 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
.NET Forum / Languages / Managed C++ / August 2007About C++ IDEs
Hi all, I am now using C++ for operations research techniques implementations to get numerical reults, I have a question what is the difference between VC++.Net, VC++ 6.0 (in terms of performance)? and which one is better to be used? and related to IDEs is it better to use Visual Studio 6.0 or Visual Studio .Net 2005? and what are the restrictions on using both of them? Thank you. nana >I am now using C++ for operations research techniques implementations to get >numerical reults, I have a question what is the difference between VC++.Net, >VC++ 6.0 (in terms of performance)? and which one is better to be used? and >related to IDEs is it better to use Visual Studio 6.0 or Visual Studio .Net >2005? and what are the restrictions on using both of them? VC6 is much lighter weight IDE than VS2005, but having said that either should work well on a reasonably modern PC. VC6 is no longer maintained and its compiler won't cope with more complex C++. The C++ compiler in VS2005 is considerably better in conformance to the language. If your C++ code will be using templates, I'd recommend you use the latest version, otherwise either would probably suffice for your requirements. Dave > I am now using C++ for operations research techniques implementations to get > numerical reults, I have a question what is the difference between VC++.Net, > VC++ 6.0 (in terms of performance)? and which one is better to be used? and > related to IDEs is it better to use Visual Studio 6.0 or Visual Studio .Net > 2005? and what are the restrictions on using both of them? VC6 is 9 (nine) years old. In a fast-evolving technology, I can't believe that anyone even considers using a compiler/IDE/library that cannot be anything but hopelessly outdated. >VC6 is 9 (nine) years old. In a fast-evolving technology, I can't >believe that anyone even considers using a compiler/IDE/library that >cannot be anything but hopelessly outdated. The compiler and library may be hopelessly outdated, but the VC6 IDE has one major thing going for it: it doesn't suck in quite the way the 200x IDE does. VC6's IDE never once crashed on me in Win2000/XP. VS200x dies on me 2-5 times a week. [2002 was 2-5 times a day, minimum.] VC6 also supported focus follows mouse just fine, something that VC5 and 200x have had serious problems with. It is *seriously* annoying to have such misbehavior. VC6's IDE just feels snappy on modern systems, while 200x is still a bit sluggish. I'd seriously consider paying good money to be able to use VS2005's compiler/library (which is a LOT better) with VC6's IDE (which I still think is a lot better). Nathan Mates -- <*> Nathan Mates - personal webpage http://www.visi.com/~nathan/ # Programmer at Pandemic Studios -- http://www.pandemicstudios.com/ # NOT speaking for Pandemic Studios. "Care not what the neighbors # think. What are the facts, and to how many decimal places?" -R.A. Heinlein > I'd seriously consider paying good money to be able to use VS2005's > compiler/library (which is a LOT better) with VC6's IDE (which I still > think is a lot better). > > Nathan Mates Have you looked at the Intel compiler? It claims to be plug-in compatible with VC6. -- David Wilkinson Visual C++ MVP >> I'd seriously consider paying good money to be able to use VS2005's >> compiler/library (which is a LOT better) with VC6's IDE (which I still >> think is a lot better). >Have you looked at the Intel compiler? It claims to be plug-in >compatible with VC6. It's harder to do so at work. I doubt the Intel compiler can kick out Xenon (== XBox 360) code; MS ties their development tools together at the hip. Plus, when the rest of the team uses 2005, keeping the .dsp & .vcproj files in sync could get really annoying. When you're on a team, certain customizations are easy. Some aren't. Frankly, if they fixed my few royal annoyances with 2005-- e.g. not supporting focus-follows-mouse, and the 'always step into disassembly, even when in 100% source view' bugs, I'd be more willing to give up any dreams of returning to VC6. I like what the compiler team has done with 2005, and the secure functions (e.g. strcpy_s) are so easy to use they help out a lot. I just wish the UI/IDE team could show some results for the effort they put in. Nathan Mates -- <*> Nathan Mates - personal webpage http://www.visi.com/~nathan/ # Programmer at Pandemic Studios -- http://www.pandemicstudios.com/ # NOT speaking for Pandemic Studios. "Care not what the neighbors # think. What are the facts, and to how many decimal places?" -R.A. Heinlein SNIP > VC6 is 9 (nine) years old. In a fast-evolving technology, I can't > believe that anyone even considers using a compiler/IDE/library that > cannot be anything but hopelessly outdated. And I can't believe anybody would upgrade, upgrade, and upgrade, and upgrade...and upgrade some more. What I recall was that 9 years ago people were able to develop operating systems, office applications, email systems, IDEs, compilers, hmm, what else did MS produce with their C++ tools and VC6 seemed to work fine for the task. From what I understand, their latest operating system, office applications, email systems, database systems, IDEs, compilers, etc. are still in C++. It was good enough then, it's good enough now. If you don't need the super latest standards-compliant C++ (and I argue that few honestly do - and those that do, should), why upgrade? We still use VC6 because the compiler works fine for us and the IDE rocks. -Michael Viking > And I can't believe anybody would upgrade, upgrade, and upgrade, and > upgrade...and upgrade some more. