10 is not the new 6 (at least so far.)
-
As many of you know, Microsoft has been saying "10 is the new 6" concerning Visual Studio 2010. Well, it isn't. In fact, it doesn't appear to have been changed from VS 2005/2008 except that the linker is worse, creating a 1.5MB executable in one case (VS 2005 created a 202k executable for this one.) VS 2005/2008 bloated up executables for no discernible reason. If 10 were the new 6, I'd expect MS to clean up the start up and CRT code and lean things out a little. That aside, I was expecting the kind of productivity enhancements that VC++ 6.0 offered in addition to all the things (like tabbed windows) added since VS 2003. No such luck. Granted this is a CTP release, but I still expected something, anything. Unfortunately, I suspect that many of the Visual Studio developers have absolutely no idea why VC++ 6.0 is remembered so fondly by us Windows C++ developers (some of us still use it daily!) During the VS 2005 development cycle, the C++ stuff was always one full beta/RC release behind everything else. Even once released, it was a step behind. To this day, there are dialog boxes that look like they were designed by blind infants--you'd think they could at least line check boxes up! Spacing them evenly would be the next, apparently monstrously difficult task. (Oh, and you don't use check boxes for a list of exclusive choices--seriously, some idiot at Microsoft did that and then put in code to make the check boxes behaved like radio buttons.) Microsoft's own surveys show that vastly many more developers still use native C++ than they thought. It would be nice if they paid attention to this small fact.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
As many of you know, Microsoft has been saying "10 is the new 6" concerning Visual Studio 2010. Well, it isn't. In fact, it doesn't appear to have been changed from VS 2005/2008 except that the linker is worse, creating a 1.5MB executable in one case (VS 2005 created a 202k executable for this one.) VS 2005/2008 bloated up executables for no discernible reason. If 10 were the new 6, I'd expect MS to clean up the start up and CRT code and lean things out a little. That aside, I was expecting the kind of productivity enhancements that VC++ 6.0 offered in addition to all the things (like tabbed windows) added since VS 2003. No such luck. Granted this is a CTP release, but I still expected something, anything. Unfortunately, I suspect that many of the Visual Studio developers have absolutely no idea why VC++ 6.0 is remembered so fondly by us Windows C++ developers (some of us still use it daily!) During the VS 2005 development cycle, the C++ stuff was always one full beta/RC release behind everything else. Even once released, it was a step behind. To this day, there are dialog boxes that look like they were designed by blind infants--you'd think they could at least line check boxes up! Spacing them evenly would be the next, apparently monstrously difficult task. (Oh, and you don't use check boxes for a list of exclusive choices--seriously, some idiot at Microsoft did that and then put in code to make the check boxes behaved like radio buttons.) Microsoft's own surveys show that vastly many more developers still use native C++ than they thought. It would be nice if they paid attention to this small fact.
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:
I suspect that many of the Visual Studio developers have absolutely no idea why VC++ 6.0 is remembered so fondly by us Windows C++ developers
You're right. My first version was VS .NET. 6.0 was before my time.
-
As many of you know, Microsoft has been saying "10 is the new 6" concerning Visual Studio 2010. Well, it isn't. In fact, it doesn't appear to have been changed from VS 2005/2008 except that the linker is worse, creating a 1.5MB executable in one case (VS 2005 created a 202k executable for this one.) VS 2005/2008 bloated up executables for no discernible reason. If 10 were the new 6, I'd expect MS to clean up the start up and CRT code and lean things out a little. That aside, I was expecting the kind of productivity enhancements that VC++ 6.0 offered in addition to all the things (like tabbed windows) added since VS 2003. No such luck. Granted this is a CTP release, but I still expected something, anything. Unfortunately, I suspect that many of the Visual Studio developers have absolutely no idea why VC++ 6.0 is remembered so fondly by us Windows C++ developers (some of us still use it daily!) During the VS 2005 development cycle, the C++ stuff was always one full beta/RC release behind everything else. Even once released, it was a step behind. To this day, there are dialog boxes that look like they were designed by blind infants--you'd think they could at least line check boxes up! Spacing them evenly would be the next, apparently monstrously difficult task. (Oh, and you don't use check boxes for a list of exclusive choices--seriously, some idiot at Microsoft did that and then put in code to make the check boxes behaved like radio buttons.) Microsoft's own surveys show that vastly many more developers still use native C++ than they thought. It would be nice if they paid attention to this small fact.
