Visual Basic 6 IDE recreated in C#

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

A C# recreation of the classic Visual Basic 6 IDE has triggered a wave of nostalgia and reflection on how GUI development has evolved since the 1990s. Commenters praise VB6’s drag‑and‑drop form designer and rapid application development model, contrasting its simplicity, native desktop performance, and consistent widgets with the complexity of modern web and mobile UI toolkits. The project, built with Avalonia and even runnable in the browser via WebAssembly, is seen both as an impressive technical demo and as a reminder of the ergonomic trade‑offs made in today’s cross‑platform and highly styled interfaces.

Nostalgia and Historical Context

  • Many commenters learned programming with VB3–VB6 and recall it as empowering, fast, and fun.
  • VB’s drag‑and‑drop GUI designer and instant feedback made “real” Windows apps accessible to hobbyists and small businesses.
  • Several compare it favorably to more complex or verbose contemporaries (MFC, Motif, raw Win32) and to today’s web stacks.

GUI Layout, Responsiveness, and Modern Toolkits

  • Strong sentiment that VB6’s visual layout felt intuitive and efficient.
  • Debate on why modern toolkits feel harder:
    • One view: absolute positioning was simpler; mobile and responsive layouts made GUI builders inherently more complex.
    • Counterpoint: VB6 and other 90s toolkits could handle resizing and relative layouts via resize events or layout managers; complexity is not only about responsiveness.
    • Some argue layout managers, constraints, and declarative UI (XAML, CSS) reduce “math” for complex UIs, but have steeper learning curves.

Native Apps vs Web Apps

  • Several lament the shift to web UIs:
    • Native apps allowed multiple windows/forms, more fluid workflows, and better keyboard/accessibility support.
    • Web apps often force wizard‑style, single‑form flows and feel less efficient for heavy CRUD work.
  • Others note today’s expectations (animations, branding, dark mode, high DPI, touch) push toolkits toward complexity and custom styling.

Avalonia, Web Version, and Implementation Details

  • Avalonia’s cross‑platform and WebAssembly support impresses people; web demo feels fast in most browsers.
  • Edge’s “enhanced security” (disabling JIT) can make the demo slow.
  • Current IDE clone is a proof‑of‑concept:
    • Limited VB runtime (e.g., only MsgBox/InputBox initially), partial language support.
    • Syntax highlighting exists; autocomplete and debugger are missing.
    • Desktop build can save projects in a format compatible with VB6 and can “build” runnable executables; web build is more limited.

Language/Tooling Choices and Dependencies

  • Discussion about using ANTLR for grammar parsing:
    • Some dislike pulling in Java to build a .NET project due to complexity/size.
    • Others see no better alternative; dependency is build‑time only.
  • Multiple VB‑style or Delphi‑style successors are mentioned (e.g., Lazarus, Gambas, other RAD tools) as partial spiritual heirs.

Design Trends, Theming, and Accessibility

  • Strong preference from some for classic Windows 95/2000‑era UI: crisp, fast, standardized widgets, easy color customization.
  • Debate over dark mode:
    • Older systems allowed global palette changes that most apps respected.
    • Others argue robust dark mode still needs per‑app care (icons, custom text colors, avoiding low contrast).
  • Loss of components like framed “GroupBox” and clear tab views is seen as a regression in modern flat design.