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > We still use VC6 because the compiler works fine for us and the IDE rocks. Michael: Basically, I agree with you. But for me, the most important reason to move to away from VC6 (which I have not yet done for my MFC projects) is that PSDK's after Feb 2003 cannot be used with it. -- David Wilkinson Visual C++ MVP > I agree with you. But for me, the most important reason to > move to away from VC6 (which I have not yet done for my MFC projects) is > that PSDK's after Feb 2003 cannot be used with it. The great advantage of using the Feb 2003 PSDK is that it doesn't support -- and so you will not inadvertently use -- any of the repulsive GUI-bling eye-candy monstrosities that MS have chosen to contaminate their OS with since Win2k. There are many things wrong with VC6 and the VS98 IDE, but the alarming thing is the number of things that were right with that IDE that were subsequently discarded in VS200x. To echo what others here have said: I would be very happy to be able to use the C++ compiler from VS2005 in the VS98 IDE. Cheers, Daniel. > What I recall was that 9 years ago people were able to develop operating > systems, office applications, email systems, IDEs, compilers, hmm, what else > did MS produce with their C++ tools and VC6 seemed to work fine for the > task. From what I understand, their latest operating system, office > applications, email systems, database systems, IDEs, compilers, etc. are > still in C++. It was good enough then, it's good enough now. Not for us, not at all. The VC6 compiler has serious bugs and deviations from the standard that severely hurt us in the past. Runtime error checking has greatly improved since then, in many respects. The Standard C++ library that comes with VC6 is hopelessly outdated and flawed. Any attempt to use a common library like Boost is in vain. But I see that we're not even living on the same planet, so I must respect that. > SNIP > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > did MS produce with their C++ tools and VC6 seemed to work fine for the > task. People where able to do that even 15 years ago. Why don't you go back even further? > From what I understand, their latest operating system, office > applications, email systems, database systems, IDEs, compilers, etc. are > still in C++. It was good enough then, it's good enough now. If you don't > need the super latest standards-compliant C++ (and I argue that few honestly > do - and those that do, should), why upgrade? For one, in order to use techniques that make your code safer, you will need a compiler that supports those techniques. Try to use boost with VC6. Also, VC6 was seriously lacking when it comes to its std lib. Finally, if your code needs to get compiled on several compilers, VC6 is a major PITA. It chokes on what every other compiler happily compiles and eats lots of erronous code at the same time. You keep being locked into that for 9 years now, just putting off the work to migrate that to a compliant compiler/std lib pair. > We still use VC6 because the compiler works fine for us and the IDE rocks. What's wrong with C or even assembler? Worked fine, too, editors were snappy on a 286, and people wrote operating systems, IDEs, office applications and what not using these. SCNR > -Michael Viking Schobi  SignatureSpamTrap@gmx.de is never read I'm HSchober at gmx dot de "If there were some arcane way to remove the heads of every newsgroup troll on the planet, I think it would elevate humans to a whole new level of intelligence." Rocky Frisco See inline: <SNIP> > > What I recall was that 9 years ago people were able to develop operating > > systems, office applications, email systems, IDEs, compilers, hmm, what else [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > People where able to do that even 15 years ago. > Why don't you go back even further? If I throw a ball away from me at 45 degrees it rises and then falls. It's a parabola. Maybe I consider VC6 to be the peak of the IDE? > > From what I understand, their latest operating system, office > > applications, email systems, database systems, IDEs, compilers, etc. are [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > just putting off the work to migrate that to a > compliant compiler/std lib pair. I agree that some people have this issue. We don't. We don't need to compile code on several compilers, and I bet that few do. Maybe we're putting off work, but so far so good. We sure didn't get fooled like some people doing the work to go to 2003, and then more work to 2005. And we're not locked in to some particular version of the Framework, and we're not locked in to making our customers install the Framework. > > We still use VC6 because the compiler works fine for us and the IDE rocks. > > What's wrong with C or even assembler? Worked > fine, too, editors were snappy on a 286, and > people wrote operating systems, IDEs, office > applications and what not using these. SCNR Again. I think of it as a parabola. Sure I could do those things, and because I can it makes me better at what I do now. But those are "too close to the metal" in most cases - but we do have assembly in our code. At some point one is abstracted so far away from what's going on that it's too far. .NET is in many