If VS2010 was open-source..
-
Todd Smith wrote:
Do you think it would be like doing a post-mortem on a smoker with a 50yr habit?
Generally speaking, smokers don't live long enough to have a 50yr habit.
m.bergman
-- For Bruce Schneier, quanta only have one state : afraid.
Michael Bergman wrote:
Generally speaking, smokers don't live long enough to have a 50yr habit
VS2010 might have a lifespan of just a couple of years :laugh: non-open source isn't a garantee for avoiding clutter, I had need some time ago to deactivate the second comming of intellisense. An entire group in microsoft seems to feel the need to constantly recompile the program :laugh:
-
Do you think the post-release annoyance bugs would get fixed assuming MS had a patch submission/review process? Do you think it would be like doing a post-mortem on a smoker with a 50yr habit?
Todd Smith
Jason Zander, who was the genius behind the WinFX -> .NET 3.0 debacle[^], was the self-proclaimed single "approver[^]" of all bug fixes in the .NET Framework. He now works on the Visual Studio team. So no, I don't think anything would get fixed.
-
Jason Zander, who was the genius behind the WinFX -> .NET 3.0 debacle[^], was the self-proclaimed single "approver[^]" of all bug fixes in the .NET Framework. He now works on the Visual Studio team. So no, I don't think anything would get fixed.
Ah, there is a reason why reported bugs are maintained for backwards-compatibility reasons? :laugh: and probably will exist uptill VS2050, :laugh: looks like word 2007 with bugs already present in ancient dos word 5.1 :laugh: :laugh:
-
Todd Smith wrote:
Do you think it would be like doing a post-mortem on a smoker with a 50yr habit?
Generally speaking, smokers don't live long enough to have a 50yr habit.
m.bergman
-- For Bruce Schneier, quanta only have one state : afraid.
-
Ah, there is a reason why reported bugs are maintained for backwards-compatibility reasons? :laugh: and probably will exist uptill VS2050, :laugh: looks like word 2007 with bugs already present in ancient dos word 5.1 :laugh: :laugh:
-
Do you think the post-release annoyance bugs would get fixed assuming MS had a patch submission/review process? Do you think it would be like doing a post-mortem on a smoker with a 50yr habit?
Todd Smith
The mono project[^] is an open source implementation of .NET. In that project they have a sub project MonoDevelop[^] which is, you guessed it, an IDE that is compatible with Visual Studio. If you consider that an experiment on "what would happen if", the result is that bugs DO get fixed, and in an impressive rate. Furthermore, I don't think they have a mess of many different braches. So, my guess is, yes bugs would get fixed. Of course, Microsoft might not manage to do as well ... ;-) --- Adar Wesley
-
The mono project[^] is an open source implementation of .NET. In that project they have a sub project MonoDevelop[^] which is, you guessed it, an IDE that is compatible with Visual Studio. If you consider that an experiment on "what would happen if", the result is that bugs DO get fixed, and in an impressive rate. Furthermore, I don't think they have a mess of many different braches. So, my guess is, yes bugs would get fixed. Of course, Microsoft might not manage to do as well ... ;-) --- Adar Wesley
Adar Wesley wrote:
Furthermore, I don't think they have a mess of many different braches.
I'll tell you a story: Once, there was an open-source IDE called "SharpDevelop". It was written for Windows using Windows.Forms (hey, Mono didn't exist back then!). After Mono was created, the goal was to create a cross-platform version. However, lacking cross-platform GUI toolkits for .NET, this went rather slow. Too slow for some Linux guys - they took the SharpDevelop code and created a Linux-only fork using GTK#. This fork is called MonoDevelop. Of course, this stopped SharpDevelop's effort to become platform independent - the Linux users went to use MonoDevelop. Add some different opinions on licensing in the mix, and nowadays you have two IDEs that are developed without sharing any code. Both IDEs developed code completion for C# 2.0 (generics) and 3.0 (LINQ) independently. You'd think at least the MonoDevelop guys would try to use the code from their C# compiler, but they still code their own stuff. That's right, there are already three open-source implementations of the C# type system: GMCS (the mono compiler), MonoDevelop, SharpDevelop. None of them are sharing any code. Actually there are even more than that (e.g. dotgnu). (I'm a SharpDevelop developer, though I joined the project long after MonoDevelop was forked from it.)
-
Todd Smith wrote:
Do you think it would be like doing a post-mortem on a smoker with a 50yr habit?
Generally speaking, smokers don't live long enough to have a 50yr habit.
m.bergman
-- For Bruce Schneier, quanta only have one state : afraid.
On average smoking reduces your life expectancy by 10 years.[^] So what do you base that on? :P We all know smoking is bad and alot of people die from it ... however if we removed modern medacine and hygine then virtually no one would die from it :P
-
Do you think the post-release annoyance bugs would get fixed assuming MS had a patch submission/review process? Do you think it would be like doing a post-mortem on a smoker with a 50yr habit?
Todd Smith
If VS21010 was open source, we'd still be waiting for intellisense...
"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 -
Adar Wesley wrote:
Furthermore, I don't think they have a mess of many different braches.
I'll tell you a story: Once, there was an open-source IDE called "SharpDevelop". It was written for Windows using Windows.Forms (hey, Mono didn't exist back then!). After Mono was created, the goal was to create a cross-platform version. However, lacking cross-platform GUI toolkits for .NET, this went rather slow. Too slow for some Linux guys - they took the SharpDevelop code and created a Linux-only fork using GTK#. This fork is called MonoDevelop. Of course, this stopped SharpDevelop's effort to become platform independent - the Linux users went to use MonoDevelop. Add some different opinions on licensing in the mix, and nowadays you have two IDEs that are developed without sharing any code. Both IDEs developed code completion for C# 2.0 (generics) and 3.0 (LINQ) independently. You'd think at least the MonoDevelop guys would try to use the code from their C# compiler, but they still code their own stuff. That's right, there are already three open-source implementations of the C# type system: GMCS (the mono compiler), MonoDevelop, SharpDevelop. None of them are sharing any code. Actually there are even more than that (e.g. dotgnu). (I'm a SharpDevelop developer, though I joined the project long after MonoDevelop was forked from it.)
Daniel Grunwald wrote:
That's right, there are already three open-source implementations of the C# type system: GMCS (the mono compiler), MonoDevelop, SharpDevelop. None of them are sharing any code.
Wow, that's interesting. I didn't know all this history. Can you point out some incompatibilities between the different type system implementations? --- Adar Wesley
-
Do you think the post-release annoyance bugs would get fixed assuming MS had a patch submission/review process? Do you think it would be like doing a post-mortem on a smoker with a 50yr habit?
Todd Smith
-
Todd Smith wrote:
Do you think it would be like doing a post-mortem on a smoker with a 50yr habit?
Generally speaking, smokers don't live long enough to have a 50yr habit.
m.bergman
-- For Bruce Schneier, quanta only have one state : afraid.
Michael Bergman wrote:
Generally speaking, smokers don't live long enough to have a 50yr habit.
I guess my mother and my grandpa are a miracle then. Grandpa = 73 years of smoking and still walking My Mother = 51 years of smoking and still looking like a hot chick Regards, Fábio