Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Why use VS.NET

This topic is 5749 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

I just wanted to get some opinions from people who have been using .net, so far i''m not ready to give up Visual Studio 6. I do alot of my programming in Visual Basic, but use C++ when i need some speed, or it''s just easier to do. Here are my thoughts on .net: it seems that picking a language in .net is just a matter of taste, cause they all use the same CLR. so they will all be similar in speed. C++ managed code seems to go against the idea of c++ in the first place, portability. I heard the framework is being ported, i''m sure Microsoft is working day and night on that...=) I do like what the CLR has done for Visual Basic, now it''s a real OOP language, but hate that they don''t have the edit and continue feature...That was one of the main reasons i use it, cause you didn''t have to recompile for every little change... I don''t like making someone install the framework just to run my program...you should be able to link everything into an exe...that''s why i use C++, no dependencies...yes i know you can do that in .net, but don''t you have to give up all the .net features.... I guess this is the future of programming, but is it really time to switch or just mess around with it for awhile, and do all the "real" programming in VS 6. Still feels like a beta program to me, need a few service packs although i haven''t found any problems yet...then again..i just Installed it. ok, i''m not sure i''m right about all this, cause i''ve just started exploring .net tonight...which is why I wanted to get some more thoughts and opinions on it...so keep it in mind that i''m stating all this as an opinion, not fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I use .NET primarily to write non-managed c++ code, and I love it. The UI is much improved, the compiler is much better, and it's all-around neater than VC6.

Edit- 3am grammar check

[edited by - sjelkjd on March 20, 2002 6:42:52 AM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
C++ in the VS.NET suite is still compiling to native code unless you use managed C++.

-----------------------
"When I have a problem on an Nvidia, I assume that it is my fault. With anyone else''s drivers, I assume it is their fault" - John Carmack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
well, if one decideds to stick with .net and get rid of vs6, how do you get rid of vs6? There''s no uninstall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Anonymous Poster
well, if one decideds to stick with .net and get rid of vs6, how do you get rid of vs6? There''s no uninstall.

Have you tried the Control Panel?

[ GDNet Start Here | GDNet Search Tool | GDNet FAQ | MS RTFM [MSDN] | SGI STL Docs | Google! ]
Thanks to Kylotan for the idea!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VB6 afforded you the ability to run instantly and to change code on the fly...design-time and run-time were getting merged. As a long-time VB developer (started with 3.0) I know how you see lack of a "continue and edit" feature an issue. But having worked with .NET for a year now I can say that I don''t miss the feature too much. At first it''s a pain in the butt, editing code and having it not apply until you recompile...but it''s not without its advantages. It forces you to write larger sections of code and then debug them all together. I find myself being much more productive because I''m "forced" to write an entire idea before testing it. It''s actually changed my coding style quite a bit...and I think I''m the better for it.

That being said, when you make stupid, little mistakes it''s a bit more annoying to make the changes. The solution is to think, not get an IDE with "continue-and-edit" :-)

Epolevne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Edit and Continue''s omission is a sore point, and it will certainly be back.

That said, about 50% of the time I edited and continued I had to recompile anyway, which annoyed me sufficiently that I normally stopped the debugger and started over -- I prefer to consistently have no E&C rather than occasionally have it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VS6 has a form of edit/continue for VC, it''s not just in VB. I''m not sure about VS.NET yet. I''m still exploring many of the features that it has. The edit/continue feature in VC 6 is a little bit picky sometimes, forcing you to re-compile anyways, as DrPizza already mentioned. And although it has been a while since I have used VB, I think that even it had some problems with it.

As long as you change isn''t in a header file that is included everywhere in your project, re-compiling is usually pretty quick anyway, and most small changes that you would be able to use edit/continue on would not take long to re-compile.

J.W.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by DrPizza
That said, about 50% of the time I edited and continued I had to recompile anyway, which annoyed me sufficiently that I normally stopped the debugger and started over -- I prefer to consistently have no E&C rather than occasionally have it.



AMEN!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This interview might be interesting to someone, particularly this quote:

<quote>
On a more positive note, Treadwell and Hejlsberg promised that the oft-requested "Edit-and-Continue" feature will be in "the next major version of the framework." Further, by integrating the capability at the platform level into the debugger, edit-and-continue will be available not only to VB.NET, but to any .NET language that cares to take advantage of it. Don't expect this to appear as an upgrade to the current version, but Treadwell said that it was a "primary goal" to add edit-and-continue to the next version.
</quote>

This seems to apply only to managed code though.

I also found the following paragraph interesting:
<quote>
Hejlsberg said he's currently "thinking about the future of C#," and "ways to move the abstraction level up yet again, without cutting people off from their favorite tools." He said that one of his current tasks is the addition of generics, a way of providing strongly typed collections, eliminating the need to cast to specific types when accessing objects stored in a .NET collection class. He characterized the proposed implementation as a "cleaned up version of C++ templates" but one that's understood by the infrastructure as well. Hejlsberg compared C# generics to Java templates, saying that although the Java implementation doesn't require any modification to the VM, it also has no execution efficiency, and works only for reference types and not for value types. In other words, the type casts are simply hidden, not eliminated. In contrast, the planned addition of generics to .NET would apply at the framework level—that the framework would intrinsically understand the data types and that the type casts would be eliminated. As a major side benefit, adding generics at the framework level makes them potentially available to all .NET languages, not just C#, but Hejlsberg wouldn't go so far as to say that they will be implemented in a future version VB.NET.
</quote>



The computer was conceived as a tool to reduce complexity. Some people found this loss of complexity unacceptable, and developed UNIX to amend the situation.

[edited by - Arild Fines on March 20, 2002 8:16:05 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites