Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> __/ [ BearItAll ] on Wednesday 15 March 2006 16:40 \__
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>> __/ [ BearItAll ] on Wednesday 15 March 2006 14:41 \__
>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>> ,----[ Full Quote ]
>>>>> | Microsoft appears to have concentrated their development effort in
>>>>> | Vista on native code development. In contrast to PDC03LH, Vista has
>>>>> | no services implemented in .NET and Windows Explorer does not host
>>>>> | the runtime, which means that the Vista desktop shell is not based
>>>>> | on the .NET runtime.
>>>> No source of information is given. I like your 'snippets of info' posts
>>>> but a blog that doesn't justify what it says doesn't really have any
>>>> But if he is right then I think it is a very stupid move on MS's part,
>>>> .net2 is a very good platform, it could reduce development costs as
>>>> well as make it more possible for general office work stations to go to
>>>> thin client so saving companies money. Treated correctly it really
>>>> could be the platform that takes over the remainder of the applications
>>>> market. I wonder if it just isn't quite ready for client machines yet,
>>>> though I do know from a development point of view it is already
>>> It is not my turf to argue over. I have never used .NET. I can only
>>> suggest that it reflects badly on .NET when its creator is unable or
>>> unwilling to use it.
>>> As a broad statement, people tend to defend what they do, as well as the
>>> tools they use. You raved about .NET before, but unless you have used
>>> many IDE's and SDK's, on a whole wide variety of platforms (adverse to
>>> .NET), I consider your review to be void.
>> You have no knowledge of what experience I've had, which makes your post
>> I have been programming since 1979ish, assembler for many years, then C
>> and c++, php, rubyrails (though no actual end products other than in
>> house utilities with rails), various basics (though I don't enjoy
>> programming in any basic, I'm not a C snob, its just not one I enjoy
>> working in). On UNIX, Novell, IBM PC, MS and many embedded systems. Over
>> the years I have used almost every IDE that has been out in a bid to save
>> weary programmers fingers, but always ended up back in vi and a run/debug
>> window, because in the end it is easier and quicker. Though I will say
>> that at one point MS did a very good IDE for masm that I did try to get
>> along with, it was really to big a beast for the computers available at
>> the time, so again ended up back on the command line for the sake of
>> For MS programming I have used their IDE for masm (and nasm), the early C
>> ones (2.5 and 6) plus Visual studio. Visual studio tends to get on my
>> tits, I hate a cluttered screen when I'm working and those blastered
>> cursor pop ups that just get in the way. But I can understand those
>> learning to program wanting to use it for the same reasons I didn't want
>> to use it.
>> These were all in real world programming situations.
>> The one I mentioned though, VWD, out classes all of the other MS IDEs I
>> have used (though it is still too cluttered for me), think past a simple
>> single window tool where your compile/debug etc is just a menu and you
>> can wysiwyg your screens (never really an essential I thought, what do
>> you do? you draw the screen with controls etc, then re-position and size
>> them in code anyway. Might as well miss the first step in that and let
>> your code do the work). Vwd really does go further and actually helps you
>> write the application. That is why I think new programmers will use it
>> and current programmers would move to it simply because it will reduce
>> contract time, possibly putting them into bonus time.
>> In the end, I hear you say, its .net2 your programming so any IDE could
>> be made to do the things vwd does. But my point is, vwd is already out
>> and being used, .net2 is already out and being used. Net2 is much more
>> likely to sell NTs than anything else MS has done.
> Sorry I doubted your experience, Bear. It may have sounded (per reading)
> ruder than was intended
> Intersting take, so I'll re-read. As for development, I tend to prefer
> using Kate at the moment, not only for C/C++, but also for MATLAB. I find
> MATLAB's IDE ("desktop") rather appaling in terms of productivity gain
> offered. In fact, as a language, I prefer running it in pure command-line
> mode, much like ML (declarative programming). Don't get me wrong. I
> started with the desktop, not the command-line? Then emerged questions
> like "how can I manage 20 sessions on 20 workstations with this bloated
> IDE"? Or "why is this thing so slow and unresponsive?" (especially over
> The theory behind IDE's is rather nice and it can provides a nice cushion
> to new users. However, habits do adapt and certain working habits
> outperform preceding habits. The IDE has its place in computing, but it
> does not obviate the need for other development paradigms. It depends on
> the project at hand.
It's ok, no offence taken.
I will say one other thing against IDE's though, in particular MS Visual
Studio, when helping new programmers I often came across the situation
where they would be confusion about code seperation. So if you asked them
to keep the view code seperated from the application code, they would often
struggle, because VS seems to encourage integrating the two. You must have
come across visual basic programs where the application side is scattered
around many forms.
For that reason I found it much better to start programmers on Linux with no
IDE. Just an editor such as kate, a console to run the application and
another to build it. Its just a nice clean environment.
Then it is much easier for them to get the idea of seperate files for
different purposes, which has the knockon effect of helping them work out
how to write reusable classes and functions.
When they take this information back to an MS platform they code is much
better seperated so easier to manage.