Re: VS2005 Not ready for prime time

There wasn't much wrong with VS.NET to begin with. I wouldn't call 2005
homerun based on that.
I'd call it a 3-base hit... and almost entirely because of the CLR and
framework classes improvments.

You have to look for the stuff that is added to VS.Net 2005 to see it. None
of it is obvious or flashy. But there's tons of it there. Refactoring alone
is a huge improvement. Intellisense is improved tremendously. The "Surround
With..." command and Code Snippets are also very useful. Those are the
things that spring to mind right off the bat, but there are literally dozens
of features that maximize coding time. Take some time to read the "What's
new" articles in the SDK sometime, you may be pleasantly surprised.

Css features are extremely lacking (downright no-frills!). As are XML
editing features (non-existent?). This is extremely confounding to me....
especially in today's day and age.

I don't know what you're looking at, but you must be looking in the wrong
place. The CSS editor is excellent for working with external style sheets,
and the Intellisense comes right out of the DTD for CSS. As for XML, well,
XML can be almost anything, dozens of different "flavors." I'm not sure what
you expect the IDE to be able to do graphically with any type of XML you
might want to edit. If you just want to talk about XML as a base language,
it's got great Intellisense for editing XML code. But in addition, you
should check out the XSD tools and even more importantly, the XSL editor and
debugging tools. You can even step through an XSL document while parsing and
do watches with it. I've used the heck out of both of these.

Considering the number of XML flavors out there, I believe Microsoft honed
in on the most important ones, and supports them very well.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
We got a sick zebra a hat,
you ultimate tuna.


"CMM" <cmm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:O3mv6jXLGHA.2704@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Microsoft hit the ball right out of the park.

There wasn't much wrong with VS.NET to begin with. I wouldn't call 2005
homerun based on that.
I'd call it a 3-base hit... and almost entirely because of the CLR and
framework classes improvments.

re: ASP.NET, actually, after working with it for a while... creating a new
site from scratch... I actually like the new model. Though upgrading a
previous site is a bit of a hassle... and as I mentioned there are serious
head's scratchers in terms of "follow through" on the part of the ASP.NET
team. Css features are extremely lacking (downright no-frills!). As are
XML editing features (non-existent?). This is extremely confounding to
me.... especially in today's day and age.



--
-C. Moya
www.cmoya.com
"Kevin Spencer" <kevin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%23GIp8KXLGHA.532@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I have to agree with Karl. I haven't done any ASP.Net with VS.Net 2005
yet, but I've been using it for a variety of other projects for over a
year. For everything else, it is an amazing dev environment. From what
I've read in the SDK regarding ASP.Net 2.0, and what I've read in the
newsgroups and Google about ASP.Net 2.0 and the VS.Net IDE for it, I am
not exactly chomping at the bit to dive in.

I believe Microsoft had the right idea with the change from classic ASP
to ASP.Net. It demanded more knowledge of the developer, forcing
developers to become better developers. That's good for everybody. Yes,
there were some issues with it, but simply catering to the deliberately
ignorant, which it sounds like happened with the latest incarnation, and
breaking the original programming model so drastically with so little
benefit, except perhaps in terms of accomodating the deliberately
ignorant, well, I'm not so sure whether the judgment exercised in the
case of ASP.Net 2.0 was correctly motivated.

Master Pages are a good idea, for sure. Breaking up the monolithic
assembly was a good idea, but I'm not sure I like the alternative arrived
at. It seems that both one assembly per project, and one assembly per
Page are poor solutions at opposite ends of the spectrum. And why the
drastic change in the assembly locations, extra folders, etc.?

I will adjust and adapt. That is a crucial programming skill. But I do
wonder about this particular technology. Still, as I said, in terms of
everything else Visual Studio.Net 2005 does, and everything else in the
.Net platform 2.0, Microsoft hit the ball right out of the park.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
We got a sick zebra a hat,
you ultimate tuna.


"Karl Seguin [MVP]" <karl REMOVE @ REMOVE openmymind REMOVEMETOO . ANDME
net> wrote in message news:OmacQVRLGHA.1288@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I've had mixed feelings about VS.NET 2005...There hasn't been anything
horrible, but I have had to adjust more than I should. I still get
errors reported that aren't errors (normally ones that I fixed a few
builds back) but that don't cause problems. I strongly disagree with the
high amount of error aspx files generate for non-build-errors (they
should all be warnings). The new project model has a lot of annoyances
(thankfully we have a beta project that's more to my liking).

As far as features, generics and anonymous functions are a big part of
the daily code i use/write. Many of the new ASP.NET features are fluff
and downright promote HORRIBLE coding practice (i wouldn't make a big
deal about it, but every tutorial out there (especially those from the
ASP.NET team) seem to make use of them).

In the end, I do think some aspect could have been better polished. My
first week in the IDE shouldn't have been as painful, but now that I'm
past it, things are running much more smoothly.

I should also note that I've been running EAPs of resharper, which only
recently started seeing quasi-stable builds.

Personally, all I'm hoping for are more frequent and easy to access
pathes/updates.

Karl
--
http://www.openmymind.net/



"CMM" <cmm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e3JNflQLGHA.3460@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I am so disappointed in VS2005. The "little things" wrong with it are
just mind-boggling. Boy, I'll be so mad if I have to wait a year for the
".1" release that fixes all the bugs in this obvious beta product.

This (received today) is just one of the many examples of why ASP.NET
2.0 was totally not ready for prime time.
http://www.kbalertz.com/Feedback_911717.aspx The "workaround" they cite
isn't a workaround AT ALL. They're actually saying... "don't use it."
It's handling of CSS classes sucks (no dropdown for style classes
anywhere... everything has to be inputted manually from memory)... it's
handling of globalization via resources sucks (Global_Resource doesn't
appear in any drop downs and neither does its keys).

It's the "little things" that matter. Not the big hammers and
frameworks (like all the code-behind and project model "improvements"
in ASP.NET 2.0). It's the little things that make you scratch your head
and make you waste hours of time trying to figure what YOU'RE doing
wrong... when it's just that the tool you're using is in need of an
IMMEDIATE patch cycle.











.