Prev: Adding Controls in VC++ 2008
Next: Does VC++ Enforce Pure Abstract?
From: Giovanni Dicanio on 30 Apr 2008 05:59

"Hendrik Schober" <SpamTrap(a)gmx.de> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:OggtMUiqIHA.4848(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>> VC++6 era was not so dreaded after all. VC++6 was a good compiler
>> when it came out. It still is the one of most widely used
>> compilers today. It definetely faster than newer VC++ compilers.
>
> That depends on what software you had to write with it. I
> had to write code that had to compile on VC6, several CW
> versions, and several GCC versions.

I agree with you that if you need to develop multiplatform C++ code or do
advanced things with C++ templates VC6 is limited in capabilities.

But VC6 has a great IDE and offers very productive ClassWizard for MFC
development (and was and still is very fast, as others wrote). So if you
were focused on Windows-only MFC development, VC6 was really a *great* tool.

VC6 + WndTabs + Visual Assist X offered a great development experience.

Today VC6 is in "R.I.P." status, but historically it is one of the greatest
software that Microsoft built, IMHO.

One of the good things about VS2008 is the support of C++/CLI, a good bridge
from native to the .NET world.

But, for example, when I need to add some controls or event handlers to an
MFC dialog, I don't like the fact that they are inserted in un-ordered
places in the class header file: I prefer the VC6 way of doing things, when
there was kind of "regions" of code, delimited by special comments like //
{{AFX_... and so all the event handlers were put there, and the code was
clear.
Instead with more modern IDEs, whenever a new handler or control is added, I
need to hand-edit the code to organize it more clearly.

However, I trust Microsoft and I think that "10 will be the new 6".

Giovanni



From: Tom Serface on 30 Apr 2008 11:23
My biggest issue with VC6 is it has the older MFC and compiler. The IDE is
nicer, but the result is not nearly as nice. Also the VC6 resource editor
had a habit of messing up resource files if the correct code page wasn't set
(I.E., user rebooted to correct locale) before opening the file even if you
didn't change anything. So often my Japanese would turn into ???? ????
type strings. The later version works fine with Unicode .RC files and I
typically open mine in Notepad and save them out as Unicode when I create
new ones.

I think ClassWizard gets a lot of press as being the greatest of tools and
it was kind of nice, but I wouldn't go back...

Tom

"Giovanni Dicanio" <giovanni.dicanio(a)invalid.com> wrote in message
news:OQe0IkqqIHA.4672(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
> "Hendrik Schober" <SpamTrap(a)gmx.de> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:OggtMUiqIHA.4848(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
>>> VC++6 era was not so dreaded after all. VC++6 was a good compiler
>>> when it came out. It still is the one of most widely used
>>> compilers today. It definetely faster than newer VC++ compilers.
>>
>> That depends on what software you had to write with it. I
>> had to write code that had to compile on VC6, several CW
>> versions, and several GCC versions.
>
> I agree with you that if you need to develop multiplatform C++ code or do
> advanced things with C++ templates VC6 is limited in capabilities.
>
> But VC6 has a great IDE and offers very productive ClassWizard for MFC
> development (and was and still is very fast, as others wrote). So if you
> were focused on Windows-only MFC development, VC6 was really a *great*
> tool.
>
> VC6 + WndTabs + Visual Assist X offered a great development experience.
>
> Today VC6 is in "R.I.P." status, but historically it is one of the
> greatest software that Microsoft built, IMHO.
>
> One of the good things about VS2008 is the support of C++/CLI, a good
> bridge from native to the .NET world.
>
> But, for example, when I need to add some controls or event handlers to an
> MFC dialog, I don't like the fact that they are inserted in un-ordered
> places in the class header file: I prefer the VC6 way of doing things,
> when there was kind of "regions" of code, delimited by special comments
> like // {{AFX_... and so all the event handlers were put there, and the
> code was clear.
> Instead with more modern IDEs, whenever a new handler or control is added,
> I need to hand-edit the code to organize it more clearly.
>
> However, I trust Microsoft and I think that "10 will be the new 6".
>
> Giovanni
>
>
>

From: Hendrik Schober on 30 Apr 2008 17:23
Giovanni Dicanio <giovanni.dicanio(a)invalid.com> wrote:
> "Hendrik Schober" <SpamTrap(a)gmx.de> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:OggtMUiqIHA.4848(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
>>> VC++6 era was not so dreaded after all. VC++6 was a good compiler
>>> when it came out. It still is the one of most widely used
>>> compilers today. It definetely faster than newer VC++ compilers.
>>
>> That depends on what software you had to write with it. I
>> had to write code that had to compile on VC6, several CW
>> versions, and several GCC versions.
>
> I agree with you that if you need to develop multiplatform C++ code or do
> advanced things with C++ templates VC6 is limited in capabilities.
>
> But VC6 has a great IDE and offers very productive ClassWizard for MFC
> development (and was and still is very fast, as others wrote). So if you
> were focused on Windows-only MFC development, VC6 was really a *great* tool.

No MFC ever done by me or any company I worked for. :)
I agree, though, that speed is an issue. Having to wait
tapping my food until the project settings dialog comes
up on a >2GHz dual core machine is simply ridiculous.

> VC6 + WndTabs + Visual Assist X offered a great development experience.

I love VAX.

> [...]
> Giovanni

Schobi

--
SpamTrap(a)gmx.de is never read
I'm HSchober at gmx dot de
"I guess at some point idealism meets human nature and
explodes." Daniel Orner



 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Adding Controls in VC++ 2008
Next: Does VC++ Enforce Pure Abstract?