Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Visual Studio 2013 Released

Unknown Lamer posted about 10 months ago | from the but-does-it-make-coffee dept.

Microsoft 198

jones_supa writes "Final releases of Visual Studio 2013, .NET 4.5.1, and Team Foundation Server 2013 are now available. As part of the new release, the C++ engine implements variadic templates, delegating constructors, non-static data member initializers, uniform initialization, and 'using' aliases. The editor has seen new features, C++ improvements and performance optimizations. Support for Windows 8.1 has been enhanced and the new XAML UI Responsiveness tool and Profile Guided Optimization help to analyze responsiveness in Windows Store apps. Graphics debugging has been furthered to have better C++ AMP tools and a new remote debugger (x86, x64, ARM). As before, MSDN and DreamSpark subscribers can obtain the releases from the respective channels, and the Express edition is available zero cost for all."

cancel ×

198 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45158197)

She needs it after this !!

SIGN IN !!

Visual Studio? Released? (4, Funny)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 10 months ago | (#45159035)

On bond, or recognizance?

Re:Visual Studio? Released? (0)

LifesABeach (234436) | about 10 months ago | (#45160359)

And in a unrelated news story today, 2 murders were released from prison in Florida. This O/S used to help the killers escape was, you guessed it; not Linux.

Who cares? (2, Insightful)

faragon (789704) | about 10 months ago | (#45158201)

Visual Studio 2010 was already bloated and brain-dead. TFS sucks and the Git integration is poor. Not worth it, in my opinion.

Re:Who cares? (1, Insightful)

Hsien-Ko (1090623) | about 10 months ago | (#45158221)

So what new form of vendor lock-in does VS2013 do? Kick out XP SP3 users from executing?

Re:Who cares? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45158231)

So what new form of vendor lock-in does VS2013 do? Kick out XP SP3 users from executing?

it bites your penis off if it detects linux. it puts your penis into its nasty rancid asshole if it detects that you own an apple device. that second part is a courtesy.

Re:Who cares? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45158327)

" that second part is a courtesy "

That's only what Apple users consider "courtesy," but since you explained it already it goes without saying.

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:Who cares? (3, Interesting)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | about 10 months ago | (#45160245)

VS2012 doesn't support XP as far as I know since .Net 4.5 doesn't run there and the main thing with VS2012 was support for Metro. So that ship has sailed.

I don't think it is vendor lock in to expect developers to be using a OS that is less than 10 years old.

Re: Who cares? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45158291)

Both VS and TFS 2012 were massive improvements over the 2010 editions for what its worth. 2013 seems more iterative and superfluous.

Re: Who cares? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45158623)

I disagree

VS2012 was massive improvement in terms of features. Unfortunately, those features consumed A LOT of resources, to the point it was completely unusable on my computer (on start, after a few minutes, VS2012 would show a message saying "your computer is too slow for VS2012").

VS2013 is as feature rich (actually, more) than VS2012 *and* it consumes LESS resources than 2010. I have been using it since the Preview (with ReSharper and a few more plugins) and it's great.

Re: Who cares? (1)

LurkerXXX (667952) | about 10 months ago | (#45159381)

I've been using VS2012 on a 5 year old laptop, that was midrange at best when new. The requirements don't seem that steep.

Re: Who cares? (3, Informative)

ATMAvatar (648864) | about 10 months ago | (#45159643)

My experience was the opposite. VS2012 was night-and-day faster than VS2010 on my work machine, if only because it was much better at multi-threading. My peers had a similar experience. Perhaps my experience was different due to the fact that I don't run that many plug-ins.

VS2013 is an improvement as well, so I am curious to see how quickly I can get an upgrade approved.

Re: Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45158675)

I rather use 2010 as VS2012 IS EYESORE..

Re: Who cares? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45158897)

2012 was fine if you use the registry setting to fix the capital letters in the menu bar [msdn.com] , and update 2 added a "Blue" theme. Then it looks like 2010, but with all the new functionality.

Re: Who cares? (1)

Barlo_Mung_42 (411228) | about 10 months ago | (#45159357)

I find it easier on the eyes. There is a dark theme that makes my eyes feel less tired after hours of use.

WOW (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45158205)

All this value free for the express edition! gotta thank GNU, if it weren't for them we'd be milked for way less stuff.

Re:WOW (0)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about 10 months ago | (#45158281)

I know.

Used to use Dev Studio 6 heavy back in the day. Each Visual Studio just gets more and more bloated. :-(

Switched to Vim couple years back. One of the best text editors I have every used. (Note: They _all_ suck in some ways.)

At least, I'm freed from the Microsoft's VisualStudio & Apple's XCode lock-in now.

Re:WOW (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45158325)

Switched to Emacs couple years back. One of the best text editors I have ever used.

