January 07, 2012
On 7 January 2012 10:40, Adam Wilson <flyboynw@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 23:31:52 -0800, torhu <no@spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>  On 06.01.2012 21:02, Adam Wilson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> COFF is an absolute requirements when working on Windows, yet DMD doesn't
>>> support it. Everything, every programming interface, every application
>>> running on x64 Windows is built with COFF, the default output of every
>>> other compiler on Windows is COFF, everyone else programming on Windows
>>> is
>>> expecting COFF.
>>> Windows represents the largest OS install base in the world; and yet,
>>> Windows based D programmers are told that they have to dig up extremely
>>> esoteric tools from the darkest, smelliest, most cobwebbed corners of the
>>> Internet, just to be able to interact with the the rest of the Windows
>>> world.
>>>
>>> This situation is simply unacceptable.
>>>
>>
>> It's not that bad.  Most libraries can be compiled to DLL files, in fact that's often the default.  DMD/Optlink can use DLL files created by other tool chains just fine. If an import library in the correct format is not available, just use implib or coffimplib to create one.  No problem.
>>
>
> First of all, what if I want to use a DLL lib file that was created by DMD
> in VC++? Oh right, can't do that either. I know there are converter tools
> available, but all of them are closed source, and what if the creator
> decides one day that he is done? I'm stuck with no source and potential
> bugs.
> Second, as a professional, the idea that somehow the advice to download
> Esoteric Tool X from Shady FTP Server Y is acceptable is completely beyond
> me. No professional compiler implementation would DARE give that advice to
> it's clients, they'd laugh and find another compiler that did what they
> want. The concept of kludging together a build toolchain is uniquely open
> source. DMD will never get buy-in from large groups of professionals
> without natively supporting the things those professionals expect.
>
> Let me state that again for clarity. If DMD does not natively support the standard outputs that professionals have come to expect and demand, then DMD will forever remain a hobby toy.
>
> Professionals don't have time to kludge together a [fragile] build toolchain and support it, they have work to do. Given the choice for a large project right now, i'd have to say VC++ wins on Windows every time, it's got COFF, excellent tooling and libraries, and x64 support; but mostly, it works with everything Windows. DMD does not. Until DMD does, professionals cannot seriously consider DMD.


Hear, hear!


January 07, 2012
On 7 January 2012 11:37, Don <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

> On 06.01.2012 21:02, Adam Wilson wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 10:27:58 -0800, Manu <turkeyman@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>  Okay, so I was trying to link to a C lib, and I realised... DMD doesn't
>>> support/produce VS compatible libs.
>>> I should have realised this sooner, noting the cv debuginfo.
>>>
>>> So like... WTF?
>>>
>>> How am I supposed to use DMD in Windows in anything other than trivial,
>>> self-contained programs?
>>> VisualC is the de facto standard in Windows. All libs are COFF, and
>>> (unless
>>> I'm working with GCC) everything I want to link to is produced from VC.
>>>
>>> Let's also mention the debug info... Virtually every 3rd party tool
>>> assumes
>>> and/or works best with PDB debug info. Being required to run cv2pdb is
>>> pretty lame.
>>>
>>> So... why no support for COFF libs, and PDB debug info?
>>> Surely at least a compiler option would do the business if there is some
>>> kinky attachment to CV and OMF :/
>>>
>>> I was hoping to start a project using D as a front end language
>>> interacting
>>> with my C/C++ engine lib... but I can't.
>>> ... and now that I think if it... how do ANY programs built with DMD
>>> actually work? .. How does it link to system32.lib, user32.lib, etc?
>>>
>>
>> DMD on Linux gets ELF with x64 support.
>> DMD on OSX gets Mach-O with x64 support.
>> DMD on Windows gets ... OMF with no x64 support.
>>
>> COFF is an absolute requirements when working on Windows, yet DMD
>> doesn't support it. Everything, every programming interface, every
>> application running on x64 Windows is built with COFF, the default
>> output of every other compiler on Windows is COFF, everyone else
>> programming on Windows is expecting COFF.
>> Windows represents the largest OS install base in the world; and yet,
>> Windows based D programmers are told that they have to dig up extremely
>> esoteric tools from the darkest, smelliest, most cobwebbed corners of
>> the Internet, just to be able to interact with the the rest of the
>> Windows world.
>>
>> This situation is simply unacceptable.
>>
>> Everything else on Windows is COFF, if DMD ever wants to be accepted as a mainstream Windows development tool, it simply *MUST* support COFF. And no amount of wishing will ever change this. Without COFF, D will ALWAYS be hamstrung on Windows, even if OMF ever got x64 support. Every other platform that DMD supports got their native object formats. It is now time to get the native Windows format in D.
>>
>> All DMD needs to do is output the COFF files, any number of linkers available on Windows can handle it from there. It doesn't have to replace OMF and it doesn't even have to be the default option, but it absolutely MUST be AN option.
>>
>>
> From everything I've seen, COFF seems to be very closely related to ELF. A
> large part of it is identical.
> In the old DDL project on dsource, a lot of work was done in deciphering
> the formats. COFF is a lot better documented than Mach-O.
>
> IMHO we should be looking at adding COFF output to the compiler, not to the linker.
>

