[OT] Grumble...

  • Thread starter Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet
  • Start date
A

Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet

Visual Studio 2010, an IDE!

Now, does "IDE" stand for "Integrated Development Environment" or "Idiot's
Development Environment"? Sort of, "made by idiots, for idiots"?

OK, the debugger is presumably still one of the best, although I haven't
checked, I can't see how they could have dared to f*** it up.

But, configuration, help system, editor, sort of everything else. There is some
extreme irony wrt. to the help system, the technical documentation. When you set
out to find on help on something other than an identifier you could, formerly,
(1) google, (2) use the MSDN Library index, and/or (3) use the MSDN Library
hierarchical table of contents. With VS2010 the MS beach engineers (hired as
cheap replacements for software engineers?) removed the index and as default
turned off the table of contents. Leaving people to google. That is, Google.

Argh.


Frustrated,

- Alf
 
B

Balog Pal

Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet said:
Now, does "IDE" stand for "Integrated Development Environment" or "Idiot's
Development Environment"? Sort of, "made by idiots, for idiots"?

OK, the debugger is presumably still one of the best, although I haven't
checked, I can't see how they could have dared to f*** it up.

But, configuration, help system, editor, sort of everything else. There is
some extreme irony wrt. to the help system, the technical documentation.
When you set out to find on help on something other than an identifier you
could, formerly, (1) google, (2) use the MSDN Library index, and/or (3)
use the MSDN Library hierarchical table of contents. With VS2010 the MS
beach engineers (hired as cheap replacements for software engineers?)
removed the index and as default turned off the table of contents. Leaving
people to google. That is, Google.

Argh.

The help system is going downhill since MSVC 5.0 :-((. Both content and
accessing. I'm at VS2008 but learn to skip the temptation of F1 and go
directly to google. Quite sad.

My more painful observation is that in 2008 you can still compile 'browser
info' and you get all the fancy files, but it is not used for anything. And
instead of reading what is used where the call graphs use textual search of
the sources, repeatedly. Hitting all the similar names in the process :-((.
 
J

joe

Alf said:
Visual Studio 2010, an IDE!

Now, does "IDE" stand for "Integrated Development Environment" or
"Idiot's Development Environment"? Sort of, "made by idiots, for
idiots"?
OK, the debugger is presumably still one of the best, although I
haven't checked, I can't see how they could have dared to f*** it up.

But, configuration, help system, editor, sort of everything else.
There is some extreme irony wrt. to the help system, the technical
documentation. When you set out to find on help on something other
than an identifier you could, formerly, (1) google, (2) use the MSDN
Library index, and/or (3) use the MSDN Library hierarchical table of
contents. With VS2010 the MS beach engineers (hired as cheap
replacements for software engineers?) removed the index and as
default turned off the table of contents. Leaving people to google.
That is, Google.
Argh.


Frustrated,

I hate the help system too, but as the MS help system has "evolved" (for
the worse), I have moved farther away from it. If I have a question about
some MS construct, I just go to the web or MSDN specifically (and MSDN
gets frustrating too... ). Ahhhh, "progress" (or some bizarro idea of
it!). </soapbox>

That said, out of the box MS products are all hyped up to focus on their
proprietary technologies (.net currently is the elephant in the room).
After about an hour of setting up the IDE's toolbars and stuff (a very
tedious process, whereas in past products it was drag-n-drop easy, but
now you have to look up one toolbar button at a time in a dog-slow GUI),
it becomes almost useable. I say "almost" because on my 2.4 GHz/4 Gig RAM
machine all that GUI stuff makes the IDE unresponsive (and yes, I have as
much of the "helpers", like Intellisense, turned off as possible). I do
like the multiple tabbed windows though. It helped my productivity on my
paltry 24" widescreen. Overall, if it wasn't such a resource hog (read
crappy software engineering at best, designed that way on purpose at
worst) so that it would be responsive on paltry 2.4 GHz, 4 Gig RAM
machines, it would be then not crappy software. But then Intel might
disassociate with them.

MS VS 2010: 1 star.
 
J

Jerry Coffin

[ ... ]
But, configuration, help system, editor, sort of everything else.
There is some extreme irony wrt. to the help system, the technical
documentation. When you set out to find on help on something other
than an identifier you could, formerly, (1) google, (2) use the
MSDN Library index, and/or (3) use the MSDN Library hierarchical
table of contents. With VS2010 the MS beach engineers (hired as
cheap replacements for software engineers?) removed the index and
as default turned off the table of contents. Leaving people to
google. That is, Google.