ways too far. And from what I've seen of people we've interviewed, the ones who could write in C and assembler and understand that Win SDK and know what they're doing are a heck of a lot better than the people who can put together some sort of UI with the latest .NET and that's all they know. Reality is these people don't know much of anything, and if they do have some kind of problem, it's abstracted away to where they can't understand or debug it. -Michael Viking > See inline: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > If I throw a ball away from me at 45 degrees it rises and then falls. It's > a parabola. Maybe I consider VC6 to be the peak of the IDE? VC6 is more than an IDE and I didn't talk about the IDE. You specifically said "C++ tools". I like the newer IDEs better, but I agree that VS6 was very snappy. But its C++ compiler was a PITA and we were very happy when VC7.1 came along. >>> From what I understand, their latest operating system, office >>> applications, email systems, database systems, IDEs, compilers, etc. are [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I agree that some people have this issue. We don't. We don't need to > compile code on several compilers, and I bet that few do. (You avoided adressing the other two points.) > Maybe we're > putting off work, but so far so good. We sure didn't get fooled like some > people doing the work to go to 2003, and then more work to 2005. We neither, BTW. 2003 was a great improvement (due to its fixed C++ compiler) and we happily switched. 2005 was a customer's requirement and it was an easy switch, so nobody complained. > And we're > not locked in to some particular version of the Framework, and we're not > locked in to making our customers install the Framework. We neither. All native, portable std C++. >>> We still use VC6 because the compiler works fine for us and the IDE rocks. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > to the metal" in most cases - but we do have assembly in our code. At some > point one is abstracted so far away from what's going on that it's too far. Right. And where the point inbetween is, that is a personal preference. So yours isn't better or worse just because you feel it's right. For me using libraries like boost and applying some modern template techniques (that shift work to compile- time, thus making the code faster at run-time and making more fail at compile-time instead of run-time) is a necessary abstraction, and dealing with raw pointers etc. is too close to the metal and a last century's way of doing things. > .NET is in many ways too far. Of course. However, I don't know why you keep bringing this into the discussion. (I suppose you have evaluated newer VC versions far enough to know that they do not only do .NET, have you?) > And from what I've seen of people we've > interviewed, the ones who could write in C and assembler and understand that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > they do have some kind of problem, it's abstracted away to where they can't > understand or debug it. In my youth[TM] I heard the same about people not doing assembler. > -Michael Viking Schobi SignatureSpamTrap@gmx.de is never read I'm HSchober at gmx dot de "If there were some arcane way to remove the heads of every newsgroup troll on the planet, I think it would elevate humans to a whole new level of intelligence." Rocky Frisco <SNIP> > > If I throw a ball away from me at 45 degrees it rises and then falls. It's > > a parabola. Maybe I consider VC6 to be the peak of the IDE? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > compiler was a PITA and we were very happy when VC7.1 > came along. The compiler in VC6 is fine. It's not optimal, it's not best, but it's fine. The proof is all the applications that were developed with it. > >>> From what I understand, their latest operating system, office > >>> applications, email systems, database systems, IDEs, compilers, etc. are [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > (You avoided adressing the other two points.) I'm not sure which points I missed, so I'll try to address each one. We don't use Boost. Some do, but I'd guess that most don't? We use very little of the std lib, and it's not hard to repair the issues we come across, since they're just header files. We're not worried about being locked into VC6. The work you're worried about us putting off is work we don't have to do. Why do something we don't need to? > > Maybe we're > > putting off work, but so far so good. We sure didn't get fooled like some [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > was a customer's requirement and it was an easy switch, > so nobody complained. It's my understanding that quite a few people got burned here trying to use C++/CLI or whatever it was. > > And we're > > not locked in to some particular version of the Framework, and we're not > > locked in to making our customers install the Framework. > > We neither. All native, portable std C++. Good. > >>> We still use VC6 because the compiler works fine for us and the IDE rocks. > >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > pointers etc. is too close to the metal and a last > century's way of doing things. These are valid. For the size of our dev team and what we need to do, we don't feel moving to the compiler, making these changes, etc. is a tradeoff we want to make. If you have the time and resources, that's great. > > .NET is in many ways too far. > > Of course. However, I