Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: There is also a highly annoying bug which means some resource elements end up as numeric IDs instead of the #define - e.g.:
That is one of the most annoying bugs that I have found in the program. I end up changing the IDs back to the #define name and VC++.NET ends up sooner or later, changing it back to the number. Weird stuff.
Anonymous wrote: We only do c++ and MFC development
C++ projects that do not use MFC benefit greatly from VS.NET 2003 IMO. This is mainly down to the compiler rather than the UI. Everything is better from standards support right down to error messages.
Anonymous wrote: VS.NET is more crashy, slower and buggy. The UI is sluggish and badly designed
I am another person who finds it better. The main improvement UI wise is the text editor and the debugger. However, this is only because my comp can run it at a decent speed. It must be horrible on an older comp.
I can honestly say I have not seen crashes. But I have seen the odd 100% cpu use (only working on asp.net projects). I would guess I don't see many problems because I do not use the resource editor.
Sorry to disagree. VC6 is not a stable version. I used to use bookmarks and brief-emulation, which resulted in daily crashes. Intellisense surprisingly popups, sometimes. The class-tree frequently gets corrupted. The resource editor, well it was not so bad if you haven’t seen the resource handling in Visual Studio.Net. Although, a nice feature I miss is debug – apply code changes.
Leifen wrote: The class-tree frequently gets corrupted
Yep. It was unusable with namespaces and folders in VC6. It would just forget them In VS2003 I have not found a single problem after I set that option that prevents it from jumping around. It took em a while, but I have to say, at last, MS got it right. For what I do anyway
I have mixed feelings about new IDE (it is too slow and unresponsive sometimes), but the fact that we have a decent Standard Library would be enough for me to switch, not to mention compiler improvements (VC 7.1 is 98% ISO compliant) and ATL Server.
Anonymous wrote: the resouce editor is really awful.
Resources are so '90's. Most (if not all) of our new apps now use XML based resources and generate the UI on the fly. Sure, it was a big hit to code that all up the first time, but it's working quite well now.
As for VS.NET - we are still on VS.NET 2002, and it's been a mixed bag. I think I do like the UI better, although it took a while. The compiler is mostly better. There are some annoying... how shall we say, issues, in the new MFC, but we hardly ever use MFC anymore these days. Unicode support is much better in VS.NET than in VC6. VC6 seemed to be more stable, though, as there are often little annoying things that come up from time to time that can drive me crazy.
"I'd be up a piece if I hadn't swallowed my bishop." Mr. Ed, playing chess
We have mixed sites with both frameworks and classic therefore I still manage and edit my files in VS6 because I can. On the other hand I use VS 7(2002) for desktop applications. VS7 is too napoleonic to use for web site development. I prefer to create my classes and code behind in a different folder and I don't er won't use the designer so it is a waste of my energy and money.
Nick Seng wrote: We're using Universe for both database and back-end processing.
But you know when the truth is told,
That you can get what you want or you can just get old,
Your're going to kick off before you even get halfway through.
When will you realise... Vienna waits for you? - "The Stranger," Billy Joel
Although I guess Notepad should be considered an MS environment... and a quite popular one at that.
Fortunately this was a multiple select poll, because for various reasons we also use VC .NET 2002, as well as VC 6 (although that's only for digging out legacy stuff anymore. I don't even think I have a machine with it installed any more...)
No single raindrop believes that it is responsible for the flood.