Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Visual Studio 2013

blogs.msdn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 201 posts

Re: Visual Studio 2013

#11

Post by vyrotek »

evo_9 wrote: post #8

Way way way way, WAY too soon Microsoft... most shops, including my current employer aren't even on 2012 yet... Honestly I prefer VS to be tied to desktop OS releases or SQL release or something other than yearly. This is not a Madden game, nobody is asking for yearly updates for Visual Studio.

Seriously! My company has been keeping up with the latest stuff but I have hard time understanding what the justification was behind releasing a whole new Visual Studio version. Are there new features that won't be available in VS 2012? I guess we'll see at the Build conference.

Re: Visual Studio 2013

#12

Post by icesoldier »

GravityWell wrote: post #6

No mention at all about missing C++11 features. I hope their continued silence is not an indicator of nothing to come. http://cpprocks.com/c11-compiler-support-shootout-visual-stu... It should be noted that features listed as included in the VS2012 Nov CTP, such as initializer lists, variadic templates, etc., should not in my view be listed. The CTP does not work via the Visual Studio interface, but only from the com…

From the article: "I will not, in this post, be talking about many of the new VS 2013 features that are unrelated to the Application Lifecycle workflows."

It seems that the OP talked about what the blog's focus was first, then will come in later (maybe on a different blog?) to talk about anything else.

Re: Visual Studio 2013

#13

Post by GravityWell »

r4vik wrote: post #3
chiph wrote: post #2

That was fast.

menu still shouting

I personally don't mind the menu caps, but I do find the way they are forcing their design choices on everyone somewhat antagonistic, and generally not smart.

The same issue happened with their forced grey or white color schemes. It's not hard to give users the option to switch things like this to suit their preference. Yet MS has deliberately not provided any way to adjust these settings, and this gives users something to rant about, and rightly so. Really not a smart move in my view.

Re: Visual Studio 2013

#14

Post by MartinCron »

evo_9 wrote: post #8

Way way way way, WAY too soon Microsoft... most shops, including my current employer aren't even on 2012 yet... Honestly I prefer VS to be tied to desktop OS releases or SQL release or something other than yearly. This is not a Madden game, nobody is asking for yearly updates for Visual Studio.

nobody is asking for yearly updates for Visual Studio

Ahem... I am. I would much rather have smaller more frequent updates to important tools than huge disruptive ones. Short feedback loops are a good thing.

Re: Visual Studio 2013

#15

Post by glhaynes »

evo_9 wrote: post #8

Way way way way, WAY too soon Microsoft... most shops, including my current employer aren't even on 2012 yet... Honestly I prefer VS to be tied to desktop OS releases or SQL release or something other than yearly. This is not a Madden game, nobody is asking for yearly updates for Visual Studio.

How does it hurt, though? You say you're not running 2012 yet, so obviously you're not feeling forced to upgrade before you're ready. So why shouldn't they put out the latest bits when they've got them ready and we users can start using them when we're ready?

Re: Visual Studio 2013

#16

Post by samirahmed »

evo_9 wrote: post #8

Way way way way, WAY too soon Microsoft... most shops, including my current employer aren't even on 2012 yet... Honestly I prefer VS to be tied to desktop OS releases or SQL release or something other than yearly. This is not a Madden game, nobody is asking for yearly updates for Visual Studio.

I find this response almost shocking. Most of HN criticizes microsoft for slow releases cycles, slow change but the Visual Studio has clearly made progress for the better by addressing UserVoice requests, integrating Git etc.

If your employer is to slow to keep updated, why should that slow MSFT down for you while the it is trying to reinvent itself, just catch up in 2015.

Re: Visual Studio 2013

#17

Post by jblow »

Yet another Visual Studio, yet another truckload of "features" that do nothing to help day-to-day, heavy-lifting programmers. (And which probably help by adding bugs or just bloating the system). Sigh.

I am hoping they have made substantial improvements that are not mentioned in this blog post.

Re: Visual Studio 2013

#18

Post by evo_9 »

glhaynes wrote: post #15
evo_9 wrote: post #8

Way way way way, WAY too soon Microsoft... most shops, including my current employer aren't even on 2012 yet... Honestly I prefer VS to be tied to desktop OS releases or SQL release or something other than yearly. This is not a Madden game, nobody is asking for yearly updates for Visual Studio.

How does it hurt, though? You say you're not running 2012 yet, so obviously you're not feeling forced to upgrade before you're ready. So why shouldn't they put out the latest bits when they've got them ready and we users can start using them when we're ready?

If you've ever had to maintain a large, legacy .net app that has been around since 1.0 or even has some ASP 'classic' code in it, upgrading is a major nightmare. I know at least two shops right now 'stuck' on 2005 because various problems upgrading to 2008, let alone to 2012 or 2013 now. They are more likely to re-write the whole thing in Ruby at this point.

I'm actually running 2012 personally, not such a big deal on that front, my side projects tend to be pretty manageable and not hugely large or sophisticated.

But yeah, you have anything large and enterprise-y, the pain just amplifies each version you are behind.

Re: Visual Studio 2013

#19

Post by jblow »

jblow wrote: post #17

Yet another Visual Studio, yet another truckload of "features" that do nothing to help day-to-day, heavy-lifting programmers. (And which probably help by adding bugs or just bloating the system). Sigh. I am hoping they have made substantial improvements that are not mentioned in this blog post.

... though I guess if you look at the rationale behind all these features as "get people who buy into these features so tangled up in them that they can't use anything else, or reasonably port their applications to another OS", then it all makes sense.

Of course, that is the opposite of what I as a software developer want.

Post reply on HN