The most powerful synergy in Microsoft Corp.’s technology portfolio is between its powerful platform services and its reasonably priced, highly capable tools. Wooing developers with seductive ease of use, Microsoft’s tools then pave a path of least resistance toward the adoption of each new wave of Windows features. Read the review of Visual Studio.NET at eWeek.
Visual Studio .Net Makes Compelling Gains
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Yeah, I used it for a couple of months now, … it’s great, maybe the main plus for .NET over Java (although Jbuilder is not bad at all) but the new IDE is simply supreme.
I’ve always wished for a decent IDE based around (x)emacs. As it is, though the individual tools for Linux are quite strong (emacs, vi, glade, gcc) they aren’t integrated well. Or indeed, at all.
That’s not as much of a hindrance as I thought it’d be for some reason, but it’d still be nice to bring emacs into the 21st century.
In this latest release, the MS compiler pulls off the amazing feat of actually compiling C++ code. For C++ coders, this finally makes Microsoft’s $1079 (minimum) product competitive with free tools like GCC.
Sarcasm aside, this is a long awaited upgrade. The article writer may be leery of the usefulness of modern C++ features, but the rest of the C++ community isn’t. The fact that Visual C++ can now actually compile all the cool things in Boost and Loki will be a big help as the C++ standards community moves the language into the future.
For C++ coders, this finally makes Microsoft’s $1079 (minimum) product competitive with free tools like GCC.
Of course, sarcasm still aside, C++ coders might be more interested in VC++ Standard Edition at ~$110, especially if they’re not interested in VB, C#, and J#.
This is one of the most expensive scripting (barring VC++) IDE I have ever came across. *shrugs* However, it DOES have a lot of features. If your willing to shell out the big bugs for a primarily scripting IDE (think .NET), and a VC++ IDE, then go for it
If not, try the alturnatives 
Of course, sarcasm still aside, C++ coders might be more interested in VC++ Standard Edition at ~$110, especially if they’re not interested in VB, C#, and J#.
—
I would agree if you were right. Unfortunately the compiler in the Standard Edition is not the fully optimizing one. That leaves you with programs with about the speed of a debug build (maybe little faster) which is deadly with everything but the most trivial code. I had to shell out the big bucks myself since non-optimized code from the standard version was 3 to 10 slower then the fully optimized code from the professional edition. Personally i give a shit about C#,VB,.Net and all the other crap, all i want is the optimizing compiler. At least they sell updates for anyone who bought the 2002 edition for 29$, which is i have to admit, and i hate microsoft, simply fair.
Like I said before on this website, the idea of a framework (a namespace class hierarchy) is indeed great because it makes complex vendor class libraries accessible through inheritance of base class implementation, however all of the control is in the implementation, which is not open. So you are gaining the advantage of an accessible knowledge base which promotes rapid application development, however you do not have any control in this deal and you are totally dependant on the vendor. This is a vendors dream, not an application developers dream.
Thanks for the heads up on the speed issue. I use VC++ at work and was going to buy it for my home use, and thought the same thing that PainKilleR did, “Why spend more than ~$100 if I never use the other languages.” Now I know. Damn! I shouldn’t act surprised by this news of course, but still…Damn!
You could pay $100.00 for a library that is being phased out (MFC) or else you can use your brain and develop Standard C++ applications on Linux for free using open source boundary classes like Gtkmm.
The standard edition of VC++ is okay, but really only suitable for learning. As others have pointed out, this is a non-optimizing version. This is particularly painful for C++, because most C++ code is written with the assumption that powerful optimizers can abstract-away most of the complex abstractions. Template-heavy code, in particular, depends on aggressive inlining to make complex template types perform as well as built-in types.
Unfortunately the compiler in the Standard Edition is not the fully optimizing one
if you’re just interested in the compiler, purchase the Windows DDK (it’s free, you just pay the deliver). It contains the full edition of Visual C++ 7 (the compiler only, mind you)
And they STILL can’t get it [the server side ASP.NET controls) to poop out w3c compliant html nor get the editor (even with the proper checkboxes flipped) to leave my friggin code alone.
While the article touts the 15 month release cycle, I’m still waiting for my upgrade CD which I ordered 4/24 and just got the second notice that it will now ship 6/9.
Jeez…what’s going on here!