Definitely. I'd be happy/prefer to use VisualC's linker if the D objects/libs were compatible.


January 07, 2012
Hi Manu,

nice to hear about your experience with C#.

I am a bit of half-insider in the game industry, being
a IGDA member for some years and also attended two
GDCE so far.

Several reasons have kept me from getting a job in the
industry, but I still follow what's happening quite closely.

From what I know here in Europe, many studios have been slowly
migrating to C# for tools, and many that target mostly Windows
are also experimenting with it in their engines.

How does it look like from your side?

I think this is important to know, because in what concerns
game development, C# might eventually superseed C++, especially
with good quality AOT compilers. Not sure how good Mono's AOT
code quality is. From the public information C# is the default
language for the PlayStation VITA and the PlayStation Suite.

And game development is probably one of the few areas where D could get
an entry to.

--
Paulo


Am 07.01.2012 13:40, schrieb Manu:
> On 7 January 2012 08:40, Nick Sabalausky <a@a.a> wrote:
>
>     "Manu" <turkeyman@gmail.com <mailto:turkeyman@gmail.com>> wrote in
>     message
>     news:mailman.144.1325892989.16222.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
>      >
>      > Most windows programmers will simply not consider the
>      > language until it is well supported in Visual Studio
>      >
>
>     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
>     <http://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.)
>
>
> Your personal opinion of people who use and/or prefer visual studio is
> irrelevant. Most windows devs use it, and love it. It's very important.
>
> I for one am primarily a cross platform dev, NOT a windows/x86 dev, and
> I still use and prefer VisualStudio.
> I have worked extensively on these platforms: Dreamcast, PS2, XBox,
> Gamecube, PS3, XBox360, Wii, PSP, NDS, iPhone, Android, Windows, and
> Linux... plus some others on occasion in the last 10 years. I rarely
> work on x86 platforms...
> Unsurprisingly, almost every platform from that list above has reasonabe
> VS integration. Console SDK's are almost all exclusively VS based (this
> might be why most game devs use VS... perhaps a chicken/egg problem
> here, but nobody's complaining about it. Only when the VS integration is
> mediocre/half arsed to people complain...) .. Some older consoles tended
> to tie themselves to CodeWarrior, but thankfully, that dwindled, and the
> same platforms eventually adopted a VS integration due to demand. I've
> never heard of anyone who PREFERS CodeWarrior.
>
> What would you propose I try to convince me that VS is shit and
> unproductive?
>
> I do use build tools, like premake, which are able to produce VS
> projects (and makefiles, etc, for non-windows platforms/toolchains and
> useful for automated scripts)...
> If you're going to talk about bloated heavy-weight IDE's, have you every
> tried using Eclipse? What a joke! How is it that so many years of OSS
> dev and Google backing it can produce such a bloated, crap, slow,
> inconsistent, unfocused/unintegrated tool?!
> How about XCode? I don't understand how anyone gets any work done with
> XCode, it is just soooo crap.
>
> So what are the alternatives? An endless mountain of annoying shell
> based build systems? I use them when I need to, I like premake at the
> moment, and have used others previously. It's an important part of the
> toolchain, but it generally results in a VS project for actually doing
> productive work...
> So there you go, another opinion for you, yet I believe mine is shared
> by no small number of professional windows based devs ;)
>
>     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.
>
>
> Overrated? I don't think calling industry standards overrated is a
> reasonable claim. they're industry standards because everyone uses
> them... and everyone uses them because they are industry standards.
> I've used C/C++ professionally my whole career with some C# taking over
> for tools recently. I hate C++! (that's why I'm here!).. I don't hype it
> up like it's awesome, but I use it because it's industry standard, there
> is no viable alternative, and even if there were, it would NEED
> integration with all my tools before I could use it professionally in a
> full production environment.
>
> I don't NEED an IDE to work with those languages specifically, I
> *prefer* an IDE to DO WORK FASTER... I prefer an IDE even when I'm
> writing python for instance, and it annoys me that there's no
> IDE/debugger for embedded LUA.
>
> If by 'better' languages, you mean D, then I completely disagree. D
> *NEEDS* an IDE, just like all the rest... and in my opinion, even more
> so... here are some reasons I find it so annoying there isn't a quality
> VS integration for D (yet):
>    ** auto is used liberally in D... I should be able to hover over any
> variable and have a tool tip inform me what it actually is (this makes
> it more important that D has an IDE than even C/C++)
>    ** I don't have years of experience with the libraries, I SHOULD be
> able to press '.' and have a list of everything the library can do
> appear instantly without wasting my time trawling through the docs.
>    * I shouldn't have to guess or try and remember the name of some
> member or method... I should be able to type the first 1-2 letters, and
> have the rest of the word will appear instantly.
>    * If I don't know what a type is, or want to know about it in more
> detail, I should be able to press F1 and see documentation about the
> class/function/whatever instantly.
>    * I'm new to the syntax, and it's terribly nice when a little red
> underline appears beneath a syntax error I've just created.
>    * As projects grow, things like auto-refactor save sooo much time.
> Extremely difficult to implement reliably for C/C++, but should work
> perfectly in D...
>
> C# for instance, is becoming very popular. The reason for this is that
> it's just sooooo fucking productive, and that's not thanks to the
> language its self... any C# user will agree that at least 50% of C#'s
> special power is actually it's VS integration.
> The first time I used C# (knowing absolutely nothing about the
> language), I opened VS, and started typing... thanks to the integration,
> the language was self-documenting and self-evident. I felt immediately
> productive in a language I hadn't even read a word about, and after a
> little more experience, I love its efficiency for writing the kind of
> code it's great at, and I always feel amazingly productive. The
> experience is not limited, or even thanks to the language, it's the
> whole package.
>
> The C# experience gave me a new expectation from any new language... I
> shouldn't need to KNOW a language, or basically anything about it to
> start using it immediately. The IDE (auto-popup-documentation, code
> completion, info tooltips, etc) is what gives me that experience.
> Assuming the rest of the language and libraries are designed
> intuitively, it works.
>
> The reason it matters so much to me...
> I suspect I could actually propose using D in the office for small
> tasks, tools, etc... everyone hates C++, it wouldn't be hard to convince
> them to give it a try.
> That said, If D doesn't have an IDE, or more specifically, VS
> integration, it's off the table. Period. In a multi-user project, where
> all users expect VS integration, I can't do without it.
> If it can manage to make a splash with newcomers like C# does, people
> will be really impressed, and they'll keep coming back.

