[QUOTE=efeX;21769485]Well there's always.... Code::Blocks... :v:[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=turb_;21770650]There's always MonoDevelop, as well as the Express versions, which I used before getting Dreamspark for 2010.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the suggestions but the problem with those IDEs is integration, specifically XNA. XNA works really well with Visual Studio, it would be a shame to break the integration they implemented.
Additionally the Express versions are a no-no. I'm using the professional version and I couldn't go back to not having features such as the full refactor and add-on support. (RockScroll, although I will try MetalScroll - Only just seen it on Garry's blog.)
[QUOTE=Ortzinator;21755005]2010 has [url=http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd264915.aspx]IntelliTrace[/url], can step backward when debugging (IIRC), has dual-monitor support. When you push F1, it opens in your default web browser instead of that dumb help browser that takes ages to load. Zoom in the code editor. Lots of other nice stuff.[/QUOTE]
Only Ultimate has it. If you don't have $6.5k or aren't lucky like me having your university participating in MSDN-AA, intellitrace won't be useable for you.
Anyway, I recently switched from 2008 to 2010 and I like 2010 more than 2008 (as IDE), but I hate how the compiler now throws errors sometimes on implicit castings or even when you use MS-Style NULL instead of nullptr (C++11-style). At least, this didn't let me compile Crypto++ on 2010 without modifications.
MS-Style NULL?
Also, can you not just compile with /W3?
[QUOTE=aVoN;21778507]Only Ultimate has it. If you don't have $6.5k or aren't lucky like me having your university participating in MSDN-AA, intellitrace won't be useable for you.
Anyway, I recently switched from 2008 to 2010 and I like 2010 more than 2008 (as IDE), but I hate how the compiler now throws errors sometimes on implicit castings or even when you use MS-Style NULL instead of nullptr (C++11-style). At least, this didn't let me compile Crypto++ on 2010 without modifications.[/QUOTE]
Reflector pro + intellitrace. Just awesome.
2008, Can't be bothered to update since does the job pretty well.
[QUOTE=Chezburger;21822792]2008, Can't be bothered to update since does the job pretty well.[/QUOTE]
Do the upgrade, it's very nice
I have access to dreamspark, so going to 2010 was free, only problems I've run into are some libraries
[editline]06:21PM[/editline]
not working right
What's wrong with Code::Blocks?
[QUOTE=turb_;21822835]Do the upgrade, it's very nice[/QUOTE]
I can't be assed upgrading either. Convince me.
VS2010 has really nice intellisense upgrade. It now works 10x better for me with C++ projects, and 1000x for C# since it now knows pascal naming conventions.
Lets say, for example, I have a repository interface: PeopleRepository, and a in-memory class: PeopleInMemory.
When I go to create the PeopleInMemory I just have to use PR and intellisence knows what is going on and I get my interface. This may not seem like much, but when you keep good naming conventions this speeds up everything a great deal. Not to mention it uses a contains search, rather than a starts with. The search results are filtered and it doesn't simply skip the the middle of a large list.
VS2010 has much better support for all Silverlight/WPF apps (obviously). Support for .Net 4/Silverlight 4 is nice.
I really like VS2010 because it does anything that I need for half my classes, the other half is in Netbeans.
Sounds like what VAX does in 2008 :v:
[QUOTE=nullsquared;21764092]Yeah a 1440x900 widescreen acer
Clear Type looks blurry for me, as if my eyes need to constantly focus in/out on it, whereas raster fonts look nice and sharp[/QUOTE]
You do realise Windows 7 comes with a nice ClearType wizard with which you can make it as blurry/sharp as you want it to look.
[QUOTE=arienh4;21849338]You do realise Windows 7 comes with a nice ClearType wizard with which you can make it as blurry/sharp as you want it to look.[/QUOTE]
Some people don't have windows 7.
[QUOTE=high;21849883]Some people don't have windows 7.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.microsoft.com/typography/ClearTypePowerToy.mspx[/url]
[QUOTE=voodooattack;21850708][url]http://www.microsoft.com/typography/ClearTypePowerToy.mspx[/url][/QUOTE]
What settings make it look normal? I tried it but I couldn't stand seeing all my text as cleartype. My eyes were starting to hurt after only 5 seconds :\.
[QUOTE=high;21850754]What settings make it look normal? I tried it but I couldn't stand seeing all my text as cleartype. My eyes were starting to hurt after only 5 seconds :\.[/QUOTE]
You have to adjust it to what looks best for you. If you can manage to get it configured to looking good for you without hurting your eyes.
Tried the wizard, selected the best looking ones and this shit still hurts my eyes :\.
[QUOTE=high;21850955]Tried the wizard, selected the best looking ones and this shit still hurts my eyes :\.[/QUOTE]
ClearType takes a while to get used to, I remember hating it at first, then I got used to it a bit more, although I didn't really like it; then I switched my desktop to 120 DPI and kept it on, now I can code freely again.
[IMG]http://i42.tinypic.com/28iagxc.jpg[/IMG]
What I learned is: If ClearType makes your text look blurry, that's not its fault, your fonts are too small to begin with.
Get 2008
2010 lags a lot
2005 have some major bugs
2003 is too old
[QUOTE=voodooattack;21851749]
[IMG_thumb]http://i42.tinypic.com/28iagxc.jpg[/IMG_thumb]
[/QUOTE]
that looks like ass
I guess I will try increasing the dpi when I find my windows xp disc.
[QUOTE=turb_;21852014]that looks like ass[/QUOTE]
Care to elaborate?
[QUOTE=Ericsson;21851794]Get 2008
2010 lags a lot
2005 have some major bugs
2003 is too old[/QUOTE]
All three of those arguments are completely unfounded. Helpful post.
C++ intellisense actually works now.
I still don't understand what's wrong with ClearType, all the fonts appear nice and smooth, not as jagged pixels.
I would have thought smooth to be better?
If you have small fonts then they will be less visible. Smoothing fonts blur the edges, so I guess some eyes are simply not used to that.
I guess so.
[QUOTE=ZeekyHBomb;21899662]If you have small fonts then they will be less visible. Smoothing fonts blur the edges, so I guess some eyes are simply not used to that.[/QUOTE]
I still don't understand this, having used it for years, I have never seen a font of a reasonable size I couldn't read.
Even smaller fonts like 10pt and 9pt still look fine, unless your really far from your monitor or you've got absurdly small text, ClearType should make it look a lot better.
I have 05 just because I'm familiar with it.. Will probably upgrade to 2010 soon enough though.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
