Why I still use vc6
-
People often accuse those still using VC6 as holdouts, dinosaurs, or too lazy to embrace the new. Well in my case it's none of those. I'm still using VC 6 because Microsoft can't seem to produce a compiler that produces faster binaries!!! Same codebase, same machine: vc6 - Took 0.17346851 seconds or 173.4685 milliseconds vc80 binaries default optimization settings Took 0.54633341 seconds or 546.3334 milliseconds vc80, turned on favor speed optimization settings Took 0.32663722 seconds or 326.6372 milliseconds vc90 binaries default optimization settings Took 0.34099583 seconds or 340.9958 milliseconds vc90, turned on favor speed optimization settings Took 0.33104513 seconds or 331.0451 milliseconds So, after nearly a 10 year wait between the releases of VC 6 (1998) and VC 9 (2007) my program runs twice as slow. Sigh...
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! VCF Blog
-
People often accuse those still using VC6 as holdouts, dinosaurs, or too lazy to embrace the new. Well in my case it's none of those. I'm still using VC 6 because Microsoft can't seem to produce a compiler that produces faster binaries!!! Same codebase, same machine: vc6 - Took 0.17346851 seconds or 173.4685 milliseconds vc80 binaries default optimization settings Took 0.54633341 seconds or 546.3334 milliseconds vc80, turned on favor speed optimization settings Took 0.32663722 seconds or 326.6372 milliseconds vc90 binaries default optimization settings Took 0.34099583 seconds or 340.9958 milliseconds vc90, turned on favor speed optimization settings Took 0.33104513 seconds or 331.0451 milliseconds So, after nearly a 10 year wait between the releases of VC 6 (1998) and VC 9 (2007) my program runs twice as slow. Sigh...
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! VCF Blog
I'm still dumbfounded that my .NET hello world app consumes 18MB of ram!! :wtf:
- S 50 cups of coffee and you know it's on!
-
The VC6 compiler, is kinda sucker_ish_ at times. But the IDE rocks. Best usage of screen real estate and is faster. I've always loved it. :)
Nobody can give you wiser advice than yourself. - Cicero .·´¯`·->Rajesh<-·´¯`·. Codeproject.com: Visual C++ MVP
very true. just saying that its got its problems. and yeah, the IDE was the best.
"impossible" is just an opinion.
-
People often accuse those still using VC6 as holdouts, dinosaurs, or too lazy to embrace the new. Well in my case it's none of those. I'm still using VC 6 because Microsoft can't seem to produce a compiler that produces faster binaries!!! Same codebase, same machine: vc6 - Took 0.17346851 seconds or 173.4685 milliseconds vc80 binaries default optimization settings Took 0.54633341 seconds or 546.3334 milliseconds vc80, turned on favor speed optimization settings Took 0.32663722 seconds or 326.6372 milliseconds vc90 binaries default optimization settings Took 0.34099583 seconds or 340.9958 milliseconds vc90, turned on favor speed optimization settings Took 0.33104513 seconds or 331.0451 milliseconds So, after nearly a 10 year wait between the releases of VC 6 (1998) and VC 9 (2007) my program runs twice as slow. Sigh...
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! VCF Blog
-
People often accuse those still using VC6 as holdouts, dinosaurs, or too lazy to embrace the new. Well in my case it's none of those. I'm still using VC 6 because Microsoft can't seem to produce a compiler that produces faster binaries!!! Same codebase, same machine: vc6 - Took 0.17346851 seconds or 173.4685 milliseconds vc80 binaries default optimization settings Took 0.54633341 seconds or 546.3334 milliseconds vc80, turned on favor speed optimization settings Took 0.32663722 seconds or 326.6372 milliseconds vc90 binaries default optimization settings Took 0.34099583 seconds or 340.9958 milliseconds vc90, turned on favor speed optimization settings Took 0.33104513 seconds or 331.0451 milliseconds So, after nearly a 10 year wait between the releases of VC 6 (1998) and VC 9 (2007) my program runs twice as slow. Sigh...
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! VCF Blog
It's VC6's 10 year anniversary this year. It's in the vc98 folder, isn't it? ;)
-
Actually...most VC++ developers here would say that the VC6 compiler, and IDE in general (for the most part) was the best generation of C++ tools MS has ever produced.
-
People often accuse those still using VC6 as holdouts, dinosaurs, or too lazy to embrace the new. Well in my case it's none of those. I'm still using VC 6 because Microsoft can't seem to produce a compiler that produces faster binaries!!! Same codebase, same machine: vc6 - Took 0.17346851 seconds or 173.4685 milliseconds vc80 binaries default optimization settings Took 0.54633341 seconds or 546.3334 milliseconds vc80, turned on favor speed optimization settings Took 0.32663722 seconds or 326.6372 milliseconds vc90 binaries default optimization settings Took 0.34099583 seconds or 340.9958 milliseconds vc90, turned on favor speed optimization settings Took 0.33104513 seconds or 331.0451 milliseconds So, after nearly a 10 year wait between the releases of VC 6 (1998) and VC 9 (2007) my program runs twice as slow. Sigh...
