Visual Studio 2008
-
Is it too early to start a rant thread about Visual Studio 2008? VS 2008 may be great for .NET developers, but right now I'm wearing a C++ hat and it's a huge disappointment in that arena. Once again, Microsoft has raised their big middle finger at us. Yes, there are some minor improvements, but they are of the service pack variety, not major release variety. These are counterbalanced by other changes that are from bad to moronic. One that would impact me directly (but won't since we won't be using VS 2008) is removal of the /OPT:NOWIN98 link switch. (I can imagine how this happened. Someone made a change--probably for the sake of making a change, not because it was actually needed--which caused problems with this switch. Instead of fixing the problem they collectively said "nobody uses it anyway." Unfortunately, this appears to be the attitude about most features used by C++ developers.) Given the other statements by Microsoft about "orcas+1", the slipstream release of MFC (where they're going to bloat the MFC DLL to over 3MB+) and the bloat of Vista, it has become even more apparent than ever that employees of Microsoft have made the fatal error of assuming what they create exists for its own sake and not to solve customers' problems. I know it won't make a whit of difference, but I still dream of some enterprising soul at Microsoft taking Visual C++ 6.0, adding a tabbed interface, improving the project settings dialogs and adding the compiler, though not linker, from Visual Studio 2008 (yeah, it's slightly better.) At the same time, trimming down the CRT, MFC, ATL and STL code by at least 20% each (and modularizing the code mode, which would help reduce final footprint. The CRT startup code is also in major need of a rewrite.) The bottom line is that Microsoft has again displayed complete contempt for the very developers that made it what it is today. They have blatantly lied about what they were going to do with this release vis-a-vis C++, just like they lied about it with Visual Studio 2005. I naively hope that C++ developers unite and boycott Visual Studio 2008. (Barring that, I'll naively hope Borland pulls its collective head out of its ass and releases a version of Turbo C++ that isn't a bloated, unusable pig.)
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
Joe Woodbury wrote:
The CRT startup code is also in major need of a rewrite.
I'm still in 2007 so I can't comment on most of your post though none of it surprises me. The above though I can sympathise with. It may be a year or so but I'm determined that you will get your wish.:)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Is it too early to start a rant thread about Visual Studio 2008? VS 2008 may be great for .NET developers, but right now I'm wearing a C++ hat and it's a huge disappointment in that arena. Once again, Microsoft has raised their big middle finger at us. Yes, there are some minor improvements, but they are of the service pack variety, not major release variety. These are counterbalanced by other changes that are from bad to moronic. One that would impact me directly (but won't since we won't be using VS 2008) is removal of the /OPT:NOWIN98 link switch. (I can imagine how this happened. Someone made a change--probably for the sake of making a change, not because it was actually needed--which caused problems with this switch. Instead of fixing the problem they collectively said "nobody uses it anyway." Unfortunately, this appears to be the attitude about most features used by C++ developers.) Given the other statements by Microsoft about "orcas+1", the slipstream release of MFC (where they're going to bloat the MFC DLL to over 3MB+) and the bloat of Vista, it has become even more apparent than ever that employees of Microsoft have made the fatal error of assuming what they create exists for its own sake and not to solve customers' problems. I know it won't make a whit of difference, but I still dream of some enterprising soul at Microsoft taking Visual C++ 6.0, adding a tabbed interface, improving the project settings dialogs and adding the compiler, though not linker, from Visual Studio 2008 (yeah, it's slightly better.) At the same time, trimming down the CRT, MFC, ATL and STL code by at least 20% each (and modularizing the code mode, which would help reduce final footprint. The CRT startup code is also in major need of a rewrite.) The bottom line is that Microsoft has again displayed complete contempt for the very developers that made it what it is today. They have blatantly lied about what they were going to do with this release vis-a-vis C++, just like they lied about it with Visual Studio 2005. I naively hope that C++ developers unite and boycott Visual Studio 2008. (Barring that, I'll naively hope Borland pulls its collective head out of its ass and releases a version of Turbo C++ that isn't a bloated, unusable pig.)
