Live data from Hacker News

Building and modifying Linux Kernel with Visual Studio

sysprogs.com

11–20 of 38 posts

Re: Building and modifying Linux Kernel with Visual Studio

#11

Why?

Because the Visual Studio debugger is the most advanced, wonderful, and beautiful (if that's a thing) debugger ever written.

I keep my code portable to Windows soley for the purpose of getting to use the Visual Studio debugger. Likewise, Windows developers should write portable code so they can use valgrind.

Re: Building and modifying Linux Kernel with Visual Studio

#12
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the Visual Studio debugger is the most advanced, wonderful, and beautiful (if that's a thing) debugger ever written.

Just step back and think for a minute why that is the case.

Because it's proprietary, and other debuggers aren't allowed to copy it?

Re: Building and modifying Linux Kernel with Visual Studio

#13
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the Visual Studio debugger is the most advanced, wonderful, and beautiful (if that's a thing) debugger ever written.

Just step back and think for a minute why that is the case.

If you're implying that it's because code written on/for Windows is more buggy, remove that chip from your shoulder.

Re: Building and modifying Linux Kernel with Visual Studio

#16

Why?

That's a great question. Here's my take on it: I switched from Windows to Linux over a decade ago...but as somebody that has to often write a lot of C/C++ code, man do I miss Visual C++. I've gone through all the IDEs (Eclipse, Code::Blocks, Anjuta, QtCreator, etc). QtCreator comes close for me, but I feel most comfortable with Sublime Text and a terminal for compiling/debugging/profiling.

Visual C++'s intellisense actually worked...not perfectly, but much better than what I've seen on Linux (QtCreator is close). Their debugger quality, source control integration, profiler integration, target code quality, compiler error messages/feedback, a call browser (a feature I still can't find on any other IDE, not the same as grep)...all wonderful. All of that stuff can be leveraged for writing cross platform code, including the Linux kernel. I know it sounds insane to use a Windows-specific IDE, but VC++ is that good of an IDE. Personally I would think it's way more trouble than it's worth, but apparently the OP felt otherwise :)

I don't have many good things to say about Microsoft's products, but for Visual Studio I only have praise. MS has always excelled with compilers, languages, development tools. People mock Steve Ballmer for his "developers, developers, developers!!!" rant, but IMO MS's dev toolchain is a big part of how they attracted developers and achieved market domination.

Re: Building and modifying Linux Kernel with Visual Studio

#17

Why?

Because the Visual Studio debugger is the most advanced, wonderful, and beautiful (if that's a thing) debugger ever written.

It has a steep learning curve, but the package Microsoft calls "debugging tools for windows" (windbg, cdb, kd) really puts the VS debugger to shame, to the point where I am frustrated when I try to use it. If you want to point and click your way through variables I guess VS is OK, but if you want everything you might ever want to know about a process it is frustrating.

Re: Building and modifying Linux Kernel with Visual Studio

#19
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just step back and think for a minute why that is the case.

If you're implying that it's because code written on/for Windows is more buggy, remove that chip from your shoulder.

Actually you're right. I stepped over the line. I don't use Windows products but Windows does make incredible software.

Re: Building and modifying Linux Kernel with Visual Studio

#20
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the Visual Studio debugger is the most advanced, wonderful, and beautiful (if that's a thing) debugger ever written.

I keep my code portable to Windows soley for the purpose of getting to use the Visual Studio debugger. Likewise, Windows developers should write portable code so they can use valgrind.

No need for valgrind when using memory safe languages :)
Post reply on HN