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:
To this day, there are dialog boxes that look like they were designed by blind infants--you'd think they could at least line check boxes up! Spacing them evenly would be the next, apparently monstrously difficult task. (Oh, and you don't use check boxes for a list of exclusive choices--seriously, some idiot at Microsoft did that and then put in code to make the check boxes behaved like radio buttons.)
X| I have sharp eye for stuff like that (sometimes I wish I didn't), and it just leaves me with such a bad impression of the software and those responsible for writing and testing it. You'd think Microsoft would be especially stringent on something as trivially easy to do as dialog box UI.
"When you reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more." -- John McCain in 2000, on his vote against lowering the top tax rate from 39% to Bush's proposed 35%.
-
As many of you know, Microsoft has been saying "10 is the new 6" concerning Visual Studio 2010. Well, it isn't. In fact, it doesn't appear to have been changed from VS 2005/2008 except that the linker is worse, creating a 1.5MB executable in one case (VS 2005 created a 202k executable for this one.) VS 2005/2008 bloated up executables for no discernible reason. If 10 were the new 6, I'd expect MS to clean up the start up and CRT code and lean things out a little. That aside, I was expecting the kind of productivity enhancements that VC++ 6.0 offered in addition to all the things (like tabbed windows) added since VS 2003. No such luck. Granted this is a CTP release, but I still expected something, anything. Unfortunately, I suspect that many of the Visual Studio developers have absolutely no idea why VC++ 6.0 is remembered so fondly by us Windows C++ developers (some of us still use it daily!) During the VS 2005 development cycle, the C++ stuff was always one full beta/RC release behind everything else. Even once released, it was a step behind. To this day, there are dialog boxes that look like they were designed by blind infants--you'd think they could at least line check boxes up! Spacing them evenly would be the next, apparently monstrously difficult task. (Oh, and you don't use check boxes for a list of exclusive choices--seriously, some idiot at Microsoft did that and then put in code to make the check boxes behaved like radio buttons.) Microsoft's own surveys show that vastly many more developers still use native C++ than they thought. It would be nice if they paid attention to this small fact.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
That's funny. I've read several MS blogs recently about how sweet 2010 is. Look at the lovely cerulean blue sky.
Best wishes, Hans
[CodeProject Forum Guidelines] [How To Ask A Question] [My Articles]
-
As many of you know, Microsoft has been saying "10 is the new 6" concerning Visual Studio 2010. Well, it isn't. In fact, it doesn't appear to have been changed from VS 2005/2008 except that the linker is worse, creating a 1.5MB executable in one case (VS 2005 created a 202k executable for this one.) VS 2005/2008 bloated up executables for no discernible reason. If 10 were the new 6, I'd expect MS to clean up the start up and CRT code and lean things out a little. That aside, I was expecting the kind of productivity enhancements that VC++ 6.0 offered in addition to all the things (like tabbed windows) added since VS 2003. No such luck. Granted this is a CTP release, but I still expected something, anything. Unfortunately, I suspect that many of the Visual Studio developers have absolutely no idea why VC++ 6.0 is remembered so fondly by us Windows C++ developers (some of us still use it daily!) During the VS 2005 development cycle, the C++ stuff was always one full beta/RC release behind everything else. Even once released, it was a step behind. To this day, there are dialog boxes that look like they were designed by blind infants--you'd think they could at least line check boxes up! Spacing them evenly would be the next, apparently monstrously difficult task. (Oh, and you don't use check boxes for a list of exclusive choices--seriously, some idiot at Microsoft did that and then put in code to make the check boxes behaved like radio buttons.) Microsoft's own surveys show that vastly many more developers still use native C++ than they thought. It would be nice if they paid attention to this small fact.
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 agree. I have been nothing but disappointed with VC++ 2010. I do however know now how to write code to customize the start page in VS 2010 or customize the editor, things that I and many other developers do so often.
Proud to be a CPHog user
-
As many of you know, Microsoft has been saying "10 is the new 6" concerning Visual Studio 2010. Well, it isn't. In fact, it doesn't appear to have been changed from VS 2005/2008 except that the linker is worse, creating a 1.5MB executable in one case (VS 2005 created a 202k executable for this one.) VS 2005/2008 bloated up executables for no discernible reason. If 10 were the new 6, I'd expect MS to clean up the start up and CRT code and lean things out a little. That aside, I was expecting the kind of productivity enhancements that VC++ 6.0 offered in addition to all the things (like tabbed windows) added since VS 2003. No such luck. Granted this is a CTP release, but I still expected something, anything. Unfortunately, I suspect that many of the Visual Studio developers have absolutely no idea why VC++ 6.0 is remembered so fondly by us Windows C++ developers (some of us still use it daily!) During the VS 2005 development cycle, the C++ stuff was always one full beta/RC release behind everything else. Even once released, it was a step behind. To this day, there are dialog boxes that look like they were designed by blind infants--you'd think they could at least line check boxes up! Spacing them evenly would be the next, apparently monstrously difficult task. (Oh, and you don't use check boxes for a list of exclusive choices--seriously, some idiot at Microsoft did that and then put in code to make the check boxes behaved like radio buttons.) Microsoft's own surveys show that vastly many more developers still use native C++ than they thought. It would be nice if they paid attention to this small fact.