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
Well, as many have mentioned before with VS 2002, VS 2003 and VS 2005, it's not about C++ anymore. In 2002 they called it Visual Studio.NET because it was moving people to .NET and the idea of doing C++ in .NET was not really a focus. If I were doing C++ development anymore, I would never have bothered moving from VS 6. It had all I needed to build scalable n-tier applications and a ton of third party libraries available. While there were some issues and things that had to be worked around, it was a reasonable development package for the requirements of the time.
Joe Woodbury wrote:
I naively hope that C++ developers unite and boycott Visual Studio 2008.
Not sure there would be enough developers available to really make any kind of a stand ..
Joe Woodbury wrote:
(Barring that, I'll naively hope Borland pulls its collective head out of its ass and releases a version of Turbo C++ that isn't a bloated, unusable pig.)
I think you are seeking closure, Borland feel to sleep and died after the release of 4.5. Some alien pod people took over after that as is evident by the release of 5.0. Some dead things just need to rest in peace :) Turbo/Pro C/C++ was a lot of fun even with OWL..
Rocky <>< Blog Post: RegularExpressionValidator Ignore Case Tech Blog Post: Cheap Biofuels and Synthetics coming soon?
-
After a heavy snowfall the more rigid branches of the pine break under the weight of the snow, but the more supple willow branches bend, thus allowing the snow to fall to the ground.
More people died from worry than ever bled to death. - RAH
Roses are red, Your post is in blue, The text sounded strange, Are you sure you're you?
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Well, as many have mentioned before with VS 2002, VS 2003 and VS 2005, it's not about C++ anymore. In 2002 they called it Visual Studio.NET because it was moving people to .NET and the idea of doing C++ in .NET was not really a focus. If I were doing C++ development anymore, I would never have bothered moving from VS 6. It had all I needed to build scalable n-tier applications and a ton of third party libraries available. While there were some issues and things that had to be worked around, it was a reasonable development package for the requirements of the time.
Joe Woodbury wrote:
I naively hope that C++ developers unite and boycott Visual Studio 2008.
Not sure there would be enough developers available to really make any kind of a stand ..
Joe Woodbury wrote:
(Barring that, I'll naively hope Borland pulls its collective head out of its ass and releases a version of Turbo C++ that isn't a bloated, unusable pig.)
I think you are seeking closure, Borland feel to sleep and died after the release of 4.5. Some alien pod people took over after that as is evident by the release of 5.0. Some dead things just need to rest in peace :) Turbo/Pro C/C++ was a lot of fun even with OWL..
Rocky <>< Blog Post: RegularExpressionValidator Ignore Case Tech Blog Post: Cheap Biofuels and Synthetics coming soon?
Just because many Windows programmers develop LOB/enterprisey software, it doesn't mean software development equals .NET. C++ continues to exist because there is a need for it, a need that isn't and can't be fulfilled by any other language. If you stop coding and look up from your Visual Studio C# tab, you might discover there's a whole world of programming languages, IDEs and software out there. -- modified at 8:17 Monday 26th November, 2007
-
Is it too early to start a rant thread about Visual Studio 2008? VS 2008 may be great for .NET developers, but right now I'm wearing a C++ hat and it's a huge disappointment in that arena. Once again, Microsoft has raised their big middle finger at us. Yes, there are some minor improvements, but they are of the service pack variety, not major release variety. These are counterbalanced by other changes that are from bad to moronic. One that would impact me directly (but won't since we won't be using VS 2008) is removal of the /OPT:NOWIN98 link switch. (I can imagine how this happened. Someone made a change--probably for the sake of making a change, not because it was actually needed--which caused problems with this switch. Instead of fixing the problem they collectively said "nobody uses it anyway." Unfortunately, this appears to be the attitude about most features used by C++ developers.) Given the other statements by Microsoft about "orcas+1", the slipstream release of MFC (where they're going to bloat the MFC DLL to over 3MB+) and the bloat of Vista, it has become even more apparent than ever that employees of Microsoft have made the fatal error of assuming what they create exists for its own sake and not to solve customers' problems. I know it won't make a whit of difference, but I still dream of some enterprising soul at Microsoft taking Visual C++ 6.0, adding a tabbed interface, improving the project settings dialogs and adding the compiler, though not linker, from Visual Studio 2008 (yeah, it's slightly better.) At the same time, trimming down the CRT, MFC, ATL and STL code by at least 20% each (and modularizing the code mode, which would help reduce final footprint. The CRT startup code is also in major need of a rewrite.) The bottom line is that Microsoft has again displayed complete contempt for the very developers that made it what it is today. They have blatantly lied about what they were going to do with this release vis-a-vis C++, just like they lied about it with Visual Studio 2005. I naively hope that C++ developers unite and boycott Visual Studio 2008. (Barring that, I'll naively hope Borland pulls its collective head out of its ass and releases a version of Turbo C++ that isn't a bloated, unusable pig.)