don't know why you keep bringing > this into the discussion. (I suppose you have evaluated > newer VC versions far enough to know that they do not > only do .NET, have you?) My mistake here. Sorry. > > And from what I've seen of people we've > > interviewed, the ones who could write in C and assembler and understand that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > In my youth[TM] I heard the same about people not doing > assembler. I honestly don't know what you're saying here. If I understand it, it's not far from what I'm saying: people who know how to program in assembler are better than people who don't. Back then, I'd recommend programming in C, but if I were choosing between two candidates for the job, I'd prefer the one who knew how to program in Assmebler, the same as I would today. -Michael Viking > <SNIP> > > > If I throw a ball away from me at 45 degrees it rises and then falls. It's [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The compiler in VC6 is fine. It's not optimal, it's not best, but it's > fine. That depends on what you do. It's almost ten years old and disregards standard C++ in many critical areas. IME, as soon as the keyword 'template' appeared somewhere, VC6 caused trouble. > The proof is all the applications that were developed with it. LOL! This is "proof" that (ancient) BASIC was a fine language. > [...] > > > > For one, in order to use techniques that make your [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I'm not sure which points I missed, so I'll try to address each one. We > don't use Boost. Some do, but I'd guess that most don't? I have no idea why one wouldn't want to use a box full of tools as boost is. But even if -- it didn't take boost to make VC6 choke. It couldn't even keep up with /my/ template code (and that was long before I got my nose into template meta stuff). It prevented us from doing things in better, safer, and more efficient ways. > We use very > little of the std lib, and it's not hard to repair the issues we come > across, since they're just header files. [...] Oh boy. > > > Maybe we're > > > putting off work, but so far so good. We sure didn't get fooled like some [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > It's my understanding that quite a few people got burned here trying to use > C++/CLI or whatever it was. <shrug> I wouldn't know. Still, this has nothing to do with any of my points. > [...] > > > > > We still use VC6 because the compiler works fine for us and the IDE rocks. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > don't feel moving to the compiler, making these changes, etc. is a tradeoff > we want to make. If you have the time and resources, that's great. There's about half a dozen developers working on the projects I work on. Not all of them work on Windows, though. As a small company that ships software to some very big companies, we know how brutal deadlines can be. We see it the other way around: We can't afford to not to use technologies that save time and make our code more stable. > [...] > > > And from what I've seen of people we've [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I honestly don't know what you're saying here. [...] When I was young, I was told that those who only write code in high-level languages and don't do assembler don't know much of anything. Since most applications today are not written in assembler, but in some higher-level language, and since that wouldn't be possible if the overwhelming majority of those making them where morons, I have to conclude that this statement was wrong. Now you say those who only write .NET stuff and don't know the much about the Win32 API don't know much of anything. I compare that statement with my experience with similar statements and don't see much value in it. (BTW, while I write most of my code on Windows, 95% of the code I write nowadays runs on quite a few platforms. Therefor I write plain and portable std C++ and almost never use the Win32 API at all -- and thus know very little about it. Your above statement paints me as not knowing much of anything.) > -Michael Viking Schobi SignatureSpamTrap@gmx.de is never read I'm HSchober at gmx dot de "If there were some arcane way to remove the heads of every newsgroup troll on the planet, I think it would elevate humans to a whole new level of intelligence." Rocky Frisco > (BTW, while I write most of my code on Windows, 95% > of the code I write nowadays runs on quite a few > platforms. Therefor I write plain and portable std > C++ and almost never use the Win32 API at all -- > and thus know very little about it. Your above > statement paints me as not knowing much of anything.) Based on all your posts I'm quite sure you're very competent. What I say doesn't paint you as somebody who doesn't know much of anything, it paints you as somebody we most likely wouldn't hire to work on our applications since your skill set doesn't fit. And my guess is that you have programmed in C, and it wouldn't surprise me if you've programmed in Assembler. Cheers. -Michael Viking LifeStory via DotNetMonster.com pisze: > Hi all, > > I am now using C++ for operations research techniques implementations to get > numerical reults, I have a question what is the difference between VC++.Net, > VC++ 6.0 (in terms of performance)? Get Orcas! Free MagazinesGet these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...
|
Reply to this Message
|
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.