Visual Studio, you're doing it wrong
evain.net
Visual Studio, you're doing it wrong
1–10 of 13 posts
Re: Visual Studio, you're doing it wrong
#2i believe the word you're looking for is "understatement", not "euphemism". also, link to original rant seems dead.
Re: Visual Studio, you're doing it wrong
#3The post seems to be confusing .NET Framework with VS.NET plug-in api/framework.
VS.NET is the IDE you use for .NET programming. Nothing else even compares.
Saying this...
> Visual Studio 11 will be the sixth iteration of Visual Studio with .net support. And it’s still a terrible platform for the .net programmer.
...is at serious odds with my own reality.
Re: Visual Studio, you're doing it wrong
#4Oh my, my poor server is not handling this very well.
The text is at https://gist.github.com/1926119
Re: Visual Studio, you're doing it wrong
#5The post seems to be confusing .NET Framework with VS.NET plug-in api/framework. VS.NET is the IDE you use for .NET programming. Nothing else even compares. Saying this... > Visual Studio 11 will be the sixth iteration of Visual Studio with .net support. And it’s still a terrible platform for the .net programmer. ...is at serious odds with my own reality.
I hope it makes more sense if you replace this snippet in the context of the post.
Visual Studio is a great IDE for the .net programmer.
It's terrible as a platform for which you build managed addins/plugins.
Re: Visual Studio, you're doing it wrong
#6Personally I've been waiting for it to be possible to set all solution settings from anything outside the environment. We use CMake to generate solutions, and I've had to write a few scripts to do things like replace the default "Source Files/Header Files" with an actual source tree. But a ton of settings still live in binary files, making it impossible to change things like the startup project or debugging path from outside of the environment.
Re: Visual Studio, you're doing it wrong
#7i believe the word you're looking for is "understatement", not "euphemism". also, link to original rant seems dead.
No, it was also a euphemism: "It’s a tad long"
Re: Visual Studio, you're doing it wrong
#8i believe the word you're looking for is "understatement", not "euphemism". also, link to original rant seems dead.
No, it was also a euphemism: "It’s a tad long"
i'm not sure how this qualifies as a euphemism.
Re: Visual Studio, you're doing it wrong
#9The post seems to be confusing .NET Framework with VS.NET plug-in api/framework. VS.NET is the IDE you use for .NET programming. Nothing else even compares. Saying this... > Visual Studio 11 will be the sixth iteration of Visual Studio with .net support. And it’s still a terrible platform for the .net programmer. ...is at serious odds with my own reality.
Yeah this article greatly confused me as to what the author was upset about. Was it the Visual Studio extensibility? .Net? Visual Studio itself?
From the context of the article I'm pretty sure the author is upset at the Visual Studio extensibility (and rightfully so) but I'm still confused when he made statements about it driving .Net developers away; I'd imagine less than a quarter of .Net developers actually even THINK about extending any VS functions.
Re: Visual Studio, you're doing it wrong
#10The post seems to be confusing .NET Framework with VS.NET plug-in api/framework. VS.NET is the IDE you use for .NET programming. Nothing else even compares. Saying this... > Visual Studio 11 will be the sixth iteration of Visual Studio with .net support. And it’s still a terrible platform for the .net programmer. ...is at serious odds with my own reality.
Yeah this article greatly confused me as to what the author was upset about. Was it the Visual Studio extensibility? .Net? Visual Studio itself? From the context of the article I'm pretty sure the author is upset at the Visual Studio extensibility (and rightfully so) but I'm still confused when he made statements about it driving .Net developers away; I'd imagine less than a quarter of .Net developers actually even T…
Obviously I failed at conveying my point. Greatly sorry about that.
I think it's mad that in 2012, it's so hard to extend Visual Studio using C# and .net.
I'm not saying it drives .net developers away. I'm saying it hurts the .net platform as a whole.
Would VS's extensibility be easier, with better APIs and documentations, we would see a lot more third party plugins to improve our programming experience with VS.