|
Thats correct, as well as the often *forgotton* VC for Macintosh Cross-Compiler which is on my shelf...
onwards and upwards...
|
|
|
|
|
>You are wrong as for VC2; I have the box here in my office... At that time MS even tried the "subscription model", where they would ship an update every 3 months...
After 9 month, with VC 2.12, they gave up!
That's really interesting. I never heard of VC2. But there never was a VC3, right?
(Unless VC3 was one of the MIPS/Alpha compilers?)
The numbering system is a complete pig's breakfast!
|
|
|
|
|
Right, there was no VC3. This because they wanted to align all the numbers...
Microsoft C/C++ 7.0 shipped with MFC 1.0
Visual C++ 1.x (16 bit) shipped with MFC 2.0
Visual C++ 2.x (32 bit) shipped with MFC 3.0 (in the same box there was VC 1.15 for 16 bit development)
So, they skipped VC 3.0 to finally have
Visual C++ 4.0 shipped with MFC 4.0
But they soon broke this nice alignment by having
Visual C++ 5.0 with MFC 4.1
Visual C++ 6.0 with MFC 4.2
and finally
Visual C++ 7.0 (aka .NET 2002) with MFC 7.0
Visual C++ 7.1 (aka .NET 2003) with MFC 7.1
Alberto
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for that info.
>
Visual C++ 4.0 shipped with MFC 4.0
But they soon broke this nice alignment by having
Visual C++ 5.0 with MFC 4.1
Visual C++ 6.0 with MFC 4.2
----
Also from memory VC4 shipped with ATL 1.0, VC5 with ATL 2.0, VC6 with ATL 3.0, and VC7 with ATL 7.0.
So there's an extraordinary range of numbers on offer at any given time 
So you think my guess about VC 4.0 matching Windows 4.0 is wrong, and that the numbers were driven by MFC instead?
Also, is VS 97 the same as VC 5 ?
Then C/C++ 11.0 = Visual Studio 97 = Visual C++ 5.0 = MFC 4.1 = ATL 2.0
would be the most absurd point in the history.
-Don.
|
|
|
|
|
Don Clugston wrote:
So you think my guess about VC 4.0 matching Windows 4.0 is wrong, and that the numbers were driven by MFC instead?
Also, is VS 97 the same as VC 5 ?
Yes to both questions; this is the proof that marketing people cannot keep a steady course for more than a couple of years...
Alberto
|
|
|
|
|
Most of the versioning chaos started when Gates decided to call Windows 4 Windows 95. Since then we've had a mixture of years and version numbers.
Of course they used to skip version numbers occasionally but ta least they were increasing.
Though, as pointed out below, there was MS C/C++ 7 -> Visual C++1.0. But you could argue that VC++ was a new product.
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
Because......... It's made by Microsoft. 
in case MS Windows...
95 - 98 - ME
NT - 2000 - XP - ??? 
I'm a Brave Man!!! ^^
|
|
|
|
|
Because......... It's made by Microsoft.
in case MS Windows...
95 - 98 - ME
NT - 2000 - XP - ???
just kidding.... ^^
|
|
|
|
|
Well, not really. For most of my professional work, I use MSVS 2003. However, whenever I have a chance I use vim[^]. Call me crazy, but it is fun once you get used to it. I use it to program in different programming languages (C++, C, Perl, Java, CIL, Python), under different platforms (mostly Windows and some Unix emulators like SFU or Cygwin) and it always feels the same.
Of course, for work on big projects, I really want something with integrated debugger, and vim can't compete VS 2003 in this regard 
My programming blahblahblah blog. If you ever find anything useful here, please let me know to remove it.
|
|
|
|
|
As an aside: Vim is a cleaning product here in S.A. Very abrasive stuff.
regards,
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
South Africa
Michael Dunn wrote:
"except the sod who voted this a 1, NO SOUP FOR YOU"
Crikey! ain't life grand?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nice to have such reason
for us was reason 'it must be better'
|
|
|
|
|
|
As soon as VS2005 represents the stable development tool I wanted from VS2003, I'll use it and I'll "migrate" my team onto it.
BUT, if VS2005 is not leaps ahead of VS2003 in terms of stability and reduced limitations, then I'll give this one a skip.
I had a Windows form designer corrupt in VS2005 beta 1 and I had to shut down the IDE.
I can't tell you how often we get this in VS2003.
Cheers,
Simon
sig ::
"Don't try to be like Jackie. There is only one Jackie.... Study computers instead.", Jackie Chan on career choices.
article :: animation mechanics in SVG blog:: brokenkeyboards
"It'll be a cold day in Hell when I do VB.NET...", Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Nishant S wrote:
I wonder how many people are using VS.NET Whidbey for production code
I voted for it because I am doing testing with it. No production code development is being done with it - although looking at some of the new features available (with the IDE and the language and .NET Framework enhancements) I can't help being impatient.
Do you want to know more?
Not getting the response you want from a question asked in an online forum: How to Ask Questions the Smart Way!
|
|
|
|
|
First of all I've to say that we use (at present) only the C++ compiler with unmanaged code.. ( so no C#, ASP, etc. with reselled product)
I'll use 2003 version for production code but I'll test (weekly) all code with Whidbey to insure future portability (and I'm still working on porting all legacy code to work in both environment... really form some cases also with VC 6.00).
Tha same approach with SQL Server 2000 and Yukon.. We try to prepare ourself to the day we need to change version
Davide
|
|
|
|
|
I would guess 0.
Do you think or have you heard of anybody, in your experience, who use production tools especially those like VS.NET for production?
Just curious... 
« Superman »
|
|
|
|
|
>who use production tools especially those like VS.NET for production
VS.NET? As in 2002 or 2003? Plenty of people use those for production code, especially in web-dev circles thanks to ASP.NET.
2005, hopefully nobody or very few do.
regards,
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
South Africa
Michael Dunn wrote:
"except the sod who voted this a 1, NO SOUP FOR YOU"
Crikey! ain't life grand?
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, I meant the beta version. I use 2003 myself, mostly for non-web development.
« Superman »
|
|
|
|
|
I use it for editing production XSL templates, as the editor in VS2k5 provides better support for this than VS2k3 does. That's about it though.
You're one microscopic cog
in his catastrophic plan...
|
|
|
|
|
I mainly use VS 2003 for live code, but already use VS 2005 for production that will be released after VS2005 goes live (RTM).
I find VS 2005 pretty stable although some things are a little harder to do (unfinished features).
So basically I use it for production code
Speak Out! Use the Source, Luke!
(Dr. GUI .NET #5)
|
|
|
|
|
Hopefully none. It's against the usage policy and terms to use it for production. On top of that... it's still in beta and greatly unstable. I'm using it just to play around with and get geared up for the release of it. I hope they hurry (ha).
Edited: I accidentally said that it was "stable". Oopsie.
Manuet Systems
http://www.manuet.com
|
|
|
|
|
I am currently not using VS2005 for production code. This is simply because the program is not ready.
But I use VS2005 for testing purposes of future applications. Like my own application core, which I hope to finish next year 
"Every rule in a world of bits and bytes can be bend or eventually be broken"
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
