help nuconnector by VB6 plzz

[medo.saad]

gys plzz any one help me to make program like nuconnector by VB6

i made simple one but i get C8 when login

( i cannot encrypt & decrypt packet ) -----> cannot join the new ip



sorry iam not good at english XD

why no one answer me ?!

plzz gys i need help

how to make encryption and decryption in VB6

i hope any one give me code

[medo.saad]

why no one wanna help :S

[GoneUp]

Why do you want to make it in VB6?
As Advice: Learn a actual language! This could be VB.Net or C#.

[medo.saad]

Originally Posted by GoneUp

Why do you want to make it in VB6?
As Advice: Learn a actual language! This could be VB.Net or C#.

because i maked bot by vb6 and i wanna make it own connector inside it
like ibot ( ibot maked by vb6 )


i hope u understand me


iam relly need help (

[paxemuman]

Originally Posted by GoneUp

Why do you want to make it in VB6?
As Advice: Learn a actual language! This could be VB.Net or C#.

Better C++. There is no sense in using VB.Net, Vb.net doesn't have control arrays which makes vb6 faster and easier to code. Except that VB.net are slow and bugged.

[lesderid]

Originally Posted by paxemuman

Better C++. There is no sense in using VB.Net, Vb.net doesn't have control arrays which makes vb6 faster and easier to code. Except that VB.net are slow and bugged.

VB.Net is just as fast as C#. They both compile to the same IL (there may actually be small differences, but from my experience, they are never noticable), which is executed by the same runtime (the CLR).

C++ is usually faster than C# and VB.Net. VB6 being faster than VB.Net/C# is complete bullshit though. Microsoft sees VB.Net as a new version of Visual Basic, building on the old versions and using new technology. VB6 is simply outdated now, and although some people may still like it better than VB.Net, it's proven to be slower. If you don't believe me, Google "VB.Net vs VB6 performance" or try it out yourself.

[paxemuman]

Originally Posted by lesderid

VB.Net is just as fast as C#. They both compile to the same IL (there may actually be small differences, but from my experience, they are never noticable), which is executed by the same runtime (the CLR).

C++ is usually faster than C# and VB.Net. VB6 being faster than VB.Net/C# is complete bullshit though. Microsoft sees VB.Net as a new version of Visual Basic, building on the old versions and using new technology. VB6 is simply outdated now, and although some people may still like it better than VB.Net, it's proven to be slower. If you don't believe me, Google "VB.Net vs VB6 performance" or try it out yourself.

I meant speed of coding not overall speed of code. I do not recommend vb.net, i am not going to argue. Without control arrays this language are useless its much better to write in c++ instead of this ****(similar time of code). You don't have to agree with me, i just have my own point of view as a VB developer.

[medo.saad]

=/
how ibot was connect to server without nuconnector and it was fast and smoth

ibot maked by vb6

[koky86]

medo ana ba3ml Bot VB6 bardo mmkan nsa3d ba3dina
EM:

[Nezekan]

Originally Posted by paxemuman

I meant speed of coding not overall speed of code. I do not recommend vb.net, i am not going to argue. Without control arrays this language are useless its much better to write in c++ instead of this ****(similar time of code). You don't have to agree with me, i just have my own point of view as a VB developer.

I hope you know that using c++ would probably take you 2-3x longer to finish your project than by using any .net language, there is no real point in learning vb6 now, the language is quite obsolete.

[paxemuman]

Originally Posted by Nezekan

I hope you know that using c++ would probably take you 2-3x longer to finish your project than by using any .net language

I know, thats why i didnt made my emulator in c++.
Ive just learned vb6 many years ago and i love it. Today i am expert in this ancient language. I am writing c++ dlls to it and it match my needs ^^, for me vb6 its best visual basic there.

Your'e right about you will code faster in any .net , but i won't reccomend vb.net due to amount of bugs in it(much more than in vb6). Also surprisingly vb6 is faster than vb.net(according to what old vb6 developers says).

Originally Posted by Nezekan

there is no real point in learning vb6 now, the language is quite obsolete.

OF curse there is no point, vb6 will be supported in win 8 and next windows versions, but that doesn't change fact that this language are abandoned.

About c++ i remember that it was impossible to make a hello world program in visual studio 2010 without installing sp 1....


Every new visual studio gets more and more shitty like vista, Microsoft makes life harder.... Visual studio and rest microsoft products goes into wrong direction.

[lesderid]

Originally Posted by paxemuman

Your'e right about you will code faster in any .net , but i won't reccomend vb.net due to amount of bugs in it(much more than in vb6). Also surprisingly vb6 is faster than vb.net(according to what old vb6 developers says).

I would love to see proof of that.

[paxemuman]

Originally Posted by lesderid

I would love to see proof of that.

I've already converted my 350,000 lines from VB6 to VB.NET, but am not releasing the 'new' version, because no matter how much I change the algorithms in the program and use the features of the new environment, the performance is miserable.

VB.NET is a very poor performer, and converting to it is not an upgrade from the end users' perspective. The IDE is slightly richer, yes, but it's dog slow - even though I'm running it on a computer with far more than ten times the power I used for VB6.

"Visual Fred" is an extreme failure from my perspective. Utterly incompatible, massive pointless effort absorber, extreme costs for no results. Towering example of "change for change's sake."

Microsoft's grade on Visual Basic evolution: F-

In response to Kyle's comment "Not an indication of a knowledgable developer."

I've been doing this professionally, full time, since 1978. I've done assembler on PDP-11, RSTS, VAX, programmed for a decade in Java and another one in C++ on UNIX. I wrote a TECO in C for MS-DOS. I've written 4 different languages (template processing languages predating ASP and suchlike, and one time-sharing script interpreter that made an MS-DOS machine run 30 virtual users.) I guess I'm just a lame amateur beginner, no meaningful opinion here, doubtless far less experienced than the Mighty Kyle.

As for Kyle's other comment, "if you do not properly refactor your code to take advantage of the .Net framework it will perform badly" - I spent a year refactoring the code, the VB6 compatibility layer for data access is completely redone using ADO.NET, all user controls were rewritten in VB.NET, the algorithms and data structures were modified to take advantage of VB.NET, and after that, the application runs 50% the speed of the VB6 app.

Kyle, I take offense at your arrogance.

[lesderid]

Originally Posted by paxemuman

I'm sorry but this doesn't seem very nuanced. This is one person who talks about his personal experience with no benchmark results or real examples at all.

Ported code will usually be slower than code written from scratch for that language. There are just some design decisions that used to be good in the VB6 days but have become outdated with newer hardware and software.

For example in the VB6 days, no one cared about parallelization, what they cared about was the algorithms running fast and reliably on one core instead of a thousand.

Also, VB.Net has less bugs than VB6. This is very logical because VB.Net was built from older versions of VB and therefore has all the bug fixes of the previous versions. The VB.Net team also works together with the other CLI language teams, which means that more bugs get fixed (e.g. if a bug in C# is discovered and is also present in VB.Net, it will be fixed in both languages instead of only in C#).