|
I don’t like changes that are counter productive.
When I need to get something done I don’t want a learning curve.
VS2003.NET is a PITA .
If MS had kept the option of having 100% VC6 IDE functionality in the VS2003 IDE, I would use it more often.
Every time I need to get a project out the door, I try starting with VS2003 and within 30 minutes I'm on VC6 !
|
|
|
|
|
Someone mentioned below that in VC++ 2005, there is a feature of Remoting C++ objects. Can anyone tell me whether this feature is provided in unmanaged C++/ATL OR is it the same that of .NET ?? From where i can get more info about it ? I am searching the topic Remoting C++ objects on google but getting all .NET related results 
Imtiaz
|
|
|
|
|
Finally you can just modify code, save, refresh and get a quick response as opposed to currently having to recompile and wait 3 seconds+ while the DLL is reloaded 
so many times i've toyed with the idea of going back to PHP because of this annoyance... Why MS didn't make it possible to work with code behind files that didn't have to be compiled by VS.NET I don't know - does anyone know of a workaround for this?
|
|
|
|
|
People sticking with 6.0, could be cutting off their future career prospects.
Make the move to VS 2003 now, if you're still developing for Win32/ATL/MFC is has it's niggles but overall it far better than VC6.0, also you'll find yourself developing in C#, which in my eyes in the biggest bonus.
My Blog ^
|
|
|
|
|
 Stick with 6 or move to linux
|
|
|
|
|
I doubt it. Many users of 6.0 do not need any of the functionality defined in VS 2003. .NET is the most misused platform in the history of programming. C# is managed C++ - oooh ahhhh. Programmers who have acquired their programming experience using C#/VS7.0+ can actually run into trouble down the road because they do most tasks the 'Visual Basic' way and have difficulty outside the provided visual IDE/classes. I will say - depending on the programmer and project VS2003 can be much more productive.
If you have programmed in C++ or Java, managed C++ (C#) is a triviality. Transitioning to VS2003 IDE -vs- 6.0 takes a couple of days of use. I would think their 'career' would be back on track in under a week.
|
|
|
|
|
This is the exact same principle that made having Windows SDK C experience a hige benefit for doing C++ work in the 90's. People who only knew MFC or OWL were at a huge disadvantage to those of us who'd come up through the ranks in the days of giant switch statements in your WndProc( ) and infamous 200 line "Hello, World!" program in Windows 3.x. And people who only knew Visual Basic or (shudder) PowerBuilder, were hopelessly lost outside the narrow confines of their tools.
The tools haven't changed radically since Windows 3.51: C++ the language, Win32. Only the libraries used to work with them, and my long experience is that the libraries are often more trouble than their worth.
The ability to think logically, design and plan will trump a reliance on the toy world of handholding coding tools (C#, etc) or bloated bronto-libraries (.NET anyone?) that often require more rote knowledge and cookbook work than doing the same tasks with the underlying SDK and thinner libraries.
|
|
|
|
|
I have to agree with you. I was there coding in DOS. To tell you the truth the
Win SDK has served me very well. People using MFC end up geting stuck trying to code
interfaces. The MFC wrapper cant solve or complete difficult tasks that require
thinking out of the box. You have to go back to the SDK.
I fell sorry for the companies stuck with a crew that only has MFC or VB people.
The limitations are great.
.NET so far has been NO picnic. Bugs like writting back to big files and other
stumbling blocks. Many things we needed to do reuired a resolution in JavaScript.
HUH? What kind of language requires another language?
Oh yeah the browser and MS does that.
What I find disturbing is if you live in the commerical development world
with many browsers how do you use .NET?
DHTML, XML and spans are not supported on many browsers.
Many people use FireFox or Macs, or IE 4 or 3.
That said I will look at the new stuff. Always do.
I think managed code is a great way to SLOW down your application and mess up any
COM you have developed. You can also find yourself
back in the early 90's when we had DLL's deplyment issues.
It took a rocket scientist to make some installs.
Well at least all the new stuff keeps me working and other programmers asking,
How did you do that? 
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
I haven't seen it yet , and I think that Visual Studio 6.0 perhaps is good enough! Do you ?
You do the door,I do the window.
|
|
|
|
|
Nope. The automation interface in VC6 is a joke, its ClassView can't handle large projects without crashing, and the STL that ships with it is almost unuseable.
