|
|
|
Same here, although I'm considering moving the VS.NET build of ResOrg to VS2005 to get us more up to speed on the platform.
However I really can't see us moving Visual Lint to VS2005 in a hurry, given the risk and the low impact on the codebase (we've tried it and it worked).
Anna ![Rose | [Rose]](https://codeproject.freetls.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
Currently working mostly on: Visual Lint 
Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter
"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia Graesch
"Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart"
- A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work.
|
|
|
|
|
No category for what I do was listed. I use Visual Studio for debugging, and the Microsoft compiler, but a stand-alone editor for development and launching of the MS compiler. Two reasons for that: first, the editor I chose was much more customizable using my language of choice (C++) then VS, and secondly I use a dual monitor system. With a dual monitor setup, I prefer having the debugger on my second monitor while the application runs in the primary screen. Rather then have to switch the IDE back and forth between primary and secondary monitor depending on whether I am coding or debugging, I just leave it up and running on the secondary monitor, and switch to it whenever I want to run the application under the debugger.
I suppose I should also add that while I have updated to all the VS releases except this last one, I still launch Visual Studio 6 whenever I want to do any resource editing. I find the VS 6 resource editor far, far faster to use when I want to set properties of the controls I am adding/editing.
|
|
|
|
|
You're like the guy down the hall from me. He runs VS.NET solely to do compiles. He edits his code using a Windows version of emacs  .
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
How many of you who ticked VC6 do it out of personal preference? My guess would be that most of those who do, do it because they *have* to - for some reason.
Regards,
Nish
|
|
|
|
|
On the contrary I was forced to use VS NET 2003, but VC6 would be my preference for pure c++ development.
I'm not saying that the newer versions were bad, just that they weren't as good as VC6.
|
|
|
|
|
ed welch wrote: I'm not saying that the newer versions were bad, just that they weren't as good as VC6.
Surely, you must mean the IDE! Because the VC 6 compiler is pathetic.
Regards,
Nish
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I'm mainly taling about the IDE. Though I never had a problem with the compiler.
|
|
|
|
|
Depends on what you want to do. For most things, in my experience it's not as bad as people make it out to be. Try using other compilers/toolchains, specifically GCC/ld/GDB, and then get back to us about what's pathetic 
For really advanced template stuff, yeah it's got some problems, but I don't think that's the way most people program, even now.
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire!
Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)!
SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0
0 rows returned
Save an Orange - Use the VCF!
|
|
|
|
|
Jim Crafton wrote: For really advanced template stuff, yeah it's got some problems, but I don't think that's the way most people program, even now.
It's not just templates. VC6 compiles a lot of code that it really shouldn't even without a warning and that can lead to nasty run-time crashes. Also, it misses a great number of optimizations available to modern compilers. It was a great compiler when it was released, but it was in 1998. What other software from 1998 do you use?
My programming blahblahblah blog. If you ever find anything useful here, please let me know to remove it.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe so, but it's still better than something like GCC.
And the code goof-ups are relatively easy to train yourself on, once you've tried compiling your code on another compiler. Still I agree it's got a number of problems, but it's all I have access to that can build what I need to. If MS offered a pro version of VC++ in the $300-500 range I'd upgrade, but for now it's just not an option.
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire!
Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)!
SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0
0 rows returned
Save an Orange - Use the VCF!
|
|
|
|
|
Jim Crafton wrote: Maybe so, but it's still better than something like GCC.
You mean the VC++6 compiler is better than GCC? Nope, it is not. Version 4 of gcc is really good, and even versions 3.x were pretty much OK. If you are referring to the lack of a good IDE for gcc, then yes, but we already agreed that VC6 has a great IDE but outdated compiler
My programming blahblahblah blog. If you ever find anything useful here, please let me know to remove it.
|
|
|
|
|
Well based on my experience wiht the VCF, GCC 3.x is still dog slow in terms of compiling performance, and still produces really fat binaries compared to VC6 (this is with linux, windows, and OSX versions of GCC). GCC4, which I have only tried on OSX, is better than GCC 3.x, but still slower that VC6 at compiling and still produces fat binaries. In terms of executable performance I can't say. It would be interesting to see someone put up GCC 4 benchmarks like they did with the Dr Dobbs article from a year or two ago.
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire!
Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)!
SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0
0 rows returned
Save an Orange - Use the VCF!
|
|
|
|
|
> It was a great compiler when it was released, but it was in 1998. What other software from
> 1998 do you use?
None--which is why I think this is a testament to how good VC6 was, not how bad.
For the record, I'm still on VC6 and lovin' it. 
|
|
|
|
|
No, it's not pathetic. I prefer it to that frilly piece of VB wanna-be garbage we know as VS2005.