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! VCF Blog
I don't really write complex C++ applications, so I might be wrong, but newer Microsoft C++ compilers have a ton of new security checks active by default (arrays, string, automatic linking to safe functions instead of default ones, NX data, etc.). That might explain at least some part of the slow performance. If you ask me, I prefer more security and a slower application myself, but I know the customer might not agree on this. :-D
If you truly believe you need to pick a mobile phone that "says something" about your personality, don't bother. You don't have a personality. A mental illness, maybe - but not a personality. - Charlie Brooker My Photos/CP Flickr Group - ScrewTurn Wiki
-
People often accuse those still using VC6 as holdouts, dinosaurs, or too lazy to embrace the new. Well in my case it's none of those. I'm still using VC 6 because Microsoft can't seem to produce a compiler that produces faster binaries!!! Same codebase, same machine: vc6 - Took 0.17346851 seconds or 173.4685 milliseconds vc80 binaries default optimization settings Took 0.54633341 seconds or 546.3334 milliseconds vc80, turned on favor speed optimization settings Took 0.32663722 seconds or 326.6372 milliseconds vc90 binaries default optimization settings Took 0.34099583 seconds or 340.9958 milliseconds vc90, turned on favor speed optimization settings Took 0.33104513 seconds or 331.0451 milliseconds So, after nearly a 10 year wait between the releases of VC 6 (1998) and VC 9 (2007) my program runs twice as slow. Sigh...
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! VCF Blog
-
I'm still dumbfounded that my .NET hello world app consumes 18MB of ram!! :wtf:
- S 50 cups of coffee and you know it's on!
-
People often accuse those still using VC6 as holdouts, dinosaurs, or too lazy to embrace the new. Well in my case it's none of those. I'm still using VC 6 because Microsoft can't seem to produce a compiler that produces faster binaries!!! Same codebase, same machine: vc6 - Took 0.17346851 seconds or 173.4685 milliseconds vc80 binaries default optimization settings Took 0.54633341 seconds or 546.3334 milliseconds vc80, turned on favor speed optimization settings Took 0.32663722 seconds or 326.6372 milliseconds vc90 binaries default optimization settings Took 0.34099583 seconds or 340.9958 milliseconds vc90, turned on favor speed optimization settings Took 0.33104513 seconds or 331.0451 milliseconds So, after nearly a 10 year wait between the releases of VC 6 (1998) and VC 9 (2007) my program runs twice as slow. Sigh...
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! VCF Blog
All work places (job opennings) work with vc6.0. the transformation to 2005/2008 requiere too much work and time, so thay don't upgrade. so my sallery depends on working on vc6.0. therfore I search all the time how to use c# samples ,vb samples and .NET samples using VC6.0 only. lately I have found that the window SDK platform supply most capabilities of C#/VB/.NET using Components and specialised libraries / DLL's. the code comes out much more generic and compatible. it is easy to integrate, migrate and control (sorce safe) the source. bottom line - VC6.0 is most effective for practical job in computers programming. a VC6.0 developer has x3 times more job oportunities then C# / VB / .NET programmers.
One more fan of Simplicity.
-
People often accuse those still using VC6 as holdouts, dinosaurs, or too lazy to embrace the new. Well in my case it's none of those. I'm still using VC 6 because Microsoft can't seem to produce a compiler that produces faster binaries!!! Same codebase, same machine: vc6 - Took 0.17346851 seconds or 173.4685 milliseconds vc80 binaries default optimization settings Took 0.54633341 seconds or 546.3334 milliseconds vc80, turned on favor speed optimization settings Took 0.32663722 seconds or 326.6372 milliseconds vc90 binaries default optimization settings Took 0.34099583 seconds or 340.9958 milliseconds vc90, turned on favor speed optimization settings Took 0.33104513 seconds or 331.0451 milliseconds So, after nearly a 10 year wait between the releases of VC 6 (1998) and VC 9 (2007) my program runs twice as slow. Sigh...
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! VCF Blog
-
People often accuse those still using VC6 as holdouts, dinosaurs, or too lazy to embrace the new. Well in my case it's none of those. I'm still using VC 6 because Microsoft can't seem to produce a compiler that produces faster binaries!!! Same codebase, same machine: vc6 - Took 0.17346851 seconds or 173.4685 milliseconds vc80 binaries default optimization settings Took 0.54633341 seconds or 546.3334 milliseconds vc80, turned on favor speed optimization settings Took 0.32663722 seconds or 326.6372 milliseconds vc90 binaries default optimization settings Took 0.34099583 seconds or 340.9958 milliseconds vc90, turned on favor speed optimization settings Took 0.33104513 seconds or 331.0451 milliseconds So, after nearly a 10 year wait between the releases of VC 6 (1998) and VC 9 (2007) my program runs twice as slow. Sigh...
