|
|
Oh come on. We'll wait for ya.
--
If it starts to make sense, you're in a cult.
|
|
|
|
|
What do you do in, lets say, four years from now?
Still program using VC6, or using the newest and hottest on Linix (which, then, I guess is like VC6 is today)
Hmmm, how did you switch from DOS to Windows?
- Anders
Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!"
|
|
|
|
|
Interestingly, I know people who still use Visual C++ 1.5. (Mostly for writing 9X drivers, since that was the last compiler that supported 16-bit programming.)
I guarantee there will be people programming in VC 6 four years from now, especially anyone who does development for 9X/Me (which also will still be around four years from now.)
"When a man sits with a pretty girl for an hour, it seems like a minute. But let him sit on a hot stove for a minute and it's longer than any hour. That's relativity." - Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
Navin wrote:
I guarantee there will be people programming in VC 6 four years from now, especially anyone who does development for 9X/Me (which also will still be around four years from now.)
You can easily make programs for Win9x/ME with VS.NET, ever heard about remote debugging?
Most people I know that still supports Win9x, does the development under Win2k or XP, and tests their programs on Win9x.
Of course there wil be people using VC6 in four years from now, today some people still use Borland C++ 4.0, because they say it's the best compiler ever written. But there is not many jobs today, where they want you to use Borland C++ 4.0.
- Anders
Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!"
|
|
|
|
|
Anders Molin wrote:
You can easily make programs for Win9x/ME with VS.NET, ever heard about remote debugging?
Have you ever suffered thru the hell of using it? 
I have, on multiple - painfull occasions, and it totaly blows chunks.
I would rather develop on the OS that >50% of my users are running use that junk again.
Eating your own dog food is a "good thing(tm)".
|
|
|
|
|
Jason De Arte wrote:
Have you ever suffered thru the hell of using it?
Yes.
Jason De Arte wrote:
Eating your own dog food is a "good thing(tm)".
I do agree 
I guess I'm just lucky, I only have to support Win2k and WinXP for 90% of what I do. (I'm working with voice-based Windows logon)
- Anders
Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!"
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I've heard of remote debugging. It sucks. I can't ever get it to work. And even if I could, it still sucks in comparisoin to actually stepping through a program with a debugger rather than running it, attaching to it, and going from there.
And that's not to mention all the inane external requirements that MFC 7.0 has (that the old MFC did not.) You can build the exact same program in VC 6 and VS.NET, and the one from VS.NET will depend on more DLLs than the one built from VC6.
"When a man sits with a pretty girl for an hour, it seems like a minute. But let him sit on a hot stove for a minute and it's longer than any hour. That's relativity." - Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
Remote debugging:
I've tried it. It's a lot more painful than it needs to be: there should have been a setup package containing the right components that you can just pick up and copy to the remote machine. Once it's going it doesn't seem too bad, but then I'm mostly a Windows CE developer; the VC remote debugging is more reliable than the eMbedded Visual C++ (did MS want us to call this MVC rather than eVC?) implementation.
IIRC, you can start a new process on the remote machine: choose 'step into' or 'go' as usual. You don't have to attach to a running process.
External requirements:
I built a program (John Robbins' CrashFinder[^] utility) with both VC6 and VC7, since projects for both were available. So far as I can see, the additional components are:oleacc.dll, the Active Accessibility DLL, has shipped with versions of Windows since Windows 98 and also shipped with NT 4.0 Service Pack 6. shlwapi.dll, the 'shell light-weight API' ships with Internet Explorer 4.0 and higher. I got this information from Microsoft's DLL Help Database[^].
Most of the other DLLs that the MFC DLLs rely on are delay-loaded or dynamically loaded; they are also all system DLLs. They won't be needed unless your program actually calls an MFC function that uses them.
--
Mike Dimmick
|
|
|
|
|
I found out about oleacc.dll the hard way... and did some research and found that you could turn it off if you statitally linked your MFC and manually set it as a delay-load DLL. (I pity the poor saps that link dynamically - according to what I read, they'd have to rebuild their entire MFC!)
I don't like having to ship extra DLLs, especially when I don't need them. Amazing as it sounds, even a "modest" requirement like IE 4 will draw complaints from some customers.
"When a man sits with a pretty girl for an hour, it seems like a minute. But let him sit on a hot stove for a minute and it's longer than any hour. That's relativity." - Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
Anders Molin wrote:
You can easily make programs for Win9x/ME with VS.NET, ever heard about remote debugging?