Take a look at:

http://mshcmigrate.helpmvp.com/viewer

This offers at least some improvement over what's provided with VS
2010 (though it's still only about on a par with VS 2008 -- well
short of anything like VS 5 or 6).
 
J

Jerry Coffin

[ ... ]
Overall, if it wasn't such a resource hog (read
crappy software engineering at best, designed that way on purpose at
worst) so that it would be responsive on paltry 2.4 GHz, 4 Gig RAM
machines, it would be then not crappy software.

Mostly it's read as: "a lot of it was rewritten in C#."
 
C

cpp4ever

Visual Studio 2010, an IDE!

Now, does "IDE" stand for "Integrated Development Environment" or
"Idiot's Development Environment"? Sort of, "made by idiots, for idiots"?

OK, the debugger is presumably still one of the best, although I haven't
checked, I can't see how they could have dared to f*** it up.

But, configuration, help system, editor, sort of everything else. There
is some extreme irony wrt. to the help system, the technical
documentation. When you set out to find on help on something other than
an identifier you could, formerly, (1) google, (2) use the MSDN Library
index, and/or (3) use the MSDN Library hierarchical table of contents.
With VS2010 the MS beach engineers (hired as cheap replacements for
software engineers?) removed the index and as default turned off the
table of contents. Leaving people to google. That is, Google.

Argh.


Frustrated,

- Alf

Thanks for reminding of one of many reasons for adopting Linux at home,
and letting Windows be consigned to history.

cpp4ever
 
B

Balog Pal

cpp4ever said:
Thanks for reminding of one of many reasons for adopting Linux at home,
and letting Windows be consigned to history.

Even going downhill as described it will take another century to reach down
the linux level... Which holds position stable in the stone age. Okay, not
in all areas -- some tools like ddd used to work a decade ago, that is no
longer the case, so it is an evading chase.

(For reference I'm currently working in a linux shop, and use VS2008 eunning
in a virtualbox as the main devtool. With all the drawbacks of that hybrid
it is still way better compared to what collegues are using (what is a wide
range of tools). I hoped for better, but in vain.)
 
C

cpp4ever

Even going downhill as described it will take another century to reach
down the linux level... Which holds position stable in the stone age.
Okay, not in all areas -- some tools like ddd used to work a decade ago,
that is no longer the case, so it is an evading chase.

(For reference I'm currently working in a linux shop, and use VS2008
eunning in a virtualbox as the main devtool. With all the drawbacks of
that hybrid it is still way better compared to what collegues are using
(what is a wide range of tools). I hoped for better, but in vain.)

Not my experience, although I've not tried Microsoft C++ dev tools in
years, I've found plenty of tools that work fine on Linux. But if you're
used to the Microsoft way of doing things then I suppose Linux could
seem difficult.

cpp4ever
 
B

Balog Pal

cpp4ever said:
Not my experience, although I've not tried Microsoft C++ dev tools in
years, I've found plenty of tools that work fine on Linux. But if you're
used to the Microsoft way of doing things then I suppose Linux could
seem difficult.

What I'm used to is not "MS tools" but the ability to access the information
that is there. Like navigation in the code (declarations, definitions,
callerr/callee graphs, members, types, etc). Auto opening the related
files, placing the cursor where needed, with ability to navigate back.

Not really anything that is "rocket science" or what was not known to tools
for decades. The best approximation I found on linux was Eclipse CDT, but
with all it have it still lacks a plenty, and the interface is simply nuts.
I asked people on expert foruns for advice on tools, and looked after
everything suggested. No luck. What could you suggest that works?

My other pain is debugger -- is the world really stuck with gdb?
 
C

cpp4ever

What I'm used to is not "MS tools" but the ability to access the
information that is there. Like navigation in the code (declarations,
definitions, callerr/callee graphs, members, types, etc). Auto opening
the related files, placing the cursor where needed, with ability to
navigate back.

Not really anything that is "rocket science" or what was not known to
tools for decades. The best approximation I found on linux was
Eclipse CDT, but with all it have it still lacks a plenty, and the
interface is simply nuts. I asked people on expert foruns for advice on
tools, and looked after everything suggested. No luck. What could you
suggest that works?