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:
Unfortunately, I suspect that many of the Visual Studio developers have absolutely no idea why VC++ 6.0 is remembered so fondly by us Windows C++ developers (some of us still use it daily!)
I sure don't. It may not have been the worst IDE i've ever used, but it was slow, buggy, a memory hog at a time when memory was expensive... If the first two releases of Visual Studio hadn't been even slower and buggier, i doubt VC6 nostalgia would be as common today.
Joe Woodbury wrote:
Microsoft's own surveys show that vastly many more developers still use native C++ than they thought. It would be nice if they paid attention to this small fact.
Agreed.
----
You're right. These facts that you've laid out totally contradict the wild ramblings that I pulled off the back of cornflakes packets.
-
As many of you know, Microsoft has been saying "10 is the new 6" concerning Visual Studio 2010. Well, it isn't. In fact, it doesn't appear to have been changed from VS 2005/2008 except that the linker is worse, creating a 1.5MB executable in one case (VS 2005 created a 202k executable for this one.) VS 2005/2008 bloated up executables for no discernible reason. If 10 were the new 6, I'd expect MS to clean up the start up and CRT code and lean things out a little. That aside, I was expecting the kind of productivity enhancements that VC++ 6.0 offered in addition to all the things (like tabbed windows) added since VS 2003. No such luck. Granted this is a CTP release, but I still expected something, anything. Unfortunately, I suspect that many of the Visual Studio developers have absolutely no idea why VC++ 6.0 is remembered so fondly by us Windows C++ developers (some of us still use it daily!) During the VS 2005 development cycle, the C++ stuff was always one full beta/RC release behind everything else. Even once released, it was a step behind. To this day, there are dialog boxes that look like they were designed by blind infants--you'd think they could at least line check boxes up! Spacing them evenly would be the next, apparently monstrously difficult task. (Oh, and you don't use check boxes for a list of exclusive choices--seriously, some idiot at Microsoft did that and then put in code to make the check boxes behaved like radio buttons.) Microsoft's own surveys show that vastly many more developers still use native C++ than they thought. It would be nice if they paid attention to this small fact.
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:
VC++ 6.0 is remembered so fondly by us Windows C++ developers
Ah, and WIN98, 16MB video cards, Dial-up internet :-D
My Blog: http://cynicalclots.blogspot.com
-
As many of you know, Microsoft has been saying "10 is the new 6" concerning Visual Studio 2010. Well, it isn't. In fact, it doesn't appear to have been changed from VS 2005/2008 except that the linker is worse, creating a 1.5MB executable in one case (VS 2005 created a 202k executable for this one.) VS 2005/2008 bloated up executables for no discernible reason. If 10 were the new 6, I'd expect MS to clean up the start up and CRT code and lean things out a little. That aside, I was expecting the kind of productivity enhancements that VC++ 6.0 offered in addition to all the things (like tabbed windows) added since VS 2003. No such luck. Granted this is a CTP release, but I still expected something, anything. Unfortunately, I suspect that many of the Visual Studio developers have absolutely no idea why VC++ 6.0 is remembered so fondly by us Windows C++ developers (some of us still use it daily!) During the VS 2005 development cycle, the C++ stuff was always one full beta/RC release behind everything else. Even once released, it was a step behind. To this day, there are dialog boxes that look like they were designed by blind infants--you'd think they could at least line check boxes up! Spacing them evenly would be the next, apparently monstrously difficult task. (Oh, and you don't use check boxes for a list of exclusive choices--seriously, some idiot at Microsoft did that and then put in code to make the check boxes behaved like radio buttons.) Microsoft's own surveys show that vastly many more developers still use native C++ than they thought. It would be nice if they paid attention to this small fact.
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 linker is worse, creating a 1.5MB executable
...they probably figured out how to make an XML based exe.
