Anyone else hate Microsoft's IDEs? - Developers

They're just so cluttered and messy, and have a very steep learning curve. For instance, I like Java, so I thought that C# was sort of like Java, so I went and downloaded visual C# 2010 express. Now, what I use for Java is Net Beans. So I go to open the IDE for VCS and i'm like... what the shit? So I make a new project, and its just utterly confusing, and as far as i can tell, Microsoft has no 'getting started' tutorials for there IDE. [/rant]

So don't use them?

[QUOTE=bobthe2lol;23974815]They're just so cluttered and messy, and have a very steep learning curve. For instance, I like Java, so I thought that C# was sort of like Java, so I went and downloaded visual C# 2010 express. Now, what I use for Java is Net Beans. So I go to open the IDE for VCS and i'm like... what the shit? So I make a new project, and its just utterly confusing, and as far as i can tell, Microsoft has no 'getting started' tutorials for there IDE. [/rant][/QUOTE] maybe you just don't know what you're doing?

Funny, when I first tried Visual Studio I was like : "Hey this looks just like NetBeans !"

wut My first IDE was Bloodshed's DevC++, which was terrible to no end. Then I moved on to Code::Blocks, it seemed decent but something felt off about it. And then I got Visual Studio 2010, it was probably the most godly and natural feeling IDE I've ever used.

I dunno, if you look at visual studio everything that you expect in an IDE is where you expect it. Visual Studio has so many extra features which you'll slowly become accustom too it's probably why you feel a little overwhelmed.

vim is the only way to go.

I can say the same thing about Eclipse. The whole idea of the "workspace" confuses me to no end. It's especially troublesome since I only wanted to import my existing code into Eclipse, but it really hates that. Netbeans is the only IDE I care to use, and the only thing I use it for is a fancy text editor that works well with projects with a lot of files. I'd use vim exclusively if it wasn't a pain to type out the path name of a file to open it. Which is painful in Java because you'd end up doing [code]vim com/foo/bar/Baz.java[/code] since Java likes deep directorys. [editline]08:58PM[/editline] I don't even use the build system in Netbeans. It's retarded when it comes to dealing with libraries and I couldn't figure it out. So I wrote all my own Ant build scripts.

[QUOTE=ButtsexV2;23975936]vim is the only way to go.[/QUOTE] This.

Really? I've used various C++ editors (devcpp, code::blocks, & some other linux-ish editor like vi that I had a brief fling with)... but MSVC blows all of those out of the water. Sure, it's sometimes a bit of a pain in the ass to find an option to specify that it should link a certain runtime library, but usually you only have to find an option like that once per project which is once every several months. Oh, and the MSVCPP debugger? :fappery:

Yeah, VS is one of the few MS products I think they did well.

Netbeans is horrible in my opinion. The reason you think VS is "confusing" is because you're so used to a bad IDE that you think that's how all IDE's are (or should be). No. Most IDE's are actually more similar to VS.

[QUOTE=gparent;23976749]Yeah, VS is one of the few MS products I think they did well.[/QUOTE] Except that the compiler sucks and it doesn't support C at all. But yes, the IDE is kinda nice. It's just like Microsoft to spend all their time on UI junk and never get around to fixing important things. [editline]03:53AM[/editline] Oh, and if you want to see absolutely god-awful, try out XILINX ISE, an IDE for VHDL (a hardware description language). It has made a fine art out of catastrophic failure.

Why should a C++ compiler support C? They are different languages and although they overlap 99% in their grammars, you still would need a whole dedicated team to sit there and support a fairly ancient language. You might as well be angry at MSVCPP for not supporting FORTRAN.

[QUOTE=ROBO_DONUT;23977140]Except that the compiler sucks and it doesn't support C at all.[/QUOTE] Spreading misinformation, are we? :bang:

[QUOTE=nullsquared;23977261]Spreading misinformation, are we? :bang:[/QUOTE] It's not misinformation. MSVC's C compiler is completely fucked. It's not up to the latest spec, it's missing a ton of important routines and headers, and it doesn't enforce proper syntax. If you wrote C once in a while, you'd know that. [QUOTE=Inside;23977257]Why should a C++ compiler support C? They are different languages and although they overlap 99% in their grammars, you still would need a whole dedicated team to sit there and support a fairly ancient language. You might as well be angry at MSVCPP for not supporting FORTRAN.[/QUOTE] You're new to programming, aren't you?

IntelliTrace. Just saying. [editline]12:33AM[/editline] Oh, and [url]http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Search/en-US?query=getting+started+with+C%23[/url]

[QUOTE=Inside;23977257]Why should a C++ compiler support C? They are different languages and although they overlap 99% in their grammars, you still would need a whole dedicated team to sit there and support a fairly ancient language. You might as well be angry at MSVCPP for not supporting FORTRAN.[/QUOTE] Unlike FORTRAN, C is widely used today, and not just for legacy reasons. For example, libraries are often written in C to be more portable and inter-operable. [QUOTE=nullsquared;23977261]Spreading misinformation, are we? :bang:[/QUOTE] MSVC only really supports C compatibility mode, which is lacking if you want to develop in modern C.