My other pain is debugger -- is the world really stuck with gdb?

Can do all of that,not necessarily completely integrated. Qt Creator
does code navigation, amongst others, and Doxygen can create
documentation, (UML and caller/called graphs and class documentation).
I'm not sure you'd get on with KDevelop 4 as it is based around cmake.
As for debugging I've managed to do that within Qt Creator, KDevelop 4,
and even Eclipse. Although I always thought Eclipse was mainly targeted
at Java, with C++ plugin added on. That said there is a Doxygen plugin
for Eclipse called eclox. Personally I find KDevelop 4 and Qt Creator
work fine for me, but some folks are not comfortable editing the key
cmake/qmake configuration file. You might want to try KDbg if you need a
separate debugger, although I suspect with you being used to MS tools
you'd find most of these Linux tools to not be to your taste requirements.

cpp4ever


cpp4ever
 
I

Ian Collins

What I'm used to is not "MS tools" but the ability to access the
information that is there. Like navigation in the code (declarations,
definitions, callerr/callee graphs, members, types, etc). Auto opening
the related files, placing the cursor where needed, with ability to
navigate back.

Not really anything that is "rocket science" or what was not known to
tools for decades. The best approximation I found on linux was Eclipse
CDT, but with all it have it still lacks a plenty, and the interface is
simply nuts. I asked people on expert foruns for advice on tools, and
looked after everything suggested. No luck. What could you suggest that
works?

Netbeans is the alternative kitchen sink IDE.
My other pain is debugger -- is the world really stuck with gdb?

Most Linux devs are happy with it. I use OpenSolaris which opens up
another world of observability tools. OpenSolaris also has a better
debugger (dbx) and the best profiling and analysis tools I know
(especially for multi-threading).

There is a different mindset amongst Unix/Linux developers and windows
developers which does make the transition form one environment to the
other difficult.
 
M

Miles Bader

Ian Collins said:
Most Linux devs are happy with it. I use OpenSolaris which opens up
another world of observability tools. OpenSolaris also has a better
debugger (dbx) and the best profiling and analysis tools I know
(especially for multi-threading).

There is a different mindset amongst Unix/Linux developers and windows
developers which does make the transition form one environment to the
other difficult.

Indeed. gdb is a fine debugger for the most part; it's obviously
lacking in the "mousey-clicky" department, but it's extremely powerful
in other ways. Which you like better generally has an awful lot more to
do with _what you're used to_ than the actual capabilities.
[although not in all cases -- the original gdb, for instance, was a huge
improvement over the buggy feature-poor versions of sun dbx it competed
against in the late 80s / early 90s]

I use VS's debugger on occasion -- usually because there are VS-heads
here at work who are just not up to some debugging tasks, and I have to
do it for them -- and it drives me _nuts_. To me, the VS debugger seems
horrible, almost unusable, mostly because it's hiding behind a fairly
opaque GUI (despite having a regular user beside me to answer usage
questions).

As an example, there are many occasions when VS will display an address
(say, in a memory dump or something), and I want to see what's at that
address, interpreted in a different way. In gdb, I can almost always do
this using an expression that operates on the previous value, or by
using command-line editing to tweak a previous command. In
VS... there's often simply no obvious way to do it -- even the obvious
GUIey cut-and-paste solution doesn't work, because copying simply isn't
supported in many contexts, and after much gnashing of teeth, consulting
with other users, looking in the menus/doc/etc, I often just end up
typing the damn value in by hand. This sort of "information displayed,
but not otherwise usable" situation crops up _all the time_ when I use
VS for debugging (and it's not like I don't try to find a way to do it
-- I ask regular users, spend time searching the menus, look at the
docs, etc, but usually to no avail).

That kind of thing just smacks of very poor design to me, and makes me
wonder if the VS debugger implementors actually ever use it for
debugging or at least any debugging beyond the simple everyday sort...

Grrrr

-Miles
 
S

Sousuke

As an example, there are many occasions when VS will display an address
(say, in a memory dump or something), and I want to see what's at that
address, interpreted in a different way.  In gdb, I can almost always do
this using an expression that operates on the previous value, or by
using command-line editing to tweak a previous command.  In
VS... there's often simply no obvious way to do it -- even the obvious
GUIey cut-and-paste solution doesn't work, because copying simply isn't
supported in many contexts, and after much gnashing of teeth, consulting
with other users, looking in the menus/doc/etc, I often just end up
typing the damn value in by hand.  This sort of "information displayed,
but not otherwise usable" situation crops up _all the time_ when I use
VS for debugging (and it's not like I don't try to find a way to do it
-- I ask regular users, spend time searching the menus, look at the
docs, etc, but usually to no avail).