Unfortunately the compiler in the Standard Edition is not the fully optimizing one
anonymouscoder, do you have proof for it? Because I think this is the worst bullshit I read in a week. It’s exactly the same C++ compiler.
You could pay $100.00 for a library that is being phased out (MFC) or else you can use your brain and develop Standard C++ applications on Linux for free using open source boundary classes like Gtkmm.
—
You are right. I´m in the progress of doing just that. Gcc 3.2 is an excellent compiler. Fortunately i don´t have to use MFC, since all stuff i do is backend stuff. I even reduced Api calls to the bare minimum so that my code compiles quite clean. I came up with the MCMP rule ( Multiple Compilers – Multiple Platforms ). Every night i compile everything i have with multiple compilers on multiple platforms. On Windows thats the free Borland C++ Compiler, Cygwin Gcc and VC++, on Linux its (currently only)Gcc. I also played with the Intel C++ and that one looks very good also, i think i will buy it. While i only have VC++ setup up to actually produce dll´s the others are used to compile a test-program that incorporates all code. The different warnings i got from the compilers clearly helped writing more portable, safer code. When i decide to turn everything over to another reference-compiler ( most likely gcc ) i already know that everything works without warning and hazzle.
Unfortunately the compiler in the Standard Edition is not the fully optimizing one
anonymouscoder, do you have proof for it? Because I think this is the worst bullshit I read in a week. It’s exactly the same C++ compiler.
—-
I just checked the website, it looks indeed as if they changed that for the 2003 Version. I was referring to the 2002 Version which i bought and there it was definitely the case. I can´t find the feature overview for 2002 anymore, only the one for 2003, but to give juraj at least a chance to believe me i dug the following links out. But basically it looks as if they now ship the optimizing compiler with the standard version as well. Anyone interested should check that before and make sure they can return it if it is not the case.
from: http://www.cuj.com/articles/2002/0209/0209e/0209e.htm?topic=article…
… It gets better. Visual C++ .NET 2002 is just the general product name; the SKU (or ?shelf-keeping unit?) name is more elaborate. For example, if you buy the non-optimizing or academic version of Visual C++ .NET, the SKU you purchase is ?Microsoft Visual C++ .NET Standard 2002.? Or if you buy the optimizing compiler as part of the cheapest Visual Studio .NET, your SKU is ?Microsoft Visual Studio .NET Professional 2002.? …
from:http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00005RV4X/ref%3Dnosim/a…
Reviewer: myelin from Christchurch, New Zealand
I’ve been using Visual Studio .NET (the full package) for a while at work, and it’s been working very well. The debugger is great, the IDE is much nicer than any other I’ve used, and IntelliSense is very handy to have.
If you’re considering buying this ‘Standard version’, take note of the difference between it and the version that comes with ‘Professional’ Visual Studio package:
VC++.NET Standard does NOT come with an optimising compiler. This is the *learning edition* – you’re permitted to distribute apps you write with it, but you can’t use the /Ox compiler switches to generate optimised code.
Note that you may be still able to compile (and optimise) the code you’ve written in the VC++.NET IDE with the free Borland C++ compiler or with GCC, as long as you’re not using MFC or ATL.
reasonably priced? Bwaaaa ha ha ha ha! compared to what? the eclipse? Eugenia, please, i got operated last week, don’t rip my stitches eh? we understand that you back ms, but it doesn’t mean writing talk show like news bullets. –: ))))
reasonably priced? Bwaaaa ha ha ha ha! compared to what?
Ever looked at the price of Borland’s tools at the ‘Professional’ and above level (as opposed to the ‘Personal’ editions)? Visual Studio .Net 2003 Professional costs a whole $80 more than Borland C++ Builder 6 Professional. The difference in cost between the Borland Personal Editions and the MS Standard Editions is ~$10, whereas the MS Professional Edition includes C++, C#, VB, J#, and the scripting support for ASP for $80 more than Borland’s equivalent Professional edition for one language (whether it’s C++, Delphi, Java, or C#).
In other words, reasonably priced compared to other commercial IDEs. Borland may sell Kylix for 1/3rd the price of their other IDEs, but they know as well as most developers what IDEs tend to sell for on the Windows side.
