|
Hm ... "not every system" ... Not every system has Visual Studio 2005, 2008 or whatever installed 
Not every (Windows)-System has Chrome, FF etc. installed but when developing WebApps they also should be tested with those browsers ...
Not "every system" has VirtualSVN installed but often you have to commit to a SVN repositry"
etc.
etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
ViEmu[^] looks like something I would like to try some day.
|
|
|
|
|
I knew vi 20 years when I programmed mostly via telnet to the university minicomputers but I have completely forgotten all of it. This was a bit frustrating because one of our linux guys made vi the default editor on all the servers he installed. If it was not for nano I probably would have had to learn it again..
John
|
|
|
|
|
I have tried most of these addons but the best for developers is definitely VA!
|
|
|
|
|
|
and here. 
|
|
|
|
|
...and here.
It is a crappy thing, but it's life -^ Carlo Pallini
|
|
|
|
|
But not here... 
Wout
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed, I am unable to comprehend how people can attempt to work without VA X, that just crazy!!!
If you have never used it get the free 30 day trial & read the tips, you will never want to go back to the old slow way of writing code, navigating solution & looking for stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed.
I m using Visual AssistX for more than 4 years. to program without it seems to b a night mare 
for the past 6 months, i m also using Resharper. Visual AssistX is much more for the visual effects and formatting. Resharper deals more with the efficiency and quality of the code ( the most simple is removing the unwanted name spaces, ...). SPELL CHECKER is still missing in Resharper. ( i m using VS2005, client requirement  )
Using both of them at the same time created a mesh and it proved to b more of a drawback rather than a helping combination. but i managed by customizing both of them as per my requirements.
still i would say, I CANT LIVE {code  } without VAX.
A smile is a curve that sets everything straight....!
Visit my Home Page.
|
|
|
|
|
Especially when you would like to rename a variable, rename a function, change the signature of a function, etc., How VA can do it in a snap is just awesome. For me, VA is a part of VS itself.
Not to mention how wonderfully it enhances the crappy default intellisense.
It is a crappy thing, but it's life -^ Carlo Pallini
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed, its essential. Best money I've ever spent.
My complaint is that integrates too well - it becomes part of VS.
So it becomes a silent unsung hero.
I didn't realise just how much it actually does that you take for granted... until I had to reinstall VS one day when it became quickly apparent. Needless to say VA was quickly reinstalled.
They need to add little VA logos next to everything it does!
--
The Obliterator
|
|
|
|
|
?
...cmk
The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying.
- John Carmack
|
|
|
|
|
shhhhh, I'm trying to swing the survey to that side  
|
|
|
|
|
.. but do you use either one?
"For fifty bucks I'd put my face in their soup and blow." - George Costanza
CP article: SmartPager - a Flickr-style pager control with go-to-page popup layer.
|
|
|
|
|
From http://www.xoreax.com/:
"IncrediBuild is an easy-to-use platform for accelerating Windows-based processes through advanced Grid Computing technology."
When used in a network, it reduces build time drastically.
Erez
|
|
|
|
|
We use it but for code analysis tasks (it cut our runtime from 4 hours 25 minutes to 12 minutes!) rather than builds.
I've been working with the XGE programmable interfaces for a while now, and I have to say it's a very impressive product.
|
|
|
|
|
I wished Microsoft would do this and include this ability with their compiler. I mean gcc (with distcc and ccache) has had this ability for many years. Although I admit these are separate packages and not from the same people who write the compiler..
John
|
|
|
|
|
Truly the most awesome piece of software ever created!
DR
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I recently developed an add-in myself that disables/restores Code Analysis for all projects in an opened solution.
Despite a lot of shortcomings, it does the job. I was wondering if there would be any interest in an add-in of this kind? In case there is, I could keep improving it for the masses
code: http://code.google.com/p/codeanalyzethis/[^]
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure there is. Why don't you write an article about it?
I thought the comment in your project page "Code analysis severely slows down builds and is just plain annoying." was interesting. I have to say that I'd suggest that if that's the case, they are doing it wrong. 
I have to confess I have a bit of a vested interest since my specialisation is integrating of static code analysis tools into development environments, and I've long been of the opinion that during the buid is a bad idea. "Annoying" is a means to an end though - the whole point of these tools is to draw the developer's attention to things that don't quite seem right - which is never a popular thing to do!
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I might indeed write an article on it, but I'd like to finish the code a bit further and then explain everything in depth.
Developing Visual Studio Add-ins are still a bit exotic terrain for me, so I'd like to know a bit more on the subject before I'll write an article on them.
About the "MS is doing it wrong": I don't think that Code Analysis is wrong. It is very practical to allow an extra check on bad practices etc.. But it comes at a cost. It might be better running Code Analysis on the build server only, but that might cause a lot of broken builds.
About "annoying": I didn't mean annoying in a way that CA is annoying me by pointing out errors in the code. I think that's great. But it's simply annoying to change 1 line of code, build, and then having to wait for CA to run all its rules again.
So I don't feel CA is annoying, I feel the time it takes is annoying.
So, I think this sequence would be the most practical:
1. Disable CA
2. Develop fluently and without CA running on each build locally
3. When ready to check in, restore CA
4. Build with CA
5. Fix CA issues
6. Check in
And when the add-in has improved, I might do an article
|
|
|
|
|
bertvan wrote: I might indeed write an article on it, but I'd like to finish the code a bit further and then explain everything in depth.
Developing Visual Studio Add-ins are still a bit exotic terrain for me, so I'd like to know a bit more on the subject before I'll write an article on them.
Cool. I'll look forward to the article!
There's quite a lot of info on add-in design on the web (I can particularly recommend the Craig Skibo books on the subject) but there are also a lot of pit-traps for the unwary if you use the less common language specific interfaces (I have had regularly seen VCProjectEngineLibrary interfaces break with new Visual Studio versions, for example). If there is any particular topic about add-in development you need assistance with, please feel free to privmail me and I'll do what I can to assist.
bertvan wrote: About the "MS is doing it wrong": I don't think that Code Analysis is wrong. It is very practical to allow an extra check on bad practices etc.. But it comes at a cost. It might be better running Code Analysis on the build server only, but that might cause a lot of broken builds.
I have an outline for a conference session in my mind at the moment titled "Effective Code Analysis", and you;ve just touched onto one of the points I'm going to make. OIn brief: putting code analysis on the build server only generally doesn't work very well, because it's remote from the changes devs are working on at the time. That's why it also needs to be in the development environment (far more immediate) so the question is how to do this effectively. By contrast, build server code analysis is more of a sanity check on how the project as a whole is holding up wrt code quality (code metrics run well in this context, too).
A few years ago I was experimenting with this using PC-Lint (a C++ source code analysis tool) and had the idea of running the analysis in the background (pretty easy if you use a thread pool). It worked so well my partner and I built a product out of it (another long story!) but the upshot is that we've gained a lot of experience with how to use CA techniques on our own codebase over the past 5 years.
The workflow we use isn't actualy that different to that you suggest - the difference being that we don't run the analysis while compiling - instead it happens automatically in the background while we're editing code (hence the builds don't take any longer, and the CA tasks run in the background while editing).
That's my experience anyway - and it's certainly an interesting and challenging area to work in.
|
|
|
|
|
This is a very useful add-in! I'm downloading it right now and will report on how well it works!
Great idea!
Éric
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
![Rose | [Rose]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