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! VCF Blog
-
What sort of processing was this? For numerical stuff I've found VC8 pretty good compared to VC6. If it is text processing you could slow down with the default unicode settings in the later compilers.
Peter "Until the invention of the computer, the machine gun was the device that enabled humans to make the most mistakes in the smallest amount of time."
Yes, I too would like to know what source code generated these statistics. I have examined the object code produced by VS 2005 on some of my time critical stuff and I was well impressed.
Paul Sanders http://www.alpinesoft.co.uk
-
People often accuse those still using VC6 as holdouts, dinosaurs, or too lazy to embrace the new. Well in my case it's none of those. I'm still using VC 6 because Microsoft can't seem to produce a compiler that produces faster binaries!!! Same codebase, same machine: vc6 - Took 0.17346851 seconds or 173.4685 milliseconds vc80 binaries default optimization settings Took 0.54633341 seconds or 546.3334 milliseconds vc80, turned on favor speed optimization settings Took 0.32663722 seconds or 326.6372 milliseconds vc90 binaries default optimization settings Took 0.34099583 seconds or 340.9958 milliseconds vc90, turned on favor speed optimization settings Took 0.33104513 seconds or 331.0451 milliseconds So, after nearly a 10 year wait between the releases of VC 6 (1998) and VC 9 (2007) my program runs twice as slow. Sigh...
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! VCF Blog
I have been using vc6 until a couple of weeks ago when my computer died and I decided to take the plunge and upgrade to vs2005. What hard work that has turned out to be! Does anyone know of any guides covering upgrading projects from vc6 to vs2005?
-
Actually...most VC++ developers here would say that the VC6 compiler, and IDE in general (for the most part) was the best generation of C++ tools MS has ever produced.
Anton Afanasyev wrote:
Actually...most VC++ developers here would say that the VC6 compiler, and IDE in general (for the most part) was the best generation of C++ tools MS has ever produced.
That would be pretty much everyone except Christian Graus...
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
It is, but you can't live with the past forever.
In this case, you're completely wrong. There is NOTHING that VC8 or 9 gives you that you cannot do in VC6.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
Isn't anyone else going to say it's all .NET's fault? I like the libraries and the IDE, but if you're building something speed-critical, you can't really use .NET.
But it's not .net's fault because he's doing unmanaged code.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
I have been using vc6 until a couple of weeks ago when my computer died and I decided to take the plunge and upgrade to vs2005. What hard work that has turned out to be! Does anyone know of any guides covering upgrading projects from vc6 to vs2005?
I did a major port from VC6 to VS2005 last year. There are some upgrade docs on the microsoft site (search on vc++ breaking changes), but I found the easiest way was to work through the errors/warnings file by file. Sometimes for deprecated functions you could do a project-wide search and replace, but simply working from one warning/error to the next was the easiest for me. The other thing to be wary of is the new .exe has a manifest and some of the older installers do not seem to do the right thing (we were using the free Installshield that came with VC6 - no flames please - it did the job). We moved to using the setup project you can create in VS2005 that creates a .msi file for the MS installer. One annoying thing here is that the installation file size doubled as I think it automatically included some extra .dlls, I can't recall which.
Peter "Until the invention of the computer, the machine gun was the device that enabled humans to make the most mistakes in the smallest amount of time."
-
All work places (job opennings) work with vc6.0. the transformation to 2005/2008 requiere too much work and time, so thay don't upgrade. so my sallery depends on working on vc6.0. therfore I search all the time how to use c# samples ,vb samples and .NET samples using VC6.0 only. lately I have found that the window SDK platform supply most capabilities of C#/VB/.NET using Components and specialised libraries / DLL's. the code comes out much more generic and compatible. it is easy to integrate, migrate and control (sorce safe) the source. bottom line - VC6.0 is most effective for practical job in computers programming. a VC6.0 developer has x3 times more job oportunities then C# / VB / .NET programmers.
One more fan of Simplicity.
ori kovacsi wrote:
the transformation to 2005/2008 requiere too much work and time, so thay don't upgrade.
That's a bunch of crap. As a test, we converted a 760,000 line app from VC6 to VC8 in less than two hours. We turned off deprecation warnings, and ended up with almost 2500 errors on the first run-through. Fully 2000 of those errors were on the same line of code involving a single derived class. Running the program didn't expose anything as far as conversion-related problems but... The actual cost of the conversion lies in thorough testing to ensure the conversion process didn't break anything. We didn't have the time to do that, and the program remained in VC6 until the code was retired a couple of years later. Large legacy apps should remain in the compiler/language they were originally written in, but not using the newest tools on new projects is about three degrees past "stupid". Granted, the IDE in VS2005 and later suck giant bull testicles, but the benefits of the newer libraries are not wisely discarded.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
I'm assuming the speed decrease in .net is due to compilation to bytecode instead of native code.. but doesn't the 'Win32' option for a project type in VS.net let you compile to native?
HE'S NOT TALKING ABOUT .NET! Geeze people... He's talking about UN-MANAGED CODE.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
