Re: AfxGetApp() returns NULL
- From: Joseph M. Newcomer <newcomer@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:03:37 -0500
See below..,.
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:31:59 GMT, "David Ching" <dc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Joseph M. Newcomer" <newcomer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message****
news:8evfm31u85r82m6gr6du6bh2fvb29jhkgq@xxxxxxxxxx
I have always known it is there. I set it when I first install VS. I
thought you were
referring to some new option that would do something intelligent, instead
of the current
poor model.
Whatever. I thought you would understand what "Indent braces" means.
I do. I was not talking about indenting braces, I was talking about indenting the code
INSIDE the braces
****
****
What is unreadable? And I disable the use of tabs; I always replace tabs
with spaces,
since that is universal. I don't see a problem with indentation, because
even when I use
VS to edit my code, it gets the identation right, following my indentation
style.
What is non-standard is to use standard 4 spaces for levels of indentation
but only indent 1 space after a brace. And using spaces instead of tabs
is hardly universal. That's why every programmer's text editor has an
OPTION of whether to use spaces or tabs.
Well, my option is to use this indentation. Since the code I write is written largely for
me, and written using my editor, and given away free to others as a courtesy, I see no
reason to warp my entire workstyle because some third-rate editor thinks tabs and indents
have to correspond to its private interpretation of what it thinks is right. Just because
it has jammed this indentation style forcibly down the throats of users does not make it a
good style, or one that I would want to use. I've been writing C code for well over 30
years with the same style. Whatever editor I use has to support *my* style, and I should
not be required to support *its* style. That's the whole point of "personal computing":
it is all about the user, and what the user wants and needs.
One of the first things I do when I get code is to immediately replace all tabs with
spaces; over the last three or more years, I've completely abandoned the concept of tab as
being a useful character in a program file. I still get surprised by some of my older
code, but tabs just "go away" these days. I see no reason to support the concept of tabs
in *my* source code just because someone else might want them in theirs.
****
****
I expect an editor to HELP me create code. This means that it has to be
fully usable from
the keyboard without requiring function keys, arrow keys, or the mouse.
This is one of
the most critical criteria. VS editor is not really usable in this
fashion. It has to
get indentation right. It has to automate all the same things that my
current editor
automates for me, which are considerable. Automatic flow and
justification of comment
text, automated change log handling, ability to insert multiple characters
quickly (if I
want to put 77 asterisks in, it is Ctrl+U 77 *), automating the block
comments I use.
The capabilities of automating the VS editor are so poor that I can't even
do the simplest
of my automation; worse still, the creators of VS think that there is no
reason to allow
me to add automation to every possible keystroke, including printable
characters; the key
bindings are limited to control keys, alt keys, and function keys, making
it relatively
useless to me.
The failure is that MS thinks that editors are technologies. Editors are
not
technologies, they are religions.
Yeah, we've been through this before too. I think we should stop because
obviously you did not hear me the first (or second or third) time that you
can write a VSTO plug-in that does have access to every possible keystroke.
I think your goal is not to share pragmatic, time-saving solutions to
existing solutions, it is to lecture on why the current solutions don't fit
your idea of nirvana, no matter whether that nirvana is so far from normal
as to be irrelevant to the rest of us.
But the point is I already HAVE something that fits my idea of an ideal editor; so my
choices are to continue to use an ideal environment, or spend a lot of effort making some
other editor be amost as good. Why should I expend massive effort to re-create an
environment that already exists? I see no gain here. Furthermore, the keystroke issue is
only one small part of the problem. The notion of windows-vs-viewports, a really
fundamental paradigm, is not realizable in VS, no matter how hard I would try. The list
of things wrong with the VS editor is *extensive*; from time to time I mention one or
another, but the entire list is overwhelming. Some of the problems are unsalvageable, no
matter how much work I would expend. So why expend any?
joe
****
Joseph M. Newcomer [MVP]
-- David
email: newcomer@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Web: http://www.flounder.com
MVP Tips: http://www.flounder.com/mvp_tips.htm
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: AfxGetApp() returns NULL
- From: David Ching
- Re: AfxGetApp() returns NULL
- From: Tom Serface
- Re: AfxGetApp() returns NULL
- References:
- Re: AfxGetApp() returns NULL
- From: Joseph M . Newcomer
- Re: AfxGetApp() returns NULL
- From: David Ching
- Re: AfxGetApp() returns NULL
- From: Joseph M . Newcomer
- Re: AfxGetApp() returns NULL
- From: David Ching
- Re: AfxGetApp() returns NULL
- From: Joseph M . Newcomer
- Re: AfxGetApp() returns NULL
- From: David Ching
- Re: AfxGetApp() returns NULL
- From: Joseph M . Newcomer
- Re: AfxGetApp() returns NULL
- From: David Ching
- Re: AfxGetApp() returns NULL
- From: Joseph M . Newcomer
- Re: AfxGetApp() returns NULL
- From: David Ching
- Re: AfxGetApp() returns NULL
- Prev by Date: Re: GDI Shape Question
- Next by Date: Re: AfxGetApp() returns NULL
- Previous by thread: Re: AfxGetApp() returns NULL
- Next by thread: Re: AfxGetApp() returns NULL
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|