2012/1/7 Nick Sabalausky <a@a.a>: > news:mailman.144.1325892989.16222.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... > Yea, and that's very unfortunate. I used to be a huge fan of visual studio > for years (from around MSVC 5 through the first or second VS.NET), but now > that I've tasted the alternatives, I find the build/project management to be > a little too "magical" and proprietary (or at least too incompatible and > inbred), and the UI to be too bloated. I think a lot of the people who are > unwilling to try anything but a heavyweight IDE are being unfair to > themselves and their projects by keeping themselves blinded. (Obviously, if > they've done both ways and still prefer big IDE's, that's different.) > > And the thing is too, with popular overrated langauges like C++ or Java, you > *need* a fancy IDE to get anywhere and still maintain sanity. But what many > of those people don't get, is that with better languages, you *don't* > actually *need* all that other stuff. Sure, it can still be a nice bonus, > but it's *not* a necessity like with the popular "puzzle" languages they're > used to. It's like canned vegetables: You've gotta drench that shit in salt, > sauces, spices, and all sorts of stuff just to make it go down. But with > food that's quality in the first place, it doesn't matter: You can either > dress it up or leave it as-is; either way it still works > fine...no...*better* than starting with an inferior base.
I agree to some extent. Visual studio has a very convenient integrated debugging environment, and good extensibility. Yet, I've choosen to sacrifice it for better efficiency/portability of GCC... The ability to automatize work by writing an extension in VB/C# in 5 minutes in kinda good, but inability to efficiently use assembler, for example, negates this benefit, IMHO.