-
As many of you know, Microsoft has been saying "10 is the new 6" concerning Visual Studio 2010. Well, it isn't. In fact, it doesn't appear to have been changed from VS 2005/2008 except that the linker is worse, creating a 1.5MB executable in one case (VS 2005 created a 202k executable for this one.) VS 2005/2008 bloated up executables for no discernible reason. If 10 were the new 6, I'd expect MS to clean up the start up and CRT code and lean things out a little. That aside, I was expecting the kind of productivity enhancements that VC++ 6.0 offered in addition to all the things (like tabbed windows) added since VS 2003. No such luck. Granted this is a CTP release, but I still expected something, anything. Unfortunately, I suspect that many of the Visual Studio developers have absolutely no idea why VC++ 6.0 is remembered so fondly by us Windows C++ developers (some of us still use it daily!) During the VS 2005 development cycle, the C++ stuff was always one full beta/RC release behind everything else. Even once released, it was a step behind. To this day, there are dialog boxes that look like they were designed by blind infants--you'd think they could at least line check boxes up! Spacing them evenly would be the next, apparently monstrously difficult task. (Oh, and you don't use check boxes for a list of exclusive choices--seriously, some idiot at Microsoft did that and then put in code to make the check boxes behaved like radio buttons.) Microsoft's own surveys show that vastly many more developers still use native C++ than they thought. It would be nice if they paid attention to this small fact.
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:
Microsoft's own surveys show that vastly many more developers still use native C++ than they thought. It would be nice if they paid attention to this small fact.
obviously someone lied on the surveys! ;P Everyone knows that C++ died. ;) All games are now made in ASPX and scientific computation is done in Java, and the military gave up Ada for Ruby on Rails. :laugh:
-
Joe Woodbury wrote:
Microsoft's own surveys show that vastly many more developers still use native C++ than they thought. It would be nice if they paid attention to this small fact.
obviously someone lied on the surveys! ;P Everyone knows that C++ died. ;) All games are now made in ASPX and scientific computation is done in Java, and the military gave up Ada for Ruby on Rails. :laugh:
I am glad you finally accepted it. You filth. :)
It is a crappy thing, but it's life -^ Carlo Pallini
-
Joe Woodbury wrote:
Unfortunately, I suspect that many of the Visual Studio developers have absolutely no idea why VC++ 6.0 is remembered so fondly by us Windows C++ developers (some of us still use it daily!)
I sure don't. It may not have been the worst IDE i've ever used, but it was slow, buggy, a memory hog at a time when memory was expensive... If the first two releases of Visual Studio hadn't been even slower and buggier, i doubt VC6 nostalgia would be as common today.
Joe Woodbury wrote:
Microsoft's own surveys show that vastly many more developers still use native C++ than they thought. It would be nice if they paid attention to this small fact.
Agreed.
----
You're right. These facts that you've laid out totally contradict the wild ramblings that I pulled off the back of cornflakes packets.
Shog9 wrote:
but it was slow, buggy, a memory hog at a time when memory was expensive
Hmm, I found it to be the opposite and I didn't have a zippy system. I did use NT 4 and Windows 2000 on it; perhaps that made a difference. Besides, it was worlds better than Visual C++ 1.52c (yeah, the 16-bit one. And the IDE was better than Borland C++ [though Borland's C++ implementation was better].) (Incidentally, though I do use VC++ 6.0 daily, it's only because those are the runtimes are on our embedded systems. It drives me batty, but at the time it was a definite improvement as to what was out there and there are still a few things it really does do better than Visual Studio.)
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:
VC++ 6.0 is remembered so fondly by us Windows C++ developers
Ah, and WIN98, 16MB video cards, Dial-up internet :-D
My Blog: http://cynicalclots.blogspot.com
Dirk Higbee wrote:
WIN98, 16MB video cards,
You used Win98 for development? I had a 32MB video card; cost me $350.
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:
Microsoft's own surveys show that vastly many more developers still use native C++ than they thought. It would be nice if they paid attention to this small fact.
obviously someone lied on the surveys! ;P Everyone knows that C++ died. ;) All games are now made in ASPX and scientific computation is done in Java, and the military gave up Ada for Ruby on Rails. :laugh:
-
Joe Woodbury wrote:
Microsoft's own surveys show that vastly many more developers still use native C++ than they thought. It would be nice if they paid attention to this small fact.