January 07, 2012
On 2012-01-07 06:11, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 1/6/2012 11:37 AM, Trass3r wrote:
>> Am 06.01.2012, 20:26 Uhr, schrieb Walter Bright
>> <newshound2@digitalmars.com>:
>>> Long term, I hope to get a better solution, but this is where we're
>>> at at the
>>> moment.
>>
>> What's the current state of the plan?
>> Can we hope for a switch to COFF?
>
> My plan is to make the linker understand coff and so be able to pull in
> objects in any format. But that's a ways off.

Will dmd still produce OMF or will it be changed to produce COFF?

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
January 07, 2012
 A great IDE is essential for D to really succeed.

 Visual D is a solid start but it isn't really usable for a large project yet.

-  The debugging experience is funky, it can't seem to see many variables
-  hovering over variables generally doesn't show anything useful
-  hitting . doesn't pop up possible members
-  very limited syntax highlighting

 D might have simplified C++ syntax, but it is still quite complex, not having an IDE that supports the type of things that Visual Studio supports is just painful-- I doubt D has any chance in the game industry without much better VS support.

Aside from C++ I also use Lua quite often and even in a light weight scripting language like Lua I much prefer an IDE(Decoda--Manu it works with embedded scripts btw).


January 07, 2012
On 07-01-2012 19:43, Froglegs wrote:
> A great IDE is essential for D to really succeed.
>
> Visual D is a solid start but it isn't really usable for a large project
> yet.
>
> - The debugging experience is funky, it can't seem to see many variables
> - hovering over variables generally doesn't show anything useful
> - hitting . doesn't pop up possible members
> - very limited syntax highlighting

I strongly disagree. Visual D's syntax highlighting is currently the best available across all D editors, including Vim, Mono-D, Geany, KDevelop, etc.

