Fog Creek Software
Discussion Board




Upgrading to visual c++ .net

I just switched from MSVC 6 to visual studio .net c++
one feature I can't find in the new IDE is extension help.
In C++6 this allowed you to use an external help file as the default for f1 help - so you could lookup definitions of external library functions instantly, I can't find this in .net ?

Can't find this anywhere on the net, any ideas ?
          Martin

Martin Beckett
Tuesday, August 12, 2003

I'm considering doing the same upgrade. Where there many issues in the move? People have told me that installing the new dev environment "took over" their machine. Have you encountered any nasty side effects?

Daver
Tuesday, August 12, 2003

I had to change because I am working on a multi platform product and I needed better standard complicance than vc6. The old code worked first time - but is very standard C++ with no MFC/ATL components. The project files were automatically updated.

Even if you only select c++ it still installs a lot of .NET stuff which I am happily ignoring so far.

The only problem, if you remove it and reinstall VC6 it still thinks that .net is the default debugger so if you hit debug on a windows error you get a lot of messages about not being able to find components.


The interface is the new XP style which I assume I will get used to and there is the ussual upgrade pains of trying to find where all the buttons went.

Martin Beckett
Tuesday, August 12, 2003

You mean, "Downgrading to Visual C++ .Net", right?  :)

I've used (and loved) every version of Visual C++ since 1.0 (and before 1.0, when it was called "QuickC for Windows"!), but I have to say I hated the .Net version.

Ignoring the fact that it couldn't build my executable (long story, and no, I'm not a newbie), just using it was very annoying.  Windows pop up, scroll out, dock, undock, redock, and just generally take over and do whatever the hell they feel like.  Nothing stays where I put it; I can't made the damn IDE work for me instead of against me.  The VC6 key bindings (like, oh, F-frigging-4?) don't work, even when you're suppossedly emulating VC6.  People have reported losing resources, and even losing source code (*after* the file was saved).  And don't get me started on how they completely screwed up the "Output" window.

I guess this is typical of the first version of a program, but who needs this aggravation if you're not doing web services, and didn't fall for C# ?  I'll stick with VC6 for a while, thanks.

Let us know how you like it after you've used it for awhile... I'm curious if it "grows" on you...

Grumpy Old-Timer
Tuesday, August 12, 2003

I haven't used the IDE enough yet to really comment, but the new c++ *compiler* rocks.  It produces much smaller code than the vc6 compiler did, it has much better STL support and other standards compliance, and it simply blows the older compiler away...

Michael Kale
Tuesday, August 12, 2003

A couple of things about it are annoying me.
1, I can't buy msvc6 anymore, so if I want to add a developer everyone has to switchto the new version.
2, I can't buy just the full C++ compiler, I have to buy the full studio even though I am only using c++. Actually we have decided to buy a few copies of the toy $99 compiler and one instance of the full thing to do the release build.
3, Why couldn't I just buy the compiler engine as a replacement for the v6 one. I can plug in the intel compiler to msvc6 IDE , why not a microsoft one.

10 years ago the nice thing about Windows was the way MS went out of their way to make it easy for developers - unlike certain Unix vendors.
Now with forced upgrades to new langauges and enviroments, continual changes in the MSDN subs, it seems that they don't love us anymore ;-(

Martin Beckett
Wednesday, August 13, 2003

"A couple of things about it are annoying me.
1, I can't buy msvc6 anymore, so if I want to add a developer everyone has to switchto the new version.
2, I can't buy just the full C++ compiler, I have to buy the full studio even though I am only using c++. Actually we have decided to buy a few copies of the toy $99 compiler and one instance of the full thing to do the release build.
3, Why couldn't I just buy the compiler engine as a replacement for the v6 one. I can plug in the intel compiler to msvc6 IDE , why not a microsoft one."

1. VC++ 6 is still part of the MSDN downloads. I'm sure you can find it online if you look.

2. You can buy Visual C++.NET. There are no release limitations on the product. Beats me why you call it a "Toy", considering it's identical to the Professional Studio version, excepting that it's limited to a single language.

3. Intel has no vested interest in getting you to upgrade. Microsoft does.

Brad Wilson (dotnetguy.techieswithcats.com)
Wednesday, August 13, 2003

From: http://msdn.microsoft.com/visualc/previous/downgrade.aspx

Downgrade Information for Visual C++

Customers of Microsoft Visual C++ .NET 2002 are eligible to downgrade their license to any prior version as per the terms described in the licensing agreement. To get the media for an older version for a small fee (approximately $20 US/$25 CDN, plus shipping and handling), please contact the Microsoft Supplemental and Replacement Parts Center at (800) 360-7561. Outside the United States and Canada, please contact your local Microsoft subsidiary.

MSDN subscribers may be able to download older versions from the subscribers download area. In addition, some previous versions of Visual C++ may also be available through resellers. Please contact your local reseller for details.

Just me (Sir to you)
Wednesday, August 13, 2003

Check out the Custom Help VS.NET IDE power tool

http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/ide/

Heston Holtmann
Wednesday, August 13, 2003

How many people out there secretly believes that even in the far future (5 years out) people will still want pure C/C++ DLLs?

Anonymous
Thursday, August 14, 2003

Well, I've *never* wanted a C++ dll - they're impossible to use unless your compiler settings are EXACTLY the same as the settings used to compile the dll. And, C++ being the way it is, you end up with half the library's source code in the header file anyway.

C dll's are ok, but then you lose all that nice OO goodness.

Chris Tavares
Thursday, August 14, 2003

I thought people stopped wanting "C++ DLLs" once COM was wide-spread. :)

Brad Wilson (dotnetguy.techieswithcats.com)
Thursday, August 14, 2003

*  Recent Topics

*  Fog Creek Home