obviously someone lied on the surveys! ;P Everyone knows that C++ died. ;) All games are now made in ASPX and scientific computation is done in Java, and the military gave up Ada for Ruby on Rails. :laugh:
you forgot yesterdays buzzword, shame on you. Wasn't it said that about 80% of all positions are maintenance? So I don't see any language in wide use die soon. I'll be 65 when signed 32 bit time_t overflows. I'm planning on making decent extra money for my retirement :)
-
As many of you know, Microsoft has been saying "10 is the new 6" concerning Visual Studio 2010. Well, it isn't. In fact, it doesn't appear to have been changed from VS 2005/2008 except that the linker is worse, creating a 1.5MB executable in one case (VS 2005 created a 202k executable for this one.) VS 2005/2008 bloated up executables for no discernible reason. If 10 were the new 6, I'd expect MS to clean up the start up and CRT code and lean things out a little. That aside, I was expecting the kind of productivity enhancements that VC++ 6.0 offered in addition to all the things (like tabbed windows) added since VS 2003. No such luck. Granted this is a CTP release, but I still expected something, anything. Unfortunately, I suspect that many of the Visual Studio developers have absolutely no idea why VC++ 6.0 is remembered so fondly by us Windows C++ developers (some of us still use it daily!) During the VS 2005 development cycle, the C++ stuff was always one full beta/RC release behind everything else. Even once released, it was a step behind. To this day, there are dialog boxes that look like they were designed by blind infants--you'd think they could at least line check boxes up! Spacing them evenly would be the next, apparently monstrously difficult task. (Oh, and you don't use check boxes for a list of exclusive choices--seriously, some idiot at Microsoft did that and then put in code to make the check boxes behaved like radio buttons.) Microsoft's own surveys show that vastly many more developers still use native C++ than they thought. It would be nice if they paid attention to this small fact.
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're not kidding. We use SourceSafe (alright, dammit, stop laughing), and every time we've updated it (6.0d to 2005 to 2005CTP) I've had to go in and edit the damned resources to resize a number of dialogs we use a lot. They're still proportioned like Windows 3.1 dialogs. Morons.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Joe Woodbury wrote:
the linker is worse, creating a 1.5MB executable
...they probably figured out how to make an XML based exe.
... <function name="_foobar" format="compiled"> <codebyte>83</codebyte> <codebyte>65</codebyte> <codebyte>EC</codebyte> <codebyte>00</codebyte> ... </function> ...Burning Chrome ^ | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighist
modified on Friday, November 7, 2008 9:05 AM
-
You're not kidding. We use SourceSafe (alright, dammit, stop laughing), and every time we've updated it (6.0d to 2005 to 2005CTP) I've had to go in and edit the damned resources to resize a number of dialogs we use a lot. They're still proportioned like Windows 3.1 dialogs. Morons.
Software Zen:
delete this;We use Sourcesafe - I have never had the nerve to actually update the software. Kudos.
"If you reward everyone, there will not be enough to go around, so you offer a reward to one in order to encourage everyone." Mei Yaochen in the 'Doing Battle' section of Sun Tzu's: Art of War. .
-
We use Sourcesafe - I have never had the nerve to actually update the software. Kudos.
"If you reward everyone, there will not be enough to go around, so you offer a reward to one in order to encourage everyone." Mei Yaochen in the 'Doing Battle' section of Sun Tzu's: Art of War. .
We have a moderately large data base: 2G and usually 6-8 users. I run the ANALYZE tool every night, and backup the entire data base nightly. We use a mix of clients. We've got the 6.0d client, the VSS2005 client, and the VS2005CTP client required for Visual Studio 2008. From what I've seen there are no deficiencies in moving 'up' the scale. In fact, the later clients fix a number of bugs in some of the earlier ones.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
We have a moderately large data base: 2G and usually 6-8 users. I run the ANALYZE tool every night, and backup the entire data base nightly. We use a mix of clients. We've got the 6.0d client, the VSS2005 client, and the VS2005CTP client required for Visual Studio 2008. From what I've seen there are no deficiencies in moving 'up' the scale. In fact, the later clients fix a number of bugs in some of the earlier ones.
Software Zen:
delete this;Thanks for the update, information well worth knowing. But as my office is closing I think I'll save it for the next gig.
"If you reward everyone, there will not be enough to go around, so you offer a reward to one in order to encourage everyone." Mei Yaochen in the 'Doing Battle' section of Sun Tzu's: Art of War. .
-
Thanks for the update, information well worth knowing. But as my office is closing I think I'll save it for the next gig.
"If you reward everyone, there will not be enough to go around, so you offer a reward to one in order to encourage everyone." Mei Yaochen in the 'Doing Battle' section of Sun Tzu's: Art of War. .
[ftw]melvin wrote:
as my office is closing
Sorry to hear that, man :rose:.
[ftw]melvin wrote:
I'll save it for the next gig
I hope it shows up soon. Good luck.
Software Zen:
delete this;
