|
So there won't be a full new version, just a service pack ?
Christian
No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002
Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002
During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
|
|
|
|
|
Everett = VS.NET 2003 = new version = $29
VS.NET 2002 SP1 = the bug fixes from Everett but not the new features = just a service pack = $0
-Domenic Denicola- [CPUA 0x1337]
“I was born human. But this was an accident of fate—a condition merely of time and place. I believe it's something we have the power to change…”
|
|
|
|
|
So does that mean they will sell Everett as the only full price new version, but also as anupgrade for $29 ? Will all versions have the upgrade ( even Academic ) ?
Christian
No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002
Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002
During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
|
|
|
|
|
Academic, I don't known , but
and that owners of Visual Studio .NET will be able to upgrade for $29 (to cover the cost of media, postage and handling).
I have VS.NET Professional, and this price is unbeatable
Cheers,Joao Vaz
And if your dream is to care for your family, to put food on the table, to provide them with an education and a good home, then maybe suffering through an endless, pointless, boring job will seem to have purpose. And you will realize how even a rock can change the world, simply by remaining obstinately stationary.-Shog9
Remember just because a good thing comes to an end, doesn't mean that the next one can't be better.-Chris Meech
|
|
|
|
|
Joao Vaz wrote:
Academic, I don't known , but
I hope academic, too!
Please MS, please....
Cheers
Martin
"Situation normal - all fu***d up"
Illuminatus!
|
|
|
|
|
Martin Häsemeyer wrote:
I hope academic, too!
Please MS, please....
Lol, Yeah , it will nice for the academics , and yes I think that is fair enough that academic version should have the option to upgrade to Everett.
Joao Vaz for President (hint,hint ...)
Cheers,Joao Vaz
And if your dream is to care for your family, to put food on the table, to provide them with an education and a good home, then maybe suffering through an endless, pointless, boring job will seem to have purpose. And you will realize how even a rock can change the world, simply by remaining obstinately stationary.-Shog9
Remember just because a good thing comes to an end, doesn't mean that the next one can't be better.-Chris Meech
|
|
|
|
|
Of course, like a lot of other developers I am in hunger to know what Everett provides me, but I don't like this PR. It hides the most obvious things people upgrading to Everett will suffer from in a couple of months.
Again, enforcing C++ standard where it's more and more to the 100% theoretical limit point is fine, even if it should have been done a several years ago already (Outlook 11 to be released next year will block ruled html emails : I am so delighted to hear that it requires 11 major releases before they get any clue about what's going on...).
What makes me angry is that, already with VS.NET 1.0, MS has changed the prototypes of a lot of MFC/ATL class methods without notice, with the result that the code does not compile without significant API maintenance changes (WHICH IS A LOT OF MONEY).
Here is a straight forward example :
The CStringArray::GetAt accessor is defined as :
in VC6, CString GetAt(int nIndex) const;
in VC7, const CString& GetAt(INT_PTR nIndex) const;
Obviously, with such change, I can't do what I did earlier, hence my code has to change, may be the API has to change, ...
What I'd like to see, whenever MS paves the way for standard enforcement (which already in itself is a total contradiction, since MS enforces their own standards, not others), is tools bundled with upgrade wizards to do exactly this work. I believe it is an insult to leave the developer with a new tool, and no user-friendly "versioning" tool at all.
May be that's a rant, and all these tools do exist, but I don't want to have to subscribe MSDN Universal, buy 20 books, and be involved in all MS conferences just to know that.
Back to real work : D-21.
|
|
|
|
|
.S.Rod. wrote:
The CStringArray::GetAt accessor is defined as :
in VC6, CString GetAt(int nIndex) const;
in VC7, const CString& GetAt(INT_PTR nIndex) const;
My goodness. Why on earth are they maintaining this code ? Surely these classes remain just a stepping stone before people find out about STL ?
.S.Rod. wrote:
which already in itself is a total contradiction, since MS enforces their own standards, not others
Another good reason to prefer standard C++ and use only Microsoft specific code when there is a reason to.
Christian
No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002
Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002
During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Graus wrote:
My goodness. Why on earth are they maintaining this code ? Surely these classes remain just a stepping stone before people find out about STL ?
Let's be fair. Isn't MS trying to disgust developers from using MFC at all, now that it's filled with STL and ATL ? (and switch to .NET instead...)
