|
Well, it has a very nice debugger.
|
|
|
|
|
I assume we are not talking about the bug-ridden POS that is VS2017? 
VS2015 is great - why did they have to ruin it! 
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
Welcome to the 1990s.
There might still be a bit of catching up to do, though.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Same here
Someone's therapist knows all about you!
|
|
|
|
|
TonyManso wrote: Visual Studio is like the greatest thing since sliced bread.
I disagree. It's not like the greatest thing since sliced bread. It is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
|
Understand completely. When I started this ride, I began teaching community college electronics courses, one of which was programming. My students hated it! We started with 8080 assembler to get something done, (and the had to rewrite each instruction definition from the Intel manual in their own words); once they understood what was happening at that level, I introduced them to Turbo Pascal. Lo and behold, what took the a week of assembly level that could do in an hour. Those that continued never forgot the lesson - to know what is going on under the covers. The covers have gotten more varied and are covered in paisley, but the lesson remains.
Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe, and not make messes in the house. - Lazarus Long
|
|
|
|
|
stoneyowl2 wrote: Those that continued never forgot the lesson
And those that continue further can then become just as quick with assembly again. Once you have things like calling conventions and accessing libraries out of the way, it's not so hard. You just write the same short functions you would also have written in a higher language and you call the same library functions.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
It is not just VS that allows you to glue libraries together. One of our devs recently put together a python POC, almost every operation was done by an open source library.
An enterprise level java application built on hadoop currently in development is based on a technology stack that is mind boggling I think I counted 17 different libraries/tool sets being blended together to build the application.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
I'm still waiting for VS to have a Google extension that does this:
"It looks like you're writing code that has already been written by others. Here are some GitHub, Code Project, and SO links that you should look at." 
Marc
Latest Article - Merkle Trees
Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny
Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
|
|
|
|
|
Taking cutting and pasting from SO to a whole new level.
Except leaving the purpose of the code out of the search, creating a whole new type of interesting bugs. 
|
|
|
|
|
TonyManso wrote: and libraries (other than stdio) were for sissies!
Why use stdio, the core functions read() and write() were easily sufficient.
stdio was just more laggy bloat
bet you were one of those softies that used strcpy() and it's friends too - more rubbish that for instance in this case could easily be achieved in a single for(); statement.
|
|
|
|
|
Nice and well as long as your projects don't span 10 years or more. Mickeysoft has no interest in supporting yesterday's greatest idea. They want to sell you their next great thing. Just try to make major changes to a project that has been built with some older version of VisualStudio and you will see how you pay back the time you may have saved. With interest.
The way I see it, in the long run it's better to stay independent of Mickeysoft's ideas. If you count in the time I saved by not learning things that went exactly nowhere or that are incompatible to older versions, you might come to other conclusions.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
CDP1802 wrote: as long as your projects don't span 10 years or more
My company's flagship product was released 16 years ago. I've been working on it my entire career. If I stay a few more years, I just might get the migration re-write finished! 
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
Just look at my reply to the post below. I think I had my share of scenarios where the nice new VS turns against you and then eats more time than it can ever save you. For my projects I now use SharpDevelop and miss only one really essential feature up to now: I can't debug into a webservice call up to now. With only this exception, I think less sometimes is more.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
My projects span 15 years and counting - I've had no problems using VS with them.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Then you may have found a good balance between a stable foundation for your code and new features that have come and gone.
I recently had to work on a module for a larger application that had been used as it was for at least tebn years. It was a compact thing, data access (with an early version of the entity framework) and WPF forms, all in one assembly. Application logic only existed in the code behind the forms, not as a separate layer in any way.
Now some not even very extensive changes had to be made, so I had to add a new entity and add some fields to two existing ones. Editing them with VS2015 was no problem, but the pdated entities were not compatible to the old code. No time to rewrite the entire thing, so I had to install VS2008, port back the project to VS2008, make my changes and port the whole thing back to VS2015. This procedure cost me enough time that could have been spent for better things.
Now we needed some new application logic that used the changed entities plus some things that already existed in other parts of the application, but not in this monolithic module. Just a matter of splitting it up into two assemblies, copying the WPF forms to the new presentation layer assemblies, renaming the namespaces of the moved files, setting the assembly references and recompile. An hour's work, right? Nope. VS2015 would not compile it anymore, always claiming that classes or namespaces did not exist. At first I looked for mistakes I had made when moving files to the new assembly, but classes and namespaces always were there where they should have been.
After a few days (!) of unsuccessful tinkering I finally found a way to get it working again. I had to remove all WPF forms and then add them one by one and then recompile for each form that had been added again. Two or three times the chaos returned and I had to start all over again, but in the end it finally worked again. There had been no mistakes. All classes and namespaces were correct, but the compiler was unable to sort it out.
These were only the most recent experiences with such things and could tell a few more war stories. This makes me a little more reluctant to use newer VS versions or to include every shiny new thing. I prefer to keep my project organized, avoid a patchwork of versions and dependencies and upgrade only if it really must be.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
CDP1802 wrote: I prefer to keep my project organized, avoid a patchwork of versions and dependencies and upgrade only if it really must be.
I admit I overlooked something very important. The decade+ apps that I'm talking about - while they have a user base in the tens of thousands - are my own freeware apps. As a result, I have the luxury of having to maintain only the latest version (they are data backward compatible all the way to V1) of the codebase. In RL, I can understand this is much more of a challenge, where one has to support multiple versions at the same time. 
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
For my own code I now use SharpDevelop. This little project of mine has a solution folder with almost 50 projects in it and the less sophisticated IDE lets me used any .Net framework from 1.0 to the latest without any troubles and lets me take care of the code instead of letting me wrestle with incompatibilites.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
OK, first of all, you qualify "hear me out" when, in fact, you are posting only that of text, which means we can only "read" you...
Combine that with "Visual Studio is FREAKING AWESOME!!!" ... yup, exceedingly certifiable.  
|
|
|
|
|
FOUR CARD
We have four cards with a letter in one side and a number of on the other...
On the upper side of the cards we read this: D J 5 3.
I state that a card with a 'D' on one side have the number '3' on the other.
Which cards do you have to flip to prove or contradict my statement?
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can go home very proud. This test was measured in 1966 and 1992 and only 10% of the general population answered it correctly... According to some sources (that I believe to, but can't confirm publicly) only 43% of mathematicians answered it correctly...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
I did a predicate logic course in college - it was absolutely the most boring thing on earth, but it did teach me the difference between "All D have 3 on them and all 3 have D on them" so you need to turn the D to see that it has a 3 on and turn the 5 to see that it does not have a D on.
|
|
|
|
|
Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter wrote: a card with a 'D' on one side have the number '3' on the other.
Easy - I've got a set of Belgian playing cards, where the Queens have the letter "D" on one side, and no number on the other side. I just need to turn over one of those to disprove your statement. 
What's that? Your statement only applies to the four cards on the table? Well, you should have said so, then. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
