|
For what this is worth:
For work, I build flightgear with some custom mods using 2003
.NET
It builds with pretty much zero code changes.
I do have to munge around with the project files and add a bunch of
include paths, lib paths, lib refs, etc. to get a clean
build.
However, the interesting part of 2003 .NET is the debugger. I have
nothing but problems with it. It is just plain not as stable as the VC6
debugger. Constant crashes with large applications like FlightGear.
I've been told that this is a install specific thing and that our messed up
workstation config is the cause (our network IS/mgmt people are quite
inept.) Other people tell me "no, it just sucks like that for any
install." So I'm not sure where the truth lies. Probably somewhere in the
middle. Many people in our company that are forced to do windows
development refuse to upgrade to 2003 .NET even though the development
environment is nicer than VC6.
Hope this helps you at least somewhat.
I am still using VC++ 6.0 from 98 myself. I have been thinking of
upgrading to either 2003 or 2005 but hesitant to do so until I find out
whether I can still code the same way as I do now in those environments. I did
some reading on the MS website last night and it seemed to imply that I do not
need to program in .NET or the other fancy stuff they implimented but being
Microsoft.... I am leary to believe them.
So, anyone out there with
VC++ 2003 that could shed some light on this? Will the programs I use now
still compile without any modifications under the 2003 / 2005 IDE?
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
Selon Andy Ross:
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
I found where it is not C : you don't always declare local
variables at the beginning of functions but you have the C++
habit to declare them as you need them.
... which is a well-established feature of the (now 6-year-old!)
C99 standard. It's not a "C++" thing. And GCC stopped warning
about this (in C mode, under -Wall) several years ago. You need
to engage -ansi and disable --std=c99 to see stuff like this.
I am not here to endorse Microsoft choices, but I see little point to use C
syntax when C++ is available and is the language of choice for the overall
FlightGear project. However, the link below should clarify Microsoft point of
view :
http://www.dotnet247.com/247reference/msgs/56/280444.aspx
Not speaking about the fact that a lot of people are still using the v6 version
that was released in 1998.
Thanks for committing the patch.
-Fred
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
|
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