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
Joe Woodbury wrote:
Is it too early to start a rant thread about Visual Studio 2008? VS 2008 may be great for .NET developers, but right now I'm wearing a C++ hat and it's a huge disappointment in that arena. Once again, Microsoft has raised their big middle finger at us.
I haven't tried VS 2008 yet but...my understanding is that the major changes are supposed to be in the area of making it easier to program for Vista, with such things as changes to the dialog editor to support new controls and changes to MFC to support Vista features. Are you saying this hasn't happened? An update to VS 2008 will support TR1 and provide further enhancements to MFC.
Joe Woodbury wrote:
The bottom line is that Microsoft has again displayed complete contempt for the very developers that made it what it is today. They have blatantly lied about what they were going to do with this release vis-a-vis C++, just like they lied about it with Visual Studio 2005.
What do you think they have lied about?
John Carson
-
Well, as many have mentioned before with VS 2002, VS 2003 and VS 2005, it's not about C++ anymore. In 2002 they called it Visual Studio.NET because it was moving people to .NET and the idea of doing C++ in .NET was not really a focus. If I were doing C++ development anymore, I would never have bothered moving from VS 6. It had all I needed to build scalable n-tier applications and a ton of third party libraries available. While there were some issues and things that had to be worked around, it was a reasonable development package for the requirements of the time.
Joe Woodbury wrote:
I naively hope that C++ developers unite and boycott Visual Studio 2008.
Not sure there would be enough developers available to really make any kind of a stand ..
Joe Woodbury wrote:
(Barring that, I'll naively hope Borland pulls its collective head out of its ass and releases a version of Turbo C++ that isn't a bloated, unusable pig.)
I think you are seeking closure, Borland feel to sleep and died after the release of 4.5. Some alien pod people took over after that as is evident by the release of 5.0. Some dead things just need to rest in peace :) Turbo/Pro C/C++ was a lot of fun even with OWL..
Rocky <>< Blog Post: RegularExpressionValidator Ignore Case Tech Blog Post: Cheap Biofuels and Synthetics coming soon?
Rocky Moore wrote:
Not sure there would be enough developers available to really make any kind of a stand ..
According to Microsoft itself, the majority of Visual Studio users do C++ development. (I'm sure this includes all the embedded and CE developers.)
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
Joe Woodbury wrote:
Is it too early to start a rant thread about Visual Studio 2008? VS 2008 may be great for .NET developers, but right now I'm wearing a C++ hat and it's a huge disappointment in that arena. Once again, Microsoft has raised their big middle finger at us.
I haven't tried VS 2008 yet but...my understanding is that the major changes are supposed to be in the area of making it easier to program for Vista, with such things as changes to the dialog editor to support new controls and changes to MFC to support Vista features. Are you saying this hasn't happened? An update to VS 2008 will support TR1 and provide further enhancements to MFC.