Once you get used to the new IDE, VS2003 is far, far more productive - as was VC4 by comparison with VC1.52 (I saw the same complaints over that too).
Anna ![Rose | [Rose]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
Riverblade Ltd - Software Consultancy Services
Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter
"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia Graesch
"Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart"
- A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work.
|
|
|
|
|
As with many other prods of MS, VS2005 is hopelessly overloaded with colorful uselessness. Working (editor) area in the new IDE shrinks down to a unmanageable point (isn't programming about editing source code ... or did I got this wrong?). Even on a 1920x1200 there is not much left. The IDE has changed quite a bit from VC6 - unfortunately not to the better. And it is buggy though. I was required to switch to VS2005 and I'm now (I wouldn't say 'far') less productive. And this is not because I want to be - but becasue of the tools given. Btw, it is far slower and resource-hungry, even on really fast machines.
On the pro-side, I would say the compiler came closer to C++ standards (e.g. templates). We develop platform independent code - that helps a lot.
Enrico
|
|
|
|
|
but... no dollar for it this year, probably next year too
Norman Fung
|
|
|
|
|
Ha ha,u see ,everyone will meet it anytime in the earth. Like me ,I am sitting in the morning in the north of the earth,and feeling hungry while facing the PC.
You do the door,I do the window.
|
|
|
|
|
With the 64-Bit .NET development our test of the Beta look very good. So when it comes out we want to upgrade just for the 64 Bit .NET development
|
|
|
|
|
i've tried the betas for all of the post VS6 versions and just can't handle the much fussier interface.
does anyone know of ways to reduce the visual clutter so that visually its more like VS6? including turning off the gradient toolbar backgrounds.
.dan.g.
AbstractSpoon Software
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder what the price of the U/G from 2003 to 2005 is going to be, $549.00? not sure about that one!!!
Nino
|
|
|
|
|
If you only need the Professional version, that's been $100 for many years. I picked up VS 2000 Pro and VS 2003 Pro for $100 each.
For all the criticisms you can level against MS, they do make it very easy to acquire their development tools... often they are free. This is a very good thing, even if they are doing it to increase mind share (hey, they're a business!)
|
|
|
|
|
none of the choices correspond for me...
i'd like to test it first, them upgrade if i'm satisfied, otherwise, i'd stay to my good old VS .NET 2003 for .NET applications, VS6 otherwise.
TOXCCT >>> GEII power
[toxcct][VisualCalc]
|
|
|
|
|
While there are many good reasons to stick with what you are using, not having 2005 means that you are getting left behind. MS continuously moves on ( if only for a new look like Office)
If you stand still you will eventually be behind the pack.
You don't have to like it or agree with what they are doing.
Just put your money on the table and hold your breath.
.nuetter
|
|
|
|
|
I don't follow this at all. You're saying that if we are comfortable and productive with tools from a few years ago, we're actually falling behind?
And that we should spend money on tools that don't meet our needs.. just so we can keep up with the pack?
MS's new development tools (C#, "managed" code, etc.) are veering away from industry standard practices. No need to follow them off the cliff.
|
|
|
|
|
Jim A. Johnson wrote:
MS's new development tools (C#, "managed" code, etc.) are veering away from industry standard practices
huh? 
Norman Fung
|
|
|
|
|
That's funny, I could swear that I've been writing fully-functional C++ code all day long... [hits Alt+Tab] Yep, there's VC6 right where I left it... Whew, good, it wasn't just a hallucination.
Someone has drunk too much of the MS Marketing Kool-Aid™
--Mike--
Visual C++ MVP 
LINKS~! Ericahist | 1ClickPicGrabber | CP SearchBar v2.0.2 | C++ Forum FAQ
Strange things are afoot at the U+004B U+20DD
|
|
|
|
|
Running under Win 95 ?
.nuetter
|
|
|
|
|
that's a little different i think (without taking you too seriously), anything less than nt4 is not stable enough to be productive and nt4 doesn't have a (wide) user base so that only leaves 2k and xp.
.dan.g.
AbstractSpoon Software
|
|
|
|
|
No kidding. Every time MS comes out with new development tools, you face a new learning curve of dealing with their new byzantine, cumbersome, and bloated technologies rather than solving problems.
Me? I'd rather get work done.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
