased, developers came out with more and more things
that could be done. Operating systems improved and so software was
developed.

We have now reached the top of the S curve. There is not much more
that can be done. Sure there are improvements, however you are not
going to get the huge improvements or implementations. Now it becomes
more difficult to justify upgrades. In many cases, the upgrade cost is
the smallest part of the overall cost. It is the training, hardware
and other development costs that dwarf the upgrade cost.

Along come things like annual upgrades, retirement of versions,
Windows Logo Compliance, subscriptions and the like.

When you think about things, it is remarkable that Windows 95 can
still be used by people some 15 years after it was released. In the
days before Windows 95, you would have to upgrade every couple of
years, and you would clamour for the next upgrade.

For me, I cannot upgrade any more. I have to re-buy. Despite the
Australian dollar being almost on parity with the US dollar, we still
have to pay nearly twice the US cost (don't talk about localising or
distribution costs - there is no localisation other than for
licencing, and Singapore is closer to us than the US). Now that I can
no longer upgrade, there is absolutely no incentive for me to re-buy
as it will be exactly the same price whether I do it now, or in a few
years time, or ever. This is what has happened in Australia and
dealers have lost a lot in revenue with Autodesk digging their heels
in.

--

Regards,

Ian A. White, CPEng.

| /| / WAI Engineering
| /_| / Sydney 2000
|/ |/ Australia

www.wai.com.au

mailto:ianwhite@wai.com.au

callto://waiwhite on Skype

[Anonymous]

It is interesting that every other major application niche in business, except cad, has an open source software equivalent that is equal to if not superior to the "popular" application. I would bet there are many AE firms that would drop both AutoCAD and Microsoft Windows if there was a robust enough open source cad application.

[Anonymous]

On Fri, 28 May 2010 15:43:21 -0700, aksaks <> wrote:

>It is interesting that every other major application niche in business, except cad, has an open source software equivalent that is equal to if not superior to the "popular" application. I would bet there are many AE firms that would drop both AutoCAD and Microsoft Windows if there was a robust enough open source cad application.

About the only example of this is Intellicad, however here it has also
been one of the major reasons for its poor take up.

Much the same with Linux. It has not taken over because it is not easy
to implement and not easy to update. It is almost as though it is done
so intentionally.

The only reason why businesses end up staying with AutoCAD is because
of the vast library of drawings they have that can only be opened
reliably in AutoCAD. I was preparing a presentation on QA for a
company and I used screen captures of my own drawing management
software. The Drawing register part had the total number of drawings I
had in it. Over the past 20 years I have prepared over 3,000 drawings.
At an average cost of $400 per drawing, this comes to a total value of
$1,200,000. It's scary when you look at it like this and it also gives
you an idea as to the hold AutoCAD has on the CAD community.

If someone could come up with an alternative that did not cause other
problems, the vast majority of AutoCAD users would jump ship
instantly.

--

Regards,

Ian A. White, CPEng.

| /| / WAI Engineering
| /_| / Sydney 2000
|/ |/ Australia

www.wai.com.au

mailto:ianwhite@wai.com.au

callto://waiwhite on Skype