Get it clear, I am not saying template stuff is bullshit, I am saying template code does not look good in a text editor, and as long as it will be so I will not be able to figure out how developers can embrass it at all.
Back to real work : D-19.
|
|
|
|
|
.S.Rod. wrote:
Let's be fair. Isn't MS trying to disgust developers from using MFC at all, now that it's filled with STL and ATL ? (and switch to .NET instead...)
VC 6 is 'full of STL', it's just better this time. I think it's more the merge with ATL you're thinking of.
.S.Rod. wrote:
Get it clear, I am not saying template stuff is bullshit, I am saying template code does not look good in a text editor, and as long as it will be so I will not be able to figure out how developers can embrass it at all.
I don't know what you mean by 'embrass it at all', but either way, PLEASE don't tell me you only create containers of CStrings, because any other sort of container (STL or crappy MFC ) uses templates and does not look nice to you in your editor ?
Christian
No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002
Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002
During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Graus wrote:
VC 6 is 'full of STL', it's just better this time. I think it's more the merge with ATL you're thinking of.
Are you saying the VC6 MFC collections I am talking about in this thread are built with STL or even ATL ? You lost me this time.
There is a good sign MS is pushing .NET instead of MFC : try to find CString in the MSDN7 index. You'll find CStringT, traits and so on, but not a single and decent CString reference doc.
Back to real work : D-19.
|
|
|
|
|
.S.Rod. wrote:
Are you saying the VC6 MFC collections I am talking about in this thread are built with STL or even ATL ? You lost me this time.
No, the MFC collectiosn were, and are, utter crap. I'm saying the STL is no more present than it was in VC6. ATL has, I believe been merged in that there is stuff like a common string class, which is therefore templated, as all string classes should be.
.S.Rod. wrote:
There is a good sign MS is pushing .NET instead of MFC
Of course they are. How old/ugly is MFC ?
.S.Rod. wrote:
try to find CString in the MSDN7 index. You'll find CStringT, traits and so on, but not a single and decent CString reference doc.
Isn't CString now just a specialisation of their templated string class ?
You didn't answer my question - do you really not use containers because you think templates look ugly ?
Christian
No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002
Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002
During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
|
|
|
|
|
Get it clear, I am not saying template stuff is bullshit, I am saying template code does not look good in a text editor, and as long as it will be so I will not be able to figure out how developers can embrass it at all.
I don't mean to be inflammatory, but this assertion of yours seems to me overly irresponsible. Deciding whether to use or not any given feature based on the appearance of the syntax can cost you time and money if embarked on a real project. Template syntax is confusing, sure, but I don't think this is a strong enough reason to dismiss them --and believe me templates can do magic, sometimes.
Joaquín M López Muñoz
Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo
|
|
|
|
|
Joaquín M López Muñoz wrote:
I don't mean to be inflammatory, but this assertion of yours seems to me overly irresponsible. Deciding whether to use or not any given feature based on the appearance of the syntax can cost you time and money if embarked on a real project. Template syntax is confusing, sure, but I don't think this is a strong enough reason to dismiss them --and believe me templates can do magic, sometimes.
Irrelevant, I have never said I don't use templates.
Besides that, I don't see what's wrong with the opinion over a particular design.
Back to real work : D-18.
|
|
|
|
|
Irrelevant, I have never said I don't use templates.
OK, let's just assume that you do use templates, then. Combining this with your former
assertion:
I am saying template code does not look good in a text editor, and as long as it will be so I will not be able to figure out how developers can embrass it at all.
it follows that- You are not a developer, or
- you cannot figure out how you've come to use templates.
??
Joaquín M López Muñoz
Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo
|
|
|
|
|
Now you are Trolling.
It's probably a pity that with only one post you lose your reputation.
Back to real work : D-17.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm being serious (and I don't care about my reputation). Please don't dismiss a reasoned argument as trolling. Think it over: you're using templates and yet wonder why others do it. Well, the same reasons that have led you to templates (or whatever other stuff, for that matter) might apply to other people also.
Besides, I agree with you about the syntax ugliness. C++ syntax is annoyingly cumbersome in this and many other areas. Whether this is or not a showstopper could be an interesting discussion IMHO.
Joaquín M López Muñoz
Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Graus wrote:
My goodness. Why on earth are they maintaining this code ? Surely these classes remain just a stepping stone before people find out about STL ?
Hey, there's a lot of legacy apps out there that are still being worked on, upgrading the compiler is a nice way to get the advantages of the new optimizations on older code.
