Re: Visual C++ 6 support issue

From: Joseph M. Newcomer (newcomer_at_flounder.com)
Date: 05/18/04 

Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 01:53:49 -0400

I agree that a single strong IDE is a good idea. Too bad there wasn't a strong IDE
developed. The IDE is crap, no question. I've used it for C# and for C and C++, and
C++/MFC. It sucks for C#, for C, for C++ and for C++/MFC. I can't imagine how it would
make sense in VB, because all the defects would apply equally well to that environment.
Poor organization, excess modality, an unbelievably poor representation of properties
(competely at odds with how programmers need to think about them!), an editor that makes
vi look sophisticated, just to name the obvious defects. The three VB apps I had to work
with were completely disgusting, because I was forced to use the crappy interface. I
finally got around most of need to use the editor for C#, but the rest of the interface is
just as bad.
                                joe
On Tue, 18 May 2004 11:32:34 +1200, "Tim" <Tim@NoSpam> wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>VC7 is an odd one. They are now giving the compiler away without an IDE. I
>have no idea what this means. Does MS want more VC programmers out there?
>Does MS want to sway the VC market to 7 with newcomers (no pun intended)?
>
>There are three major parts to this: the IDE, the compiler / linkers (with
>support tools) and .Net.
>
>IDE:
>
>I tend to look at this whole .Net thing from a distance: the IDE is
>disgusting for VC. For ASP it is good because ASP has improved so
>substantially. For VB it is a great improvement - there are tons of new
>features in the IDE that VB programmers did not have before.
>
>One unified IDE sensible. VS laid the foundations for this in its
>architecture. The VB IDE had meandered along over the years with only one
>major improvement - to MDI. Why learn several IDE's when one architecturally
>strong IDE is all that is needed?
>
>Compilers:
>
>It is well known that the V7 compilers are stronger in many areas -
>particularly VC6 code. The bugs that are most apparent are in the '7'
>implementations - attributed programming and the like.
>
>.Net
>
>.Net for ASP is a huge improvement. For VB Programmers it is a new
>language - each and every VB progammer has to effectively learn a new
>language. For C++ the core language hasn't changed much but...
>
>Looking into .Net from several perspectives gives only 1 major point of
>apprehension for me: essentially all the '7' variant languages (IE managed
>code) are new languages - VC7 managed code is a totally different language
>but thankfully a superset of the existing C++. What standards adherence is
>there / will there be and which other compiler vendors are coming to the
>party supporting managed code so reinforcing the language changes? Are the
>languages changes just a fad?
>
>The positives in the new language (singular I.E. the CLR) is that there are
>very substantial extensions to the 'class library'. So many new facilities
>are in there that make the programmers life more productive and easier, that
>to ignore them is to risk living in the dark ages. The new facilities for
>the C++ (or VB or C#) programmer are powerful tools which when compared to
>current methods of low level coding make current coding look like plodding
>around in assembler - highly unproductive, slow to code, many lines of code
>to achieve a task and so a high risk of bugs. Take a look at the ease of
>integrating say: Event Logging, Performance Monitor metrics, Services (web
>and system), MSI Installer integration, NUnit - JUnit style test
>orchistration, very very substantial Security related improvements - and
>these are only *my* favourites.
>
>The point I wish to make is to not steer away from .Net because you dislike
>the IDE.
>
>Getting back to the original question... Having written a substantial amount
>of VC6 code, I too am concerned about the longevity of the product. It is
>easy enough in my own experience to 'port' to VC7, but that is not an
>answer. The services that VC6 is built upon are more worrying. For example:
>ADO and ODBC. It would be near impossible for MS to drop ODBC. ADO has
>already been superceeded by ADO.Net - when will support for classic ADO end?
>What happens when the new fangled highly secure OS versions come out that
>are .Net integrated - will running any non .Net / CLR programs be
>non-conformant of security standards or has MS had the foresight of being
>able to wrap these systems in safe containers?
>
>I am enormously concerned about MS ability to deliver a supposed Enterprise
>class language that will have a support life time sufficient to justify
>writing large applications - applications that are legacy by nature. I can
>see COBOL people with a smile on their faces. Until I see stability in the
>future direction of the IDE I can not see stability in the core language -
>as separate as they may be.
>
>- Tim
>
>
>"Roy Fine" <rlfine@twt.obfuscate.net> wrote in message
>news:ecxw7oAPEHA.644@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>
>> "Daniel James" <wastebasket@nospam.aaisp.org> wrote in message
>> news:VA.000006a9.0278b880@nospam.aaisp.org...
>>> In article news:<hgQpc.42313$TT.2629@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Ian
>>> Semmel wrote:
>>> > A common IDE is a good idea, but usually in programming, you have
>>> > to write code that fits into the user's environment, not tell the
>>> > user "I've written this really good program. All you have to do is
>>> > change the way you do everything". I can imagine the reaction from
>>> > my customers if I tried this.
>>> >
>>> > I think it would have been easier for MS to develop VS6 into
>>> > something better than the path they chose. I think I remember
>>> > something about some guru they got from Borland who decided that
>>> > the VS7 approach was they way to go.
>>>
>>> The thing they got wrong was thinking that it would be "real cool" to
>>> have the *same* environment for Visual C, Visial Basic, and Visual
>>> Whatever, rather than separate environments for each language that
>>> would do what made sense for that language.
>>
>>
>> Unfortunately -- the answer is in the numbers -- with a 10:1 (or higher)
>> ratio of VB programmers to VC++ programmers, we should feel fortunate that
>> there is a VC++7 :)
>>
>> rlf
>>
>>
>

Joseph M. Newcomer [MVP]
email: newcomer@flounder.com
Web: http://www.flounder.com
MVP Tips: http://www.flounder.com/mvp_tips.htm

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why Ruby does not nead an ide
    ... Then look at the Smalltalk IDE. ... ground up to support the language - editing, browsing, debugging, ... It's the way most Forth programmers code, ...
    (comp.lang.ruby)
  • Re: Visual C++ 6 support issue
    ... They are now giving the compiler away without an IDE. ... Does MS want more VC programmers out there? ... language - each and every VB progammer has to effectively learn a new ...
    (microsoft.public.vc.mfc)
  • Re: Chrome - competition for Borland?
    ... Ultimately the goal would be to have everything in a single language, ... in a single IDE, and Chrome would be a stepping stone to that goal ... Delphi would be for legacy, but for that task, there is already D7. ... basic Windowing support and native compilation in some areas (latest batch ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: An alternative Delphi strategy
    ... are key parts of the BDS/Delphi IDE) ... WinForms designer to try and keep "design-time code" tucked away out of sight ... the Delphi language *had* to support the ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: Anti-OO article appears to have plagiarized bits of my site
    ... Your language doesn't support that? ... > technology when programmers make mistakes. ... IDE that handled that, ... deletion methods should "go together" so that their implementations can ...
    (comp.object)