Fixed that for you. Both were errors.

Re: WOW (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45159101)

emacs is a great os but only a mediocre editor

Re:WOW (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45158445)

VSINATE (Visual Studio Is Not A Text Editor)

Re:WOW (1)

nojayuk (567177) | about 10 months ago | (#45159565)

I vaguely recollect someone years ago wrote an BASIC interpreter in Excel. It would even generate ASCII graphics. It wasn't fast but...

Re:WOW (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45159555)

There's a commercial plugin which replaces Visual Studio's editor and which implements all of Vim's capabilities.

I haven't used Windows in over 10 years, and have never used Visual Studio. A friend who was in the same boat as me was forced to use VS for C# .Net development, and absolutely loved that plugin.

Re:WOW (5, Interesting)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | about 10 months ago | (#45158997)

All this value free for the express edition! gotta thank GNU, if it weren't for them we'd be milked for way less stuff.

Actually, you can thank the Microsoft's own Platform SDK for all this free value. This included a free C++ compiler, and was released at the start of this century. It was originally for MSDN subscribers, but it was released to the public for anyone to download. If you want to thank anyone for this inital free release, I think it would be Watcom C++ which was released as open source in 2000 after commercial development stopped. At the time that was a much bigger competitor to Microsoft's dev kits than any GNU software.

Programs! (4, Insightful)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 10 months ago | (#45158251)

I look back with fondness for the times when a program was a set of instructions and declarations written in a programming language, rather than am odd derivative of C++ tied to a billion files in various XML schemas.

Re:Programs! (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 10 months ago | (#45158335)

I look forward to the time when I can tell my computer, in plain English, what I need it to do and it just does it without having to program a specific application to do a specific function.

Re:Programs! (2)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 10 months ago | (#45158493)

Be careful what you ask for. Computers are vindictive. One that has free reign to misinterpret what you are asking for it going to be nothing but trouble.

Re:Programs! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45159513)

I look forward to the time when I can tell my computer, in plain English, what I need it to do and it just does it without having to program a specific application to do a specific function.

You want that in real time too of course. I'd settle for a human that could do the same in real time, even if they charge $1,000 an hour. Business would pay 100x that "Write a program that cracks this 8192 bit encryption in real time, accessing all electronic databases in the world, popping up the target's photo id and other info, known associates, movement patterns, etc. You know, what every CSI and spy style show does on a regular basis.

Re:Programs! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45160065)

Would you like a unicorn with your genie? Or just the regular fries?

Re:Programs! (1)

microbox (704317) | about 10 months ago | (#45158663)

If you see no value in fancy technologies, then don't use them.

Re:Programs! (1)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 10 months ago | (#45159307)

That's why I like my Apple 2e

Re:Programs! (3, Funny)

OzPeter (195038) | about 10 months ago | (#45158745)

I look back with fondness for the times when a program was a set of instructions and declarations written in a programming language, rather than am odd derivative of C++ tied to a billion files in various XML schemas.

Yeah and I remember hand crafting make files in order to build systems from all that carefully written C code.
 
I mean I really hate myself for clicking on the NuGet package manager that I installed in VS, browsing a huge number of open source solutions and downloading and installing libraries and libraries of useful code with almost a single click. Yeah .. progress sucks

Re:Programs! (5, Insightful)

murdocj (543661) | about 10 months ago | (#45158859)

Using lots of libraries and components is great... when it all works. When your app won't build and you get an obscure error message from some package that you didn't even know you were using, it's not so much fun. I handcrafted make files as well. At least then, I knew what was going on, and what depended on what.

Re:Programs! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45159841)

That's what NuGet is for, it's a package manager for libraries. Installing the latest version of X library for use in Y project won't cause compilation to stop on Z project etc, and you can easily see what libraries depend on what other libraries.

Re:Programs! (1)

chrpai (806494) | about 10 months ago | (#45160289)

I'm a build and release engineer. I always know what depends on what.... especially when the developers don't.

Re:Programs! (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 10 months ago | (#45160067)

What better way to expand your attack surface.

Truly, in the Age of Information, the Hackers shall inherit the Earth.

Re:Programs! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45158941)

I look back with fondness for the times when a program was a set of instructions and declarations written in a programming language, rather than am odd derivative of C++ tied to a billion files in various XML schemas.

Yeah...

cat configure.ac

420

Re:Programs! (1)

Horshu (2754893) | about 10 months ago | (#45159343)

"In myyyy day, we wrote hand-tuned assembly, and we LIKED it!"

Re:Programs! (1)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | about 10 months ago | (#45160175)

The tension between KISS and DRY has always been there. Both are fundamental principles and yet at some level they are incompatible, since writing reusable code necessarily involves increasing its complexity. And the less you want to RY, the more complexity you have to build in.