>
> D might have simplified C++ syntax, but it is still quite complex, not
> having an IDE that supports the type of things that Visual Studio
> supports is just painful-- I doubt D has any chance in the game industry
> without much better VS support.
>
> Aside from C++ I also use Lua quite often and even in a light weight
> scripting language like Lua I much prefer an IDE(Decoda--Manu it works
> with embedded scripts btw).
>
>


-- 
- Alex
January 07, 2012
"Manu" <turkeyman@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mailman.164.1325940038.16222.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
>
> What would you propose I try to convince me that VS is shit and unproductive?
>

You're twisting my words around. That's not what I said.

> If you're going to talk about bloated heavy-weight IDE's, have you every
> tried using Eclipse? What a joke! How is it that so many years of OSS dev
> and Google backing it can produce such a bloated, crap, slow,
> inconsistent,
> unfocused/unintegrated tool?!

Honestly, I always found all of the VS.NETs after 2003 to be just as bloated as Eclipse. Although given a choice, I admit I'd still use it over Eclipse since I find Eclipse painfully Java-centric when using it for non-JVM languages.

> How about XCode? I don't understand how anyone gets any work done with XCode, it is just soooo crap.
>

I had some brief experience with...shoot, I forget what it was called, but it was the immediate predecessor to XCode, the one in 10.2. I think it was something generic-sounding like "Project Builder" or something. It got the job done, but yea, I was never a fan of it.

>
> Overrated? I don't think calling industry standards overrated is a
> reasonable claim. they're industry standards because everyone uses them...
> and everyone uses them because they are industry standards.
> I've used C/C++ professionally my whole career with some C# taking over
> for
> tools recently. I hate C++! (that's why I'm here!).. I don't hype it up
> like it's awesome, but I use it because it's industry standard, there is
> no
> viable alternative, and even if there were, it would NEED integration with
> all my tools before I could use it professionally in a full production
> environment.
>

So...you agree that it's widespread...and you hate it...Ok, I give up: Exactly how is that *not* "overrated"?

> If by 'better' languages, you mean D, then I completely disagree. D
> *NEEDS*
> an IDE, just like all the rest... and in my opinion, even more so... here
> are some reasons I find it so annoying there isn't a quality VS
> integration
> for D (yet):
>  ** auto is used liberally in D... I should be able to hover over any
> variable and have a tool tip inform me what it actually is (this makes it
> more important that D has an IDE than even C/C++)
>  ** I don't have years of experience with the libraries, I SHOULD be able
> to press '.' and have a list of everything the library can do appear
> instantly without wasting my time trawling through the docs.
>  * I shouldn't have to guess or try and remember the name of some member
> or method... I should be able to type the first 1-2 letters, and have the
> rest of the word will appear instantly.
>  * If I don't know what a type is, or want to know about it in more
> detail, I should be able to press F1 and see documentation about the
> class/function/whatever instantly.
>  * I'm new to the syntax, and it's terribly nice when a little red
> underline appears beneath a syntax error I've just created.
>  * As projects grow, things like auto-refactor save sooo much time.
> Extremely difficult to implement reliably for C/C++, but should work
> perfectly in D...
>

I like all those features too. But I've learned that I like responsive editors and great langauges even *more*. Like I said, if you're familiar with both sides and still prefer big IDE's, fine. That's just personal taste, I've got no problems with that. But I tend to get the impression that there are a lot of "professionals" out there who would completely and immediately shun a language based *purely* on a lack of full integration with VS. Actually, I think you're one of the people who have pretty much told me exactly that, that there are many such professionals who would do that.

> C# for instance, is becoming very popular. The reason for this is that
> it's
> just sooooo fucking productive, and that's not thanks to the language its
> self... any C# user will agree that at least 50% of C#'s special power is
> actually it's VS integration.
> The first time I used C# (knowing absolutely nothing about the language),
> I
> opened VS, and started typing... thanks to the integration, the language
> was self-documenting and self-evident. I felt immediately productive in a
> language I hadn't even read a word about, and after a little more
> experience, I love its efficiency for writing the kind of code it's great
> at, and I always feel amazingly productive. The experience is not limited,
> or even thanks to the language, it's the whole package.
>

There was a time when I considered D and C# to be tied as my favorite languages (And yes, I was using VS.NET for all my C# work). Eventually, I became more and more frustrated by trying to work around C#'s limitations (Try making a basic, let alone realistically useful, set of generic functional tools! Without at least an IArithmetic, it's not realistically possible. Or do a simple reinterpret cast without diving into dark corners of the API.) It wasn't long before using C# felt like a full-time exercise in fighting the damn compiler. But at the same time, D just kept feeling more and more natural - even without a fancy IDE.

