Topic: Bye bye VBA

[jbuzbee]

With the impending doom of VBA what's the alternative to

Code: [Select]

(command "vbastmt" (strcat "AcadApplication.Documents.Open " . . .))?
 

[Keith™]

huh .. where is the press release?

[T.Willey]

Here is how I do it when you are in MDI mode.

Code: [Select]

(defun MyOpen (FileName ReadOnly / )

(vla-Open
 (vla-get-Documents
  (vlax-get-Acad-Object)
 )
 FileName
 (if ReadOnly
  :vlax-true
  :vlax-false
 )
)
)


[jbuzbee]

Keith,

http://discussion.autodesk.com/thread.jspa?threadID=558231

T. Willey,
Thanks.

[Keith™]

Ah .. the 64 bit versions .. the problem is Microsoft, not Autodesk ..anyway .. at least now I know what I am up against.. VBA will be around for some time, so long as there are 32bit OS that runs AutoCAD, there will be VBA ... but then .NET is not really a solution ... at least not a secure one.

[sinc]

but then .NET is not really a solution ... at least not a secure one.

Why not?  Do you just not like the obfuscators, or is it that even the good obfuscators are easily-hacked?

[Keith™]

but then .NET is not really a solution ... at least not a secure one.

Why not?  Do you just not like the obfuscators, or is it that even the good obfuscators are easily-hacked?

My understanding is that an obfuscator merely makes the CLI metadata and strings difficult to understand. If that is the case, all of the tags would still be available, but wouldn't contain useful information about what they are. Still easily changed across the board once disassembly has occured, unless they have significantly improved the obfuscators.

[sinc]

The obfuscators I've seen do more than that, including encryption of strings, and the introduction of "false paths" and so forth that are designed to confuse a decompiler.  I don't really know how secure they really are, though.  Enough to make it difficult for the average developer, but I don't know how well the measures hold up against someone who knows what they are doing.

[Bob Wahr]

Making the argument that .net isn't a viable replacement to VBA because of security seems pretty silly to me.

[Keith™]

Bob, I can understand your dilemna, but I don't develop much in VBA, however, when I develop, I do use the COM interface we all know as VBA. If I can no longer utilize the COM interface with my compiled binaries without dealing with marshalling, then I am forced to utilize another method .. namely arx or .net. Autodesk changes arx every few releases so that your program must be recompiled every few versions. This is not a solution when deploying to 10 versions of AutoCAD. I have seen some things that lead me to believe that .NET can be implemented in multiple versions without issue, just so long as I am not using the AutoCAD interop libraries at design time. However security is the concern in that solution. In the end if .NET can be made as secure as a C++ dll, then it will be a solution I can live with.

So, you see, if VBA goes away, I can no longer load my programs in-process with the COM interface and I will be forced to seek other alternatives, thus .NET security is a valid concern.