|
Just curious to know how many are using BETA 1. I have been using it at our work place since realease date. Any comments on this version ? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Darling wrote:
VC++ 1.5
Let me guess, you still do some 16-bit development for for 95/98/Me? 
"I'd be up a piece if I hadn't swallowed my bishop." Mr. Ed, playing chess
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At least I'm not the only poor sucker stuck doing VB6 programming.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Many years ago when I was in my programming course, we were taught Turbo C, VC++5, and VB5. There were 37 persons in the class. When we graduated, only I chose to be a C++ programmer as my job because I think C++ is relative much easier than VB is. All the others in my class chose to be VB programmers.
Maxwell Chen
|
|
|
|
|
I chose VB6, because I still use it for testing my COM components. I don't use it to write any commercial grade software (apart from a few samples for my SDK). It's a very reliable too for checking interfaces work okay and for quick easy sinking connection points. (To make sure I'm not sending events from my worker threads)
Michael
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
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
VB6 programming
Oxymoron.
(Sorry, but you knew *somebody* had to say it, might as well be me... )
"I'd be up a piece if I hadn't swallowed my bishop." Mr. Ed, playing chess
|
|
|
|
|
I was really surprised to see the number of people using .NET 2002.
IMHO, VC6 has the more-C++ friendly IDE, especially for resource editing (they should drop the 'Visual' from VC7, there's nothing at all visual about it that I can see).
.NET 2003 has a standard compliant compiler, which is why I switched. I miss the wizard bar, and the 'properties' page really sux.
But .NET 2002 has a non-standard compiler and an annoying IDE -- why does anyone use it? Or are all those users non-C++ programmers?
|
|
|
|
|
I use VS2002 becuase it works just fine for VB and I am waiting for Whidbey.
|
|
|
|
|
Is the redist for .NET 1.0 still available?
I thought they had shift-deleted it off the MSDN public site.
Cheers,
Simon
sig ::
"Don't try to be like Jackie. There is only one Jackie.... Study computers instead.", Jackie Chan on career choices.
article :: animation mechanics in SVG blog:: brokenkeyboards
|
|
|
|
|
Don Clugston wrote:
But .NET 2002 has a non-standard compiler and an annoying IDE -- why does anyone use it?
Me... a C++ programmer.
Why do I use VS 2002 ... because I don't have VS 2003.
Maxwell Chen
|
|
|
|
|
Me too.
Signature under construction.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a C++ programmer and I use .net 2002 because I'm creating appplications for a large american software that only support vc++ 7.0
Yes, I'm of cause talking aubout AutoCAD...
Anders Eriksson
Sonork 100.21825
|
|
|
|
|
Don Clugston wrote:
I was really surprised to see the number of people using .NET 2002.
IMHO, VC6 has the more-C++ friendly IDE, especially for resource editing (they should drop the 'Visual' from VC7, there's nothing at all visual about it that I can see).
.NET 2003 has a standard compliant compiler, which is why I switched. I miss the wizard bar, and the 'properties' page really sux.
But .NET 2002 has a non-standard compiler and an annoying IDE -- why does anyone use it? Or are all those users non-C++ programmers?
We got .NET 2002 through an MSDN profesional subscription, which we were forced to drop when business slowed down. We never got around to getting the upgrade CD before MS discontinued it.
Also I've heard storys that many of the spectacular IDE failures in .NET 2002 never got fixed in .NET 2003. These include menu command IDs being replaced with numbers, and IDE getting confused by files with the same names and classes in different projects. It also bothers me that the big bool bug was never fixed. That's the bug in which returning a bool from unmanaged code to managed code would always be converted to true.
With these bugs, which are not only big issues, but look really easy to fix still in .NET 2003, I have to wonder how worth while upgrading would be. New compiler features would be nice, but it's the IDE bug fixes that I really want. Does anyone know if they were fixed in the next .NET?
Nathan
|
|
|
|
|
MacTruck wrote:
Microsoft doesn't even use the tools they sell to the consumer. Internally, they use different tools. As a result, nothing ever gets fixed except to their own internal tools.
That doesn't suprise me a bit... 
MacTruck wrote:
In order for software to become stable, you actually have to use it...at home and as far away from a debugger as possible.
I agree 100 percent!
Happy Programming!
WWW::CodeProject::BNEACETP
|
|
|
|
|
First off,
1) Microsoft does use thier own tools internally. (who ever told you this was probably on a developement team that was not).
2) The XP manifest information does not even get saved in Visual studio 2002 and is still there in 2003!!! (importing it as an external resource fixes this problem).
3) The resource editor still changes your ID tags, without you knowing!
other than those two problems (2,3), I have not had any other complaints about 2003. But yes 2002 is very very buggy.
|
|
|
|
|
It is true that some VC++ 6.0 code cannot be upgraded to VC++ .NET. Visual Studio .NET 2002 had problems (many bugs), but 2003 is perfectly fine for me.
I personally cannot go back to VC++ 6.0 anymore.
The only problems I found with VS .NET 2003 is the resource editor. Some times it erases my ID tags and inputs a number (even when there were no duplicate names). Other than that error, it seems fine.
I also have done some Visual Basic .NET work and that is a huge improvment.
So over all, i think visual studio .net 2003, is far better than Visual Studio 6.0.
|
|
|
|
|
This looks pretty bad. I can understand the 20% or so VB6 users since they have a questionable upgrade path. But more than 50% of the responders are using VC++ 6, which can easily be upgraded to VC++ .NET 2002 or 2003 (versions 7 and 7.1, if you would rather).
The improved MFC and ATL support in version 7 alone should make the upgrade mandatory.
Visual C++ 6 is 5 and a half years old. Its last service pack was three years ago.
It's time to upgrade to at least get product support!
Dale Thompson
|
|
|
|
|
Dale Thompson wrote:
But more than 50% of the responders are using VC++ 6, which can easily be upgraded to VC++ .NET 2002 or 2003
The problem is VC.NET is not fully backward compatible with VC6 and it will break your code in many cases mostly because VC6 let / forced you do things that were not standard (mostly with templates) and VC.NET fixes this but if you have code written for VC6 it may require a lot of modifications to compile under .NET. I have 200K+ lines of code in 6 dlls that I use with most of my applications. Most of this code was written by me (probably like 70%) and some of it was taken from code project and other sites. I spent two weeks and fixed 200+ error messages in this code and then gave up and returned to the old code and old compiler. Good thing with CVS you can go backwards without too much pain.. It was too much a pain to fix other peoples' code because I was not familiar with it enough to make the changes and they did not have updates yet.
John
|
|
|
|
|
VC++ 6 is not such a resource drain as the Visual Studio .NET versions of the product. I can develop a VC++ 6 project just fine on my AMD k6-2 running at 333 MHz, not so for the Visual Studio .NET product...
|
|
|
|
|
Also the .NET IDE is a pain to use for C++ programmers at first. It's too much like the Visual Basic IDE...
John
|
|
|
|
|
There's Visual Studio .NET 2002 on my platform. After I customised the IDE to make it similar to VC++6, I think .NET IDE is OK...
Maxwell Chen
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