Most companies don't rush out and say, "Hey, a new compiler, lets re-write all our old MFC code!"
The old code works. It might not be the best design, but it works, its been working for years and it's not cost effective to rewrite it.
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous wrote:
Hey, there's a lot of legacy apps out there that are still being worked on, upgrading the compiler is a nice way to get the advantages of the new optimizations on older code.
Um... the starting point for this was the claim that the new code gives such optimisations as *breaking* the old code. How is this a good thing ?
Anonymous wrote:
The old code works. It might not be the best design, but it works, its been working for years and it's not cost effective to rewrite it.
Fair enough - I do not advocate changing it if it works, but if the new versions don't compile the old code, then the two questions are:
1. What do the legacy app owners you champion get out of that ?
2. Seeing as it IS a bad design, why are they working on it at all ? They would do better to leave it alone and presume that anyone coding post VC5 uses the STL anyhow, but the old stuff remains for legacy apps.
Christian
No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002
Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002
During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
|
|
|
|
|
Whatever written below are not my comments, i am just copy-pasting them from here[^]. So please do not consider these as my own comments, as you may visit the link i provided
One of the most common usage of strings is to cancatenate strings using operator +=. In general this operation doesn't seem to be very efficient. Here are some of my test results:
For my testing, I cancatenate a string of 100 char long 10000 times together.
Using MFC's CString as (just pseudo-code)
CString str, s('0', 100);<br />
for (int i = 0; i < 10000; i++)<br />
{<br />
str += s;<br />
}
It takes about 70 seconds on my machine .
It is almost the same result (actually 68 seconds) if std::string is used .
Interesting, I was quite surprised that the same thing can done in VB in 49 seconds - who said VB is slower?
|
|
|
|
|
Shamoon wrote:
Interesting, I was quite surprised that the same thing can done in VB in 49 seconds - who said VB is slower?
Keep using it [VB] for your project then!;P
Do you have a better piece of code to present? (I don't like your example)
|
|
|
|
|
Infact there are many different ways to do a single task in C++ and one is more efficient that other. But fact is a fact, and the fact is that both std::string and CString concatenation operation with operators like + and += are slow as compared to VB sting operations. Infact the speed can be increased many folds if we use reserve() in case of std::string but i've not seen any such possibility in CString .
Ernest Laurentin wrote:
Keep using it [VB] for your project then!
Have you ever performed ADO operations in VB?? Just try to access a stored procedure from SQL server database both via VB and VC++. You can notice that VB is extremely fast in this case. As such you've to perform few mandatory data type conversions in VC++ related to BSTRs e.t.c. VB does this internally , but really it is fast. Also notice the CPU utilization in both cases which is high in VC++ sample than VB one.
Ernest Laurentin wrote:
Do you have a better piece of code to present?
The guy has provided a link, one may go and check there the whole story behind the example he given.
Also as far as i remember there was a discussion at CP lounge few months ago related to performance comparison b/w C# and VC++, and a link was provided where someone proved that even some mathematical operations inside do-while loop of C# are faster than VC++
BTW: Yes C++ is faster than any other, but VC++ is not always a very good tool to compare performance. Just try Intel C++
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Martin wrote:
Infact the speed can be increased many folds if we use reserve() in case of std::string but i've not seen any such possibility in CString.
CString::GetBuffer(int nNewBufferLength) can do that too. Doing GetBuffer(65K) before the loop makes the += just do memcpy really, not reallocating the buffer anymore.
Back to real work : D-21.
|
|
|
|
|
I got it now (I visited the link!), I still think that one should not compare VB with C++ for performance!
Don't talk too fast, don't talk too much and don't talk to soon! - The wise man says...
|
|
|
|
|
Shamoon wrote:
Whatever written below are not my comments, i am just copy-pasting them from here:
Why ???
Shamoon wrote:
It takes about 70 seconds on my machine .
It is almost the same result (actually 68 seconds) if std::string is used .
Interesting, I was quite surprised that the same thing can done in VB in 49 seconds - who said VB is slower?
People with brains ? Are you familiar with the pet shop example ? The .NET and Java camps are fighting endlessly over one example as if it proves which is better/faster, and all it proves is the ability to perform one test. The person who posted the above is an idiot, and if you posted this because you think this proves VB is faster than C++, then you're an idiot also.
Christian
No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002
Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002
During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
|
|
|
|
|