The C++ STL is a shining example of this. Everyday developers shouldn't be writing their own lists and array and hashmaps. They definitely shouldn't write their own string utilities. And they shouldn't have to change those implementations whether they are working on regular strings or wide strings or with a HPC memory allocator. To deal with the genericity, STL is horrendously complex and Thor help me if I have to sit down with an error-page that's 5 pages long and 5 levels of template deep.

At the end of the day, you've just got to deal with that tension and decide what level of repetition (and the incumbent bugs and maintenance costs) you are willing to put up with to increase simplicity. If all you need is a simple array, don't use a library. If you are manipulating XML by using apos, on the other hand ...

Where is the RPM? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45158257)

I tried to do

yum localinstall visualstudio-2013.exe

but it wouldn't load on any of my Fedora or CentOS boxes. Tried the same with aptitude on my Debian boxes, same story.

Is someone gonna repackage this for our favorite distro? Really, these guys are worse than Canonical when it comes to supporting the community.

Re: Where is the RPM? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45159959)

Shut up asshole.

The unoriginality of your quip actually angers me.

zero cost (0)

fermion (181285) | about 10 months ago | (#45158259)

If, as MS is so fond of saying, your time is worth nothing.

Or you could download full tool sets that are given away by every other developer. Apple, for instance, only charges $100 to develop on the iPad, giving the tools away. Eclipse is supported by many of the major vendors.

I realize that for a MS Shop the cost of Visual Studio is insignificant, but I can't even begin to comprehend why MS feels it needs to charge for the product. Everyone says that the Express version does everything anyone could want, but that is like saying the Home version of MS Windows does everything. We know it doesn't, and that it is that intentionally, so that people will pay for the instant upgrade.

Re:zero cost (3, Insightful)

causality (777677) | about 10 months ago | (#45158341)

Apple, for instance, only charges $100 to develop on the iPad, giving the tools away.

Sure, and the dealership just GAVE ME the car I'm driving after charging me money for it! Wow that was nice of them.

Re:zero cost (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45158513)

Apple, for instance, only charges $100 to develop on the iPad, giving the tools away.

Sure, and the dealership just GAVE ME the car I'm driving after charging me money for it! Wow that was nice of them.

Ignorance is bliss... Xcode is still free even if you don't want to pay $100 for a developer account.

Re:zero cost (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45158701)

As is Visual Studio Express.

Re:zero cost (1)

causality (777677) | about 10 months ago | (#45158707)

Apple, for instance, only charges $100 to develop on the iPad, giving the tools away.

Sure, and the dealership just GAVE ME the car I'm driving after charging me money for it! Wow that was nice of them.

Ignorance is bliss... Xcode is still free even if you don't want to pay $100 for a developer account.

Actually you had to choose between two possible interpretations of what I said. 1) I am being facetious and am simply making a joke about the way he worded that, and 2) I was making a factual statement about developing software on (or for) the iPad. Because there was no additional context, you had to pick one. Naturally you chose the one that lets you make a smug comment while judging yourself smarter than me.

Is that bliss? Seems the product of a deep-seated (and horribly widespread) insecurity to me.

Re:zero cost (3, Insightful)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 10 months ago | (#45158385)

"I can't even begin to comprehend why MS feels it needs to charge for the product"

I know, right? I don't know why the grocery store charges for hot dogs either. It's just a product.
More apps for the iPad means more app sales, which Apple takes a cut of, so that's a pretty bad example. Microsoft does give away the Express version, which is pretty decent for most non-commercial software.

Re: zero cost (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45158423)

What can't you do in the express version that you need to do? The things they restrict you from are generally more team oriented and not geared towards independent developers. If you are part of a team like that your company probably has an msdn license and gets premium licenses with it for peanuts.

Not being an ass, actually curious what features are missing that makes you feel like its useful. I haven't used Eclyps very much but I personally find VS superior in every way (.NET development obviously).

Re: zero cost (3, Informative)

tangent (3677) | about 10 months ago | (#45158831)

The Express editions have a bunch of arbitrary limitations in them.

The two that bit me were:

1. You can't install plugins. I don't currently use any I can't live without, but several features in VS2013 -- e.g. NuGET, the thumbnail view replacing the scroll bar, better refactoring, visual indent level indication -- started out as plugins. Even if you take the view that eventually, all third-party plugin features eventually make it into the retail version, you're opting into being years behind the current state of the art.

2. The Express editions are artificially siloed into several versions, none of which has all of the features. If you need two features that are in different versions, at best you have to keep bouncing between the editions. If you need both features simultaneously, you're stuffed.