I don't know about "all the time". The only such place I can imagine
is a standard message box that you get e.g. when an assertion fails.
But in the actual debugger window you can always copy text, whether
it's in one of the "Autos", "Locals", "Threads", etc. windows, or in
the little textbox that pops up when you hover the mouse over an
identifier.

Got any other points? Because other than that your rant seems like a
typical case of Unix/C pro-command-line anti-GUI anti-progress anti-
evolution hacker syndrome.
 
J

joe

Jerry said:
[ ... ]
Overall, if it wasn't such a resource hog (read
crappy software engineering at best, designed that way on purpose at
worst) so that it would be responsive on paltry 2.4 GHz, 4 Gig RAM
machines, it would be then not crappy software.

Mostly it's read as: "a lot of it was rewritten in C#."

If that is the reason, then it surely moves C# into the realm of
scripting languages rather than system-level or low-level and C++ is then
safe from obsolescence from it.
 
B

Balog Pal

Maybe in general, does not apply to me, as I started programming well before
windows gor widespread, got used to all kinds of tools on DOS, embedded
systems, etc. (Btw Borland's Turbo debugger showed that you can create a
handy debugger for the text screen that is about the workflow...)
Indeed. gdb is a fine debugger for the most part; it's obviously
lacking in the "mousey-clicky" department, but it's extremely powerful
in other ways.

Sure, a shovel is an extremely powerful tool to dig a hole, you can do it
exactly your way. Why bother with machines that can do the same faster and
save time?

I don't use debugger so often, when I do, it is to inspect the state. So I
need to see the value of all kind of variables and the call stack. And
certainly the source related to the stack trace. With gdb you must use
extreme amount of typing to see just a portion of what is obviously needed.
And can't realisticly see the relevant pieces at once.

What turns a trivial 2-minute session into a hour one nightmare. Also,
other debuggers save context of the session, so next time you have the
environment ready with all the watches, breakpoints, etc. gdb used to at
least keep the command history, that is no longer the case on lucid :-(.
Also I mentioned some front-ends like ddd that at least aimed to cover the
actual use cases did work, now all you get is a blocked interface so you
must ssh in from a different machine for a pkill.

I agree that i met too many people being happy with gdb, but all of them had
the same attitude: they did not care about the wasted time.
Which you like better generally has an awful lot more to
do with _what you're used to_ than the actual capabilities.

Do you count the pace of progress in the 'capability' category?
I use VS's debugger on occasion -- usually because there are VS-heads
here at work who are just not up to some debugging tasks, and I have to
do it for them -- and it drives me _nuts_. To me, the VS debugger seems
horrible, almost unusable, mostly because it's hiding behind a fairly
opaque GUI (despite having a regular user beside me to answer usage
questions).

You can summon a command window if the ability to do the work in one click
is so frigtening. :-o
As an example, there are many occasions when VS will display an address
(say, in a memory dump or something), and I want to see what's at that
address, interpreted in a different way.
In gdb, I can almost always do
this using an expression that operates on the previous value, or by
using command-line editing to tweak a previous command.

Can't imagine yor context, the same thing works in the watch window. The
difference is just that it stays there.

Though reinterpreting data leads to the wild, isn't it the more usual case
when you just want to inspect the state of your objects natively?
In VS... there's often simply no obvious way to do it -- even the obvious
GUIey cut-and-paste solution doesn't work, because copying simply isn't
supported in many contexts

Can you give examples?
, and after much gnashing of teeth, consulting
with other users, looking in the menus/doc/etc, I often just end up
typing the damn value in by hand.

LOL. So typing annoys you for that corner situation. Now imagine how I
feel using gdb, when I need to do typing and typing ant more redundant
typing and typing again for everything, everytime? Instead of having the
watched variables just there, the call stack in its window, hower tho mouse
over a variable to show the value? Then just step, step, and still see the
result?
 
Ö

Öö Tiib

Why, because I think VS's debugger is kinda crappy?  That's an issue
with VS, not with "GUIs/progress/evolution" (the fact that you conflate
the three is telling of course...).