You are using some strange new definition of the word "easy" that I wasn't previously aware of.
Sure, to do a remote debug, you "only" need: two computers, two monitors, some kind of networking between the two boxes, and the patience to figure out the remote debugger. I have the first, none of the rest.
--Mike--
THERE IS NO THERE IS NO BUT THERE IS
MAGIC PIXIE DUST BUSINESS GENIE CODE PROJECT
Homepage | RightClick-Encrypt | 1ClickPicGrabber
"You have Erica on the brain" - Jon Sagara to me
|
|
|
|
|
I do a lot of remote debugging, usually on a Virtual PC running on my devbox.
- Anders
Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!"
|
|
|
|
|
I voted 2002 -> 2003 by June as
A/ Its supposed to be $30 for an upgrade
B/ My VS2002 disk1 got sat on by a 5 year old
C/ I just cannot stop upgrading stuff, its' a curse!
I like c#, very productive , but i miss change , compile, continue
|
|
|
|
|
... which might affect my decision to upgrade to VS.NET 2003. What is wrong with 2002, you may ask?
![Green Alien | [Alien]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/alien.gif) Still can't figure out how to debug on 98. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but the remote debugging component just don't work. And even still, attaching to a process is much more painful than just firing up a debugger and running with it.
INTERNAL COMPILER ERROR. Nuff said.
Other than that, I really like VS.NET. I am very disappointed, though, because these two issues above have cost me a lot of wasted time. It is almost a toss-up at this point as to whether I've saved enough time with new features to offset the lost time with these two problems.
I have a feeling from what I've heard in the Lounge and so forth that VS.NET 2003 won't be much better. 
"When a man sits with a pretty girl for an hour, it seems like a minute. But let him sit on a hot stove for a minute and it's longer than any hour. That's relativity." - Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
Err... I thougth VS.NET didn't work *at all* under Win98? At least that's what I recently read. And it's also the main reason for me not to upgrade (till I get a new comp), besides that it is way too expensive...
|
|
|
|
|
Well, essentially, it doesn't seem to work at all under 98.
You can run VC++ programs under 98. And in theory, you can install debugging symbols on 98 to allow a remote connection from an XP machine with the whole VS.NET installed to a 98 test machine with only the debugging symbols installed.
But I can't get it to work. And apparently, I am not alone, as a search of newsgroups discovers other people with these problems, and no sure-fire resolution... and my own question on CP is yet to be answered. So I suppose it's back to cave-man debugging... log statements and message boxes. 
"When a man sits with a pretty girl for an hour, it seems like a minute. But let him sit on a hot stove for a minute and it's longer than any hour. That's relativity." - Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
Vs.Net is not officially supported on 98 at all. thats why a lot of vb 'homebrew' programmers are crying over their keyboards! 
---Guy H ( ---
|
|
|
|
|
GuyHarwood wrote:
Vs.Net is not officially supported on 98 at all. thats why a lot of vb 'homebrew' programmers are crying over their keyboards!
I suppose that's one benefit on VS.net, keep the homebrew VB programmers off the scene 
To iterate is human, to recurse is devine.
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't the release date 2003-04-23? ASAP after that date would be optimal for me.
|
|
|
|
|
You can get it now, its available on MSDN. im installing it at the mo 
---Guy H ( ---
|
|
|
|
|
Where, where, where? Is it the final version?
|
|
|
|
|
Yes full version, after the Final Beta in the Subscribers Downloads section.
I'm using it and it's good
-
kromozom@msn.com for MSN Messenger
-
|
|
|
|
|
The installation went well.
I got some INTERNAL COMPILER ERRORs though when compiling, but after some fixing they went away.
I got some erronious warning details, often for unused params saying something in the lines of:
see std::basic_string<_Ty, allocator<blabla>, blablabla>
with:
[
_Ty = sometype
]
But the details were totally wrong, the unused param could be an int but it would complain on std::basic_string anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
I assume we are talking about upgrading for production use. Upgrading existing code bases and the like.
I'll be using VC2003 for any new projects when my MSDN subscription disks arrive. However all my current codebase will remain on VC6, just as it did when VC2002 came out.
I have only migrated one application from VC6 to VS2002, and that was an app that I last worked on in 2000. The only reason I upgraded it was because it was so old, I knew it would be getting a full system test before being shipped.
Michael
'War is at best barbarism...Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.' - General William Sherman, 1879
|
|
|
|
|
do you think questions cover all possible cases?
t!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