Joe Woodbury wrote:
The bottom line is that Microsoft has again displayed complete contempt for the very developers that made it what it is today. They have blatantly lied about what they were going to do with this release vis-a-vis C++, just like they lied about it with Visual Studio 2005.
What do you think they have lied about?
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
What do you think they have lied about?
Every c++ related issue with vs2005 where their responses said something along the lines of 'this will be fixed in the next major release of vs', only to discover that actually it wont. Then shortly before the release their blogs kindly point out by 'next major release' they actually meant 'next major release +1'. I for one will not be touching vs2008 until it brings *major improvements* to the table for c++ developers.
-- The Obliterator
-
Roses are red, Your post is in blue, The text sounded strange, Are you sure you're you?
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Last time I checked. :) It was a flowery way of saying he should bend with the wind and embrace .net since the alternative is to break.
More people died from worry than ever bled to death. - RAH
Except .net is not entirely viable in my current job. I did write a .net interop assembly to our core code, but that code is essentially driver code in executable format (a benefit of working on embedded systems.) I've done quite a bit .NET development over the years. Outside ASP.NET and pure database front ends, I've found the more I work in it the less I like it. I'll still use it when appropriate, but I'll use C++ when it's most appropriate, which is now most of the time.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
Joe Woodbury wrote:
Is it too early to start a rant thread about Visual Studio 2008? VS 2008 may be great for .NET developers, but right now I'm wearing a C++ hat and it's a huge disappointment in that arena. Once again, Microsoft has raised their big middle finger at us.
I haven't tried VS 2008 yet but...my understanding is that the major changes are supposed to be in the area of making it easier to program for Vista, with such things as changes to the dialog editor to support new controls and changes to MFC to support Vista features. Are you saying this hasn't happened? An update to VS 2008 will support TR1 and provide further enhancements to MFC.
Joe Woodbury wrote:
The bottom line is that Microsoft has again displayed complete contempt for the very developers that made it what it is today. They have blatantly lied about what they were going to do with this release vis-a-vis C++, just like they lied about it with Visual Studio 2005.
What do you think they have lied about?
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Are you saying this hasn't happened?
Exactly.
John Carson wrote:
What do you think they have lied about?
The previous poster is exactly right.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
Except .net is not entirely viable in my current job. I did write a .net interop assembly to our core code, but that code is essentially driver code in executable format (a benefit of working on embedded systems.) I've done quite a bit .NET development over the years. Outside ASP.NET and pure database front ends, I've found the more I work in it the less I like it. I'll still use it when appropriate, but I'll use C++ when it's most appropriate, which is now most of the time.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
Whatever floats your boat, but it should be clear that Microsoft really isn't interested in unmanaged development very much at this point and will only become less interested as time goes by so you will need to adapt accordingly.
More people died from worry than ever bled to death. - RAH
-
Whatever floats your boat, but it should be clear that Microsoft really isn't interested in unmanaged development very much at this point and will only become less interested as time goes by so you will need to adapt accordingly.
More people died from worry than ever bled to death. - RAH
You don't get it. I write drivers. I also write code for embedded XP systems for which .NET will never be appropriate. There will always be a place for C++; what do you think .NET is written in?
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
You don't get it. I write drivers. I also write code for embedded XP systems for which .NET will never be appropriate. There will always be a place for C++; what do you think .NET is written in?
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
I'm not saying you have to use .net, I'm saying you'll use what you have to, but don't think things are going to change on the unmanaged front; Microsoft is clearly not devoting the same resources to it that they used to and haven't been for some time now.
More people died from worry than ever bled to death. - RAH
-
I'm not saying you have to use .net, I'm saying you'll use what you have to, but don't think things are going to change on the unmanaged front; Microsoft is clearly not devoting the same resources to it that they used to and haven't been for some time now.
More people died from worry than ever bled to death. - RAH
Every major software they've ever released is coded in C/C++. They are very interested in C++, but they'd rather have all the other programmers code just in .NET, happily becoming addicted to it.