[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: 64-bit transition deadline (Re: Etch in the hands of the Stable Release Managers)

Qua, 2007-04-11 às 13:12 -0400, Lennart Sorensen escreveu:
> I can't stand visual studio.  It drives me nuts.  It makes it so hard
> to
> figure out what is going on and wants to get in the way of everything.
> Give me plain simple makefiles and source code files I can edit
> (preferably with vim) and I can actually get some work done.  I don't
> like development tools that magically do stuff without telling you and
> without really letting you change the behaviour if the magic didn't
> actually do what you wanted.
Visual Studio makes the job for non-professional programmers a pretty
good job. I am in the final year of my Mechnical Engeneering degree and
many of my coleagues does not have programing experience, so they
program *only* in Visual Basic.

So does a lot's of engineerings that are in front of teams to develop
software, like my boss.

So ... when yu want something, just let's hope microsoft has it
developed ... when in linux, you just can have the simpliest platform nd
the more complex one too.

> I think unfortunately GUI tools let people think they know what they
> are
> doing, and makes them think they know how to program.  For a large
> portion of those users, they really don't know what they are doing
> (especially when visual basic gets involved), and end up writing
> unmaintainable bloated crap with many dumb bugs.

No ... gui tools helps people with some non coding work. Having, for
example, an F11 key to compile, or someone to edit most of my makefiles
is pretty good.

Still ... i agree ... i hate Visual Studio because you only have the

I develop in anjuta and use gdb for debug, along with other memory
> Of course you can write unmaintainable bloated crap with vim and
> makefiles too, but at least you have to do a bit of work, not just
> click
> pretty buttons.

lol ... there you have to at least think what you are doing for sure.
> --
> Len Sorensen 

Reply to: