> > Hi again... > Strange ....how things work. MFC was a hottest technology in the market > with the release of Visual Studio 6.0. MS has reaped huge unparalleled > benefits from it. That was time and tide. Now the tide is with .NET. I admit > that MS has done good in developing a good support for C# and > VB.NET<http://vb.net/>as complete languages. My only regret is that, in doing > so, it has let down > developers, who were once in plenty. I am talking about MS environment. > There are a lot of C++ devs working on other environments. I only started > programming with Visual C++ in 2005. I started with VS 6.0 and after a brief > while switched to VS 2005. Back then MS showed some interests in enhancing > the language further. It is not only about developing IDE, but about being > compliant with ISO standards. As a person with a strong liking for Visual > C++, I am sorry to say about the developments in C++ since 2005. > I have even watched the videos on what is being done by Visual C++ team and > their objectives. It seems that they are not in any mood to do something > ambitious. For instance, let us talk about intellisense and code snippets > features provided by IDE. The upcoming version of IDE has done one thing > good that is removing the .ncb files and introducing SQL Server compact to > buffer up the intellisense on the application load and calling only those > features that are requested or close to being requested by the user. That > would help the intellisense prevent breaking or searching for something > every now and then. As the presenter in the video was saying about it and > demoing it, it was waiting! Let us give him a fair chance and say that it > will work. But why dunt they look at Visual Assist? MS gives a hell lot of > reasons for autocompletion not working in VC++, one being C++ poor > reflection capabilities. Visual Assist does that in style; I have not used > it but I have seen it work on one of the MSDN videos itself. Also, MVPs > working on VC++ advocate using Visual Assist. In order that I know about it, > I asked and put up a question on MSDN dashboard and other forums with MS > MVPs, but I did not get any answer. I simply cannot digest this discrepancy. > MS itself uses C++ for many of their applications; earlier it used to admit > it and now shying away from it. Introduction of tr1 library was just > to divert the C++ coders from Boost regular expression library. > As I said, MFC was badly designed and MS did not do anything to improve > it. MS kept reaping benefits till it continued to do so. Even today it is > gaining them a lot, but it is certainly not overwhelming boom, I am not > certain, but have read somewhere that Boost libraries outperform their STL > counter parts. I have not read anything like that from MS C++ team since > long. They consider it to be an achievement, if they catch up with > something. .NET is a product of such a strategy. It started as a counter > product for J2EE. In that process MS invented a new language C# quite close > to C++ for C programmers and improved VB.NET <http://vb.net/> taking it > further from VB 6. Being a premier organization and having all the access to > the most brilliant coders, it should have been pioneer in passing on the > suggestions to C++ standards committee, but it is nowhere in the list. On > the contrary, C++ wing in MS is sitting as if they were doomed and waiting > for the standards to be out and then make a move. By then people look for > alternatives. > Coming to .NET ADOs and stuff, you are right. I did not know that we can > work with ODBC in similar fashion as ADO.NET <http://ado.net/> or can we? > Can we have a disconnected architecture and caching capabilities? How > performant is that using ODBC? > Good to hear that Wt supports XML. Although, I differ on the your opinion > to not rating XML in good books as that is the only format I know when it > comes to cross talk between 2 different databases over the web; binary is > too much work. XML might be awfully slow. I suppose that you said that about > XML it in context of presenting the data. If so, then yes I agree. XML has > its own use in the form of tools like MS Build and Nant, code snippets, > configuration files, etc. There are many representation formats like xsd, > xslt, that help us understand complex designs easier. Ofcourse, this is my > opinion with very little experience I have in XML. Not sure if build > automation, configuration, data-porting, database schema design, site maps, > etc. would have been easy enough without XML. > I am using IE 8.0 now. On reading your email, I checked out witty website > in firefox 3.x and in that scrolling works well. I think it is being worked > upon. Regarding the other problem, let it go. I will see when I work with > latest witty sometime sooner... > Thanks, > Bhushan > > > > >
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Return on Information: Google Enterprise Search pays you back Get the facts. http://p.sf.net/sfu/google-dev2dev
_______________________________________________ witty-interest mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/witty-interest