He asked for points and your point is that "it is kinda crappy"? Hehe?

Looking at all these kdbg, ddd and what there are about debugging with
GUI in Linux then these get things done but are weaker. If you say
that all should use emacs + gdb feels sort of like anti-progress
indeed.
I'm not "anti-GUI," I'm "anti-bad-GUI" -- and sadly, there are many,
especially in "expert" tools like debuggers, where conventions that
might make sense with novice-focused apps (where GUIs shine) simply get
in the way.

What exactly gets in the way? Multiple, customizable views at the
situation you are in that update with each step you make?

Or ... for example lets compare? Imagine that you do not have a tool
that measures test coverage. You have to do it manually with
debugger.
Visual studio:
1) Set all functions to break (F9 or click per breakpoint right in
editor).
2) Run unit tests (pick configuration UnitTest 2 clicks and F5 to
run).
3) Clear covered breakpoints (click to clear, F5 to run ahead ).
4) See list of places not yet covered with tests (Alt-F9 breakpoint
window).

Yes, i can teach it to novice with 5 minutes. Now describe same work
with your "expert" emacs and gdb symbiosis and how you teach that to
novice? Is debugger an "expert" tool of job security by obscurity?
Does it create job positions that no one wants?
 
J

James Kanze

On 08/ 4/10 06:41 AM, Balog Pal wrote:

[...]
Most Linux devs are happy with it.

I never cared much for it, but now that I have to use Visual
Studios... The Microsoft debugger has to be the worst I've seen
to date.

[...]
There is a different mindset amongst Unix/Linux developers and
windows developers which does make the transition form one
environment to the other difficult.

From experience, however: the Unix developers I know who work
under Windows generally have CygWin installed. And are
considerably more productive than the expert Windows developers.
 
A

Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet

* James Kanze, on 04.08.2010 16:19:
On 08/ 4/10 06:41 AM, Balog Pal wrote:
[...]
My other pain is debugger -- is the world really stuck with gdb?
Most Linux devs are happy with it.

I never cared much for it, but now that I have to use Visual
Studios... The Microsoft debugger has to be the worst I've seen
to date.

How so? It's about the best there is. Until recently gdb couldn't even trace
into constructors, and it's generally erratic, while MS' debugger is dependable.

I suspect a PEBKAC problem when you dimiss the generally best debugger around as
"worst".

[...]
There is a different mindset amongst Unix/Linux developers and
windows developers which does make the transition form one
environment to the other difficult.

From experience, however: the Unix developers I know who work
under Windows generally have CygWin installed. And are
considerably more productive than the expert Windows developers.

Most Windows developers have *nix tools installed, including a *nix shell.

CygWin has it all in one package but isn't very good (really).


Cheers & hth.,

- Alf
 
D

Dilip

* James Kanze, on 04.08.2010 16:19:
     [...]
My other pain is debugger -- is the world really stuck with gdb?
Most Linux devs are happy with it.
I never cared much for it, but now that I have to use Visual
Studios... The Microsoft debugger has to be the worst I've seen
to date.

How so? It's about the best there is. Until recently gdb couldn't even trace
into constructors, and it's generally erratic, while MS' debugger is dependable.

I suspect a PEBKAC problem when you dimiss the generally best debugger around as
"worst".

At the risk of wading into another mine-is-bigger-than-yours flame war
(et tu James?), nobody has mentioned WinDbg so far? Visual Studio's
integrated debugger has made some strides in the past few years, but
WinDbg/CDB/NTSD troika has always matched up to whatever gdb can do
for quite a while.
 
R

red floyd

Indeed.  gdb is a fine debugger for the most part; it's obviously
lacking in the "mousey-clicky" department, but it's extremely powerful
in other ways.  Which you like better generally has an awful lot more to
do with _what you're used to_ than the actual capabilities.
[although not in all cases -- the original gdb, for instance, was a huge
improvement over the buggy feature-poor versions of sun dbx it competed
against in the late 80s / early 90s]

Speaking of dbx, did anyone ever port dbxtra/dbXtra to Linux? dbxtra
was
oldSCO's variant of dbx, it could run in either line mode, or screen
(curses) mode, and it did some nice things, such as cleanly handling
forked processes. dbXtra was the GUI version.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,483
Members
44,902
Latest member
Elena68X5

Latest Threads

Top