So, based on personal experience, I tend to call "bullshit" on the idea that C#/VS.NET is highly productive for anything except GUI apps that only need the very basic UI controls and don't do a lot under the hood. And ok, maybe it's highly productive compared to C++, but that sure as hell isn't saying much.

Honest to god, I'm *more* productive with D and Programmer's Notepad 2 than I ever was with C#/VS.NET. And much happier too (at least when I'm actually coding, anyway ;)) But I never would have discovered that if I had been an IDE-snob. Obviously you're not one, as you pointed out you've at least tried things the other way, too. But from what you describe, it appears that a lot of people in the industry *are* staunch IDE-snobs.

> That said, If D doesn't have an IDE, or more specifically, VS integration,
> it's off the table. Period. In a multi-user project, where all users
> expect
> VS integration, I can't do without it.
> If it can manage to make a splash with newcomers like C# does, people will
> be really impressed, and they'll keep coming back.
>

FWIW, I have always agreed that it's good for D to have good IDE integration because, like you've been saying, there are people who prefer it. And heck, once in a while I find it useful too, so I fire it up...wait a while...do what I need to do...slowly..., and then go back to my usual setup.


January 07, 2012
Just for the record, my post was intentionally excessively inflammatory. I do like a good IDE vs non-IDE debate! :P

On 7 January 2012 22:22, Nick Sabalausky <a@a.a> wrote:

> So...you agree that it's widespread...and you hate it...Ok, I give up: Exactly how is that *not* "overrated"?
>

In that, I don't think most people would rate it 10/10 :)
I'll give it maybe... 7/10. I mean, it's pretty good. It's universally
accepted, definitely stood the test of time, and produced much of the
worlds best software.
But it's old and outdated, refuses to respond to modern updates/requests in
reasonable time, and a lot of modern features they EVENTUALLY put in there
just don't address concerns that, at least my circle of developers, care
about.
Also they tend to just bloat the already bloated as hell standard library!

...and I think most people agree. So no, I don't think it's overrated, I think it's quite fairly rated :P

But I tend to get the impression that
> there are a lot of "professionals" out there who would completely and immediately shun a language based *purely* on a lack of full integration with VS. Actually, I think you're one of the people who have pretty much told me exactly that, that there are many such professionals who would do that.
>

Yup, and I believe that's completely true :)
I expect a huge surge of developers will appear the moment a quality VS
integration exists.

There was a time when I considered D and C# to be tied as my favorite
> languages (And yes, I was using VS.NET for all my C# work). Eventually, I became more and more frustrated by trying to work around C#'s limitations (Try making a basic, let alone realistically useful, set of generic functional tools! Without at least an IArithmetic, it's not realistically possible. Or do a simple reinterpret cast without diving into dark corners of the API.) It wasn't long before using C# felt like a full-time exercise in fighting the damn compiler. But at the same time, D just kept feeling more and more natural - even without a fancy IDE.
>

Well I'm certainly not sharing that feeling, at least not yet. I'd like to think it might get there though with some more time...

So, based on personal experience, I tend to call "bullshit" on the idea that
> C#/VS.NET is highly productive for anything except GUI apps that only need the very basic UI controls and don't do a lot under the hood. And ok, maybe it's highly productive compared to C++, but that sure as hell isn't saying much.
>

I'm sure you've got more experience than me in this area.. All I've ever
made with C# were some nice tools/GUI apps.
The experience was always elegant and enjoyable. My only complaint is that
I created them so much faster than I expected... then I was finished, and
had to get back on to C/C++ work again :(

Honest to god, I'm *more* productive with D and Programmer's Notepad 2 than
> I ever was with C#/VS.NET. And much happier too (at least when I'm
> actually
> coding, anyway ;)) But I never would have discovered that if I had been an
> IDE-snob. Obviously you're not one, as you pointed out you've at least
> tried
> things the other way, too. But from what you describe, it appears that a
> lot
> of people in the industry *are* staunch IDE-snobs.
>

Well you're obviously weird ;)

Oh I'm definitely an IDE snob. I use all the other tools for cross platform
dev, automation, homebrew hobby work, etc, but I can't stand editing code
without a nice editor, the ability to hit ctrl-F7, and even debug,
instantly and seamlessly.
I go miles out of my way to integrate whatever toolchain I'm working with
into VS as best I can. The difference between me and most others like me
is, I go out of my way, whereas most other people, if said integration
doesn't already exist, will just give up and move with something else.

