Re: gcc/vi better than VS
From: Saradhi (upadrasta_at_inooga.com)
Date: 02/24/04
- Next message: Comet Developer: "Disabled "Source Control"?"
- Previous message: Thore Karlsen [MVP DX]: "Re: gcc/vi better than VS"
- In reply to: Thore Karlsen [MVP DX]: "Re: gcc/vi better than VS"
- Next in thread: Star Fleet Admiral Q: "Re: gcc/vi better than VS"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 12:00:54 +0530
I never said its not needed or not wanted by others.
I explained my opinion about whether it is neeeded or not.
MS has decided that its not needed and hence they designed VS IDE it as it is.
I think one of MS people should answer to this thread about the design decision they have taken and the reason behind it.
Sometimes they keeps quite to encourage more and more Arguments. Better to stop these arguments by explaining the actual reason behind this behaviour.
Come On guys, wake up and explain.
"Thore Karlsen [MVP DX]" <sid@6581.com> wrote in message news:3mml30p8p6o28ol8tul063ptg8di9qp9sh@4ax.com...
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:27:22 +0530, "Saradhi" <upadrasta@inooga.com>
wrote:
> I am not a VS IDE develoepr and hence cant say whther it is intentinal or not.
>
> What I told earlier was typing and compilimg are the two seperate process embedded ina single application and hence this problem is arising.
> May eb you are right, somethign to do with the programming.
> But I dont see any reason in the need that one want to type something while compiling.
Just because you don't see a need for it doesn't mean it's not
needed/wanted.
--
Be seeing you.
- Next message: Comet Developer: "Disabled "Source Control"?"
- Previous message: Thore Karlsen [MVP DX]: "Re: gcc/vi better than VS"
- In reply to: Thore Karlsen [MVP DX]: "Re: gcc/vi better than VS"
- Next in thread: Star Fleet Admiral Q: "Re: gcc/vi better than VS"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