VC++.NET Standard does NOT come with an optimising compiler. This is the *learning edition* – you’re permitted to distribute apps you write with it, but you can’t use the /Ox compiler switches to generate optimised code.
first I though the way she ment it from the begining is that academic version was _FREE_ so it is proly clear MS didn’t wanted to make production code with it. that also means MS wouldn’t sell half-baked VC++ compiler, that would be crazy. but then I checked also 6.0 version, and yes it HAS optimization compiler(i think it has also /Ox options), but is lacking advanced-optimization feature(one written as next) for “the smallest&fastest” code.
Thank you for the response + URLs you gave me, I appreciate it.
btw, painkiller could you do windows platform C++/C#/J#/Fortran development in eclipse? Or could you at least do C++ windows development in eclipse? I hardly doubt so, and maybe even if you could, what integration/RAD tools would you have…
VS .Net 2003 is price reflect the power MS has today, if MS would be uncertain about it’s possition in a market field, it surelly would lower the prices to 1/3 =)
Eclipse has nice editor, but when it comes to integration and tools support you can’t really compare to VStudio .NET 2003.
VC++ Standard and the academic version are not the same, although they are often referred to as the same. The academic version creates programs that cannot be sold or used for any commercial purposes. Programs created with that even display a message stating exactly that at start. This is beyond your control, unless you patch the crap out of the binary each time you created it. This version is also called the writers/journalist version. I remember buying an older version ( i think 6 ) of that as a cover-cd on a programming magazine.
The Standard Edition allows you sell the programs you´ve written with it, so it is a really commercial compiler and they charge for it, but it does not come with the fully optimizing compiler ( this refers to the 2002 version ), just as the academic version.
Only the Visual Studio versions come with all the fully optimizing compilers and the price you pay is high. It looks as if, though, that in Standard c++ 2003 the fully optimizing compiler is included.
Personally i found the performance of the not fully optimizing compilers absoluetly inacceptable compared to the fully optimized versions. When you write STL-heavy code with lots of function ojects and generally a more “modern” c++ approach you absoluetly need full optimization. Otherwise you end up with dozens of function calls for basically trivial operations like vector-subscript-operators and stuff like that.
The most powerful synergy in Microsoft Corp.’s technology portfolio is between its powerful platform services and its reasonably priced, highly capable tools.
You said a mouthful.
Platform=windows=powerful
tools=reasonably priced, highly capable
platform services=.NET=powerful
that makes more sense.
btw, painkiller could you do windows platform C++/C#/J#/Fortran development in eclipse? Or could you at least do C++ windows development in eclipse? I hardly doubt so, and maybe even if you could, what integration/RAD tools would you have…
I haven’t tried eclipse, so I really can’t comment. I’ve been reasonably lucky regarding the prices I’ve been able to get on Visual Studio over the last 5 years, plus the support I’ve gotten from the company I work for regarding what development tools I wish to use, so I haven’t had a lot of reason to try other environments unless the tools show good reason to at least check them out or the company asks me to do otherwise. That being said, I started out on emacs, and I know that you can write code with Notepad, but would you really want to?
VS .Net 2003 is price reflect the power MS has today, if MS would be uncertain about it’s possition in a market field, it surelly would lower the prices to 1/3 =)
If competetive development environments for Windows and .Net were priced lower, then VS would most likely be priced lower. MS knows that it’s position in all of it’s markets depend highly on it’s ability to attract developers, and though market share has a large part in attracting those developers, the tools have always been a major foundation for MS’ platform (remember, MS was building development tools before they had their own platform, and they strongly leveraged their market share in dev tools to build market share in the platform).
Kylix is at 1/3rd the price partially because there is a strong belief with many commercial developers that Linux users won’t pay for software (and there is a free version of Kylix iirc that limits the licenses that can be used on software developed with it), and because it’s a fairly new product on a platform that’s fairly new for Borland.
Hasn’t the world already changed, to the point of writing MS specific code and using a tool that only works on the MS platform, irrelavent?
For web development, I’d look at Macromedia DreamWeaver MX.
Allowing development in ASP, ASP.NET, JSP and ColdFusion.
Then if forced to use a technology you have a cross platform tool that can run and produce code for any environment.
Ignoring the growth, reliability, and cost-effectiveness of Linux these days seems like a dumb idea.
I also, wouldn’t select my language based upon the IDE.
And XML being a hierarchical structure of data,
how difficult is it to work with an XSL schema?
The schema’s I’ve seen didn’t seem to require a super computer to work with. But, I could be wrong, your data may vary.