[QUOTE=ROBO_DONUT;23977308]It's not misinformation. MSVC's C compiler is completely fucked. It's not up to the latest spec, it's missing a ton of important routines and headers, and it doesn't enforce proper syntax. If you wrote C once in a while, you'd know that.[/QUOTE] You said [b]MSVC's compiler[/b]. "MSVC's compiler" is a C++ compiler which is at the top of the line when it comes to C++ compilers.

[QUOTE=nullsquared;23977481]You said [b]MSVC's compiler[/b]. "MSVC's compiler" is a C++ compiler which is at the top of the line when it comes to C++ compilers.[/QUOTE] How does this prove any of my statements wrong? Also, MSVC being a "top of the line" C++ compiler is debatable as well.

[QUOTE=ROBO_DONUT;23977140]Except that the compiler sucks and it doesn't support C at all. But yes, the IDE is kinda nice.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I'm talking purely about the IDE. I'm not a big fan of the "C" / C++ compiler / standard library either.

[QUOTE=ROBO_DONUT;23977539]How does this prove any of my statements wrong? Also, MSVC being a "top of the line" C++ compiler is debatable as well.[/QUOTE] don't even try to argue with null it's like arguing with a brick wall that shouts insults back

[QUOTE=ROBO_DONUT;23977308]It's not misinformation. MSVC's C compiler is completely fucked. It's not up to the latest spec, it's missing a ton of important routines and headers, and it doesn't enforce proper syntax. If you wrote C once in a while, you'd know that. You're new to programming, aren't you?[/QUOTE] Aye, my understanding of many computer-related things is tenuous at best so kindly enlighten me as to what was wrong in what I said. [QUOTE=jA_cOp;23977471]Unlike FORTRAN, C is widely used today, and not just for legacy reasons. For example, libraries are often written in C to be more portable and inter-operable. [/QUOTE] Yeah, but it looks like MSVC doesn't care about supporting C. At all. Look at their page for [url=http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/vstudio/default.aspx]Visual Studio.[/url] They mention C++, VB, C#, and F#. There's no mention of the msvc compiler being compliant with C. Yes, yes, C is still used for all sorts of libraries written today, but MS is really trying to push their own homebrew languages and drive the industry to function on MS's terms. From their perspective, C probably is a legacy language.

[QUOTE=raccoon12;23977941]don't even try to argue with null it's like arguing with a brick wall that shouts insults back[/QUOTE] that would be an awesome brick wall i'd hone my argument skills all night long

[QUOTE=Inside;23978157]Aye, my understanding of many computer-related things is tenuous at best so kindly enlighten me as to what was wrong in what I said.[/QUOTE] It's still about as common as C++. It's still being updated and revised. It is [I]absolutely essential [/I]to low-level firmware hacking and development on embedded platforms. It often works better for libraries because (1) C library -> C++ application works better than C++ library -> C application (2) C++, and OOP languages in general, require a name mangling scheme which is not defined in the C++ spec and causes linking problems across C++ compilers.

Oh, I know that C has its place. What I mean is that there's no point for MS to support yet another language when they're pimping their own languages.

[QUOTE=Inside;23978157] Yeah, but it looks like MSVC doesn't care about supporting C. At all. Look at their page for [url=http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/vstudio/default.aspx]Visual Studio.[/url] They mention C++, VB, C#, and F#. There's no mention of the msvc compiler being compliant with C.[/QUOTE] Which, I suppose, is the problem he has with MSVC as a C++ compiler. A lot of C++ compilers offer C as well, so it's not an entirely far-out feature expectation of a C++ compiler. Personally I don't think it has anything to do with C++, and if I wanted to use C, I'd use a sane C compiler like Clang or GCC instead. [QUOTE=Inside;23978157]Yes, yes, C is still used for all sorts of libraries written today, but MS is really trying to push their own homebrew languages and drive the industry to function on MS's terms. From their perspective, C probably is a legacy language.[/QUOTE] Yet, the WinAPI is still (almost) a standard C compliant API, and it's nice to be able to use proper C if you're going to work with C interfaces. Then again, the Windows API is pretty much legacy as well.

[QUOTE=Inside;23978157]Yes, yes, C is still used for all sorts of libraries written today, but MS is really trying to push their own homebrew languages and drive the industry to function on MS's terms. From their perspective, C probably is a legacy language.[/QUOTE] Yeah that's their (wrong) perspective on the whole thing. Oh well, clang beats the shit out of msvc anyway.

[QUOTE=jA_cOp;23978301]Which, I suppose, is the problem he has with MSVC as a C++ compiler. A lot of C++ compilers offer C as well, so it's not an entirely far-out feature expectation of a C++ compiler. Personally I don't think it has anything to do with C++, and if I wanted to use C, I'd use a sane C compiler like Clang or GCC instead.[/QUOTE] Even if you're writing a C++ application, it can still cause problems when you're trying to include header files for libraries written in C. This is why every compiler (or set of compilers) that can process C++ should also be able to handle plain C.

[QUOTE=ROBO_DONUT;23978363]It can still cause problems when you're trying to include header files for libraries written in C.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure the extern "C" {} part of MSVC++ works just fine... any specific incompatibilities you can think of?