I will definitely admit though, VS2010 was a major step backwards..
Everything suddenly got all slow and buggy.
Infact, I do feel it's been going backwards since VS6... Although I think
2005 was a good year :)
2010 is the best VS yet though when it comes to custom workflow
integration, they are getting better at that, they're just ruining the rest
of the actual IDE in the mean time! >_<


January 07, 2012
On 7 January 2012 20:43, Froglegs <lugtug@gmail.com> wrote:

> Aside from C++ I also use Lua quite often and even in a light weight scripting language like Lua I much prefer an IDE(Decoda--Manu it works with embedded scripts btw).
>

Cheers for the pro-tip! :)


January 08, 2012
"Manu" <turkeyman@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mailman.174.1325975010.16222.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
> Just for the record, my post was intentionally excessively inflammatory. I do like a good IDE vs non-IDE debate! :P
>

Heh, fair enough. Hell, it's not as if I'm not known for being overly inflammatory...

> On 7 January 2012 22:22, Nick Sabalausky <a@a.a> wrote:
>
>> So...you agree that it's widespread...and you hate it...Ok, I give up: Exactly how is that *not* "overrated"?
>>
>
> ...and I think most people agree. So no, I don't think it's overrated, I think it's quite fairly rated :P
>

I see :) Guess I just chose the wrong word then ;)


>
> Yup, and I believe that's completely true :)
> I expect a huge surge of developers will appear the moment a quality VS
> integration exists.
>

Oh yea.

>
> I'm sure you've got more experience than me in this area.. All I've ever
> made with C# were some nice tools/GUI apps.
> The experience was always elegant and enjoyable. My only complaint is that
> I created them so much faster than I expected... then I was finished, and
> had to get back on to C/C++ work again :(
>

Yea, it *is* nicer than C/C++ as long as you don't need to go too low-level or too high-level. That's why I had gotten into it in the first place. Sort of a middle-ground between C/C++ and Java.

> Honest to god, I'm *more* productive with D and Programmer's Notepad 2 than
>> I ever was with C#/VS.NET. And much happier too (at least when I'm
>> actually
>> coding, anyway ;)) But I never would have discovered that if I had been
>> an
>> IDE-snob. Obviously you're not one, as you pointed out you've at least
>> tried
>> things the other way, too. But from what you describe, it appears that a
>> lot
>> of people in the industry *are* staunch IDE-snobs.
>>
>
> Well you're obviously weird ;)
>

Heh, I'm a weirdo in sooo many ways it's rediculous...

> Oh I'm definitely an IDE snob. I use all the other tools for cross
> platform
> dev, automation, homebrew hobby work, etc, but I can't stand editing code
> without a nice editor, the ability to hit ctrl-F7, and even debug,
> instantly and seamlessly.
> I go miles out of my way to integrate whatever toolchain I'm working with
> into VS as best I can. The difference between me and most others like me
> is, I go out of my way, whereas most other people, if said integration
> doesn't already exist, will just give up and move with something else.
>

See, I used to do that [1]. But I guess instead of giving up and moving back to more established mainstream languages, I gave up and moved on to other editors and build methods.

[1] Actually, when I was doing GBA homebrew I even made a GBA AppWizard for MSVC 6: http://www.semitwist.com/gbadev/  I tried to make a VS.NET version (back with the original VS.NET), but I found the whole process to be confusing as hell, and the docs didn't seem to be much help.

> I will definitely admit though, VS2010 was a major step backwards..
> Everything suddenly got all slow and buggy.
> Infact, I do feel it's been going backwards since VS6... Although I think
> 2005 was a good year :)

Heh. Different experiences. I first noticed VS starting to get slow with 2003, but it wasn't enough to really turn me off yet, just annoy me (although the price tag every few years was getting to be a problem, especially since I wasn't much of a student anymore...Of course, this was before the Express editions). Then with 2005 I pretty much just gave up on VS for various reasons - speed, cost, lack of even basic D support, difficulty in extending it to do what I wanted, and just being a little bit too..."proprietary" and "inbred" are the only words I can think of for it, but "inbred" is more inflammatory than what I really mean and "proprietary" isn't exactly correct either...

> 2010 is the best VS yet though when it comes to custom workflow
> integration, they are getting better at that, they're just ruining the
> rest
> of the actual IDE in the mean time! >_<
>