------- sig starts
"I've heard some drivers saying, 'We're going too fast here...'. If you're not here to race, go the hell home - don't come here and grumble about going too fast. Why don't you tie a kerosene rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
At the Canadian bank where I consult, VC6 is still the standard for C++ development. However there is very little development done in C++ any more, but in order to maintain the few C++ applications, the platform is to remain unchanged. The amount of time that I spend compiling, is so small that even considering the advances in the compiler, I don't think there is much of a business case that can be made. For example, I probably spend less than 30 minutes a day compiling, so even if the newer compiler was 100% faster, I'm only going to save 15 minutes a day. That's a hard sell. I expect though that at some point in the future, say when the user base is moving to 64 bit machines, I will have to 'upgrade' to newer version of VC and <crosses fingers> hope </crosses fingers> that the various applications's projects still compile.
Chris Meech
I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar]
When I want privacy, I'll close the bathroom door. [Stan Shannon]
Nice sig! [Tim Deveaux on Matt Newman's sig with a quote from me]
|
|
|
|
|
I use it because I have not finished porting 500K+ lines of MFC to VC.NET. I am actually working on this now and its going well (I have about 1/2 of the code compiling without error). At this rate I should be finished by the end of the week but I have not done any type of testing at all on the new code so if anything breaks during testing it will greatly add to the time...
John
|
|
|
|
|
John M. Drescher wrote: I use it because I have not finished porting 500K+ lines of MFC to VC.NET.
Yep, the increased standards compliance means that unless you wrote your VC6 code with a copy of the standard sitting in front of you, you are going to be making a lot of changes to just get the code to compile.
Regards,
Nish
|
|
|
|
|
I don't blame them for that bacause gcc has done the same thing but I wish they would have had a compatibility mode (gcc does not have this feature either). The hardest part is the code that I did not write. Stuff from codeproject, or even codeguru. This time (I tried 2 years ago and gave up because it was too much of an effort) I am finding it a lot easier to port because a lot of the codeproject code has been updated but there still is a lot of work because I never just copy posted code I always edit and update...
John
-- modified at 11:33 Monday 30th January, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
I would tend to agree. I think the issues faced with upgrading would depend largely on how 'wacked' your code was in the first place. If you adopted every ATL/Template/Whatsit that came out along the way, surely you will have problems. If you were writing fairly straightforward, clear C++ all along, then probably no changes required a tall. Consider this, you wrote allt hat stuf fin obscure ATL so it would be protable and reusable. So, now that a new standard is out .. blah blah blah .. how reuseable is it now and how much work is it to decipher that crap and get it back to something following a standard?
People that start writing code immediately are programmers (or hackers), people that ask questions first are Software Engineers - Graham Shanks
|
|
|
|
|
If anyone is still interested... Apart from an runtime error in a sharedlib with resources not being found (hopefully I will solve that one today). I was able to port all 500K+ lines to VC.NET 2003 in about 2 weeks. Once I got through 2 dlls that contain a lot of code that I was not the primary author the porting was very easy. Here are a few details of how I did that: About 1 day of the time spent was modifying my build system to get my code to parallel build and install. In both systems I build from the shell using .bat commands and a very structured folder layout that grab needed dlls/libs, build the code, create an install .exe that contains source code, documentation along with release, debug and debugrelease targets. With the help of CVS I was able to setup sandboxes for each compiler and the only difference that was not committed into CVS was a single batch file in the batch folder for each target on VC.NET that set an environment variable that stated we were building for vc71.
John
John
-- modified at 11:13 Monday 6th February, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
the main reason for me is a *nostalgic* reason 
well, actually, i still use VC++6 for the old projects i already designed with it, which i did not migrate for VC++ 2003 yet...
on a GUI user point of view, i love VC6, and thanks to Visual Assist, it became inseparable from me now. the only thing really missing is certainly some tabs that allow to switch between the open files...
for newer projects, i create them for VC++ 2003 for standard compliance, IDE ergonomy...
and for a financial reason (as i donnot use Visual C++ at work), i still don't have the money for Visual Studio Pro 2005... waiting for CP offers for that...
TOXCCT >>> GEII power
[toxcct][VisualCalc 2.20][VCalc 3.0 soon...]
-- modified at 12:01 Monday 30th January, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
toxcct wrote: the only thing really missing is certainly some tabs that allow to switch between the open files...
You mean like WndTabs[^] ?
WndTabs makes VS.NET IDE looking like a child's toy. E.g. you can group .cpp and .h files on one tab to save the space. You can get CVS status of the file with CVS plugin etc...
<center> </center>
|
|
|
|
|
George wrote: WndTabs makes VS.NET IDE looking like a child's toy.
Yes, it's a world class add-in. I wonder if Oz has any plans to apply a similar treatment to VS 2003/5? Perhaps it's too difficult or too much work?
Kevin
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