For me, the two features I needed simultaneously were the ability to create a mixed C# and F# program that ran on the desktop. To make a C# desktop app, you naturally need the desktop edition, but that edition doesn't include any F# support. For some demented reason, that's off in the Web edition, where it seems focused on ASP.NET development, not desktop development.

(And if you ask me why F#, well, this is Slashdot, isn't it? If I'd said Haskell instead, you'd just be nodding now. :) )

Re: zero cost (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45159815)

I just installed VS2012 the other day, so I can build example programs that were included with a DLL I was trying out. Won't work, it requires some .H file that turns out is only included in the paid version. That's great.. after installing 4GB worth of stuff, I'm stopped by lack of a little header file. Now I remember why I don't use their crap.

Re:zero cost (1)

Barlo_Mung_42 (411228) | about 10 months ago | (#45158787)

I don't think you know what you're talking about. Developing for Windows / Win Phone is $19 and the express version does do everything most people will need.
Most people who pay for VS do so via MSDN which gets you a lot more than just VS.

Re:zero cost (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45159105)

Eclipse is crap compared to Visual Studio or Intellij IDEA. This isn't debatable.

Still half-assed C++11 support (3, Insightful)

mark-t (151149) | about 10 months ago | (#45158261)

(sigh)

Oh well... maybe next year they'll catch up. Oh wait, that's when C++14 is supposed to be standardized.

[double facepalm]

Re:Still half-assed C++11 support (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45158647)

Still half-assed C++11 support

(sigh)

Oh well... maybe next year they'll catch up. Oh wait, that's when C++14 is supposed to be standardized.

[double facepalm]

I would give (almost) anything to work on that compiler exclusively : Think about us, poor developers, stuck with IBM XLC or (the worst of the worst) Solaris SunStudio and its poor support of (sigh) C++98 (98 as in 1998...).

C++ standard is evolving fast, so we can't expect all the compilers to offer an implementation in less than 6 months... But some compilers just remain in the last century... And Visual Studio is not one of them.

Re:Still half-assed C++11 support (2)

slack_justyb (862874) | about 10 months ago | (#45159301)

C++ standard is evolving fast

Does no one else find it funny that saying that about five years ago would have been met with "WTF?!!"

However, I do have to agree, VS still has half-baked C++ support period. It's neat that they have their own .NET stuff for C++, but I think they tend to think about that .NET stuff first and ISO C++ second. That's a shame really because I know quite a few (and maybe it's just the area I'm in) places wanting to hire those with C++11 skills.

so we can't expect all the compilers to offer an implementation in less than 6 months

Well the thing about it is that they've had longer than six months to prep for it. Especially for C++11. I get your point, but the other guys tend to build as the standard gets formalized, not wait until it is approved. Heck even the GNU guys are already baking C++1y support. That's what makes me think that my first point is more true than time frame reasons.

C++11 support isn't so much a need. The neat features brought with the new standard aren't a "MAKE OR BREAK" kind of thing. However, at the risk of making an oxymoron, C++11 new feature sets make C++ a great deal more readable and enjoyable to code in (I know I was like, shwhaaaaatt?!). Which kind of makes the .NET stuff a little less appealing (unless you're targeting the .NET run-time, which in itself is a whole another can of worms) since I've know quite a few folk to code C++.NET because it is easier than ISO C++. The run-time thing, to them, is just an added benefit. I think once a person starts to use C++11, it'll click what makes it great.

Think about us, poor developers, stuck with...

You are not forgotten, you have my deepest sympathies if you are still stuck with them.

Re:Still half-assed C++11 support (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45160121)

http://cpprocks.com/c11-compiler-support-shootout-visual-studio-gcc-clang-intel/

Re:Still half-assed C++11 support (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45158657)

Why do you need that? Honest question.

Re:Still half-assed C++11 support (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45158815)

Why do you need anything more than an assembler?

C++11 isn't needed, but many people (myself included) consider many of the language changes to be very beneficial to creating clean programs with better compile-time checking.

(In before "real programmers code by twiddling individual bits on disk.")

Re:Still half-assed C++11 support (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 10 months ago | (#45158845)

First thing that comes to mind? compile-time hashes used as case labels.

constexpr unsigned crc32_table(unsigned c,unsigned k=8)
{
return (k==0)?c:crc32_table((((c&1)?0xedb88320u:0)^(c>>1)),k-1);
}

constexpr unsigned crc32(const char *str, std::size_t len)
{
return (len==0)?0xffffffffu:((crc32(str,len-1)>>8) ^ crc32_table((crc32(str,len-1) ^ str[len-1]) & 0xFF));
}

constexpr unsigned operator "" _hash(const char *str, std::size_t len)
{
return crc32(str,len)^0xffffffffu;
}
...

which could then be used in code like this:
switch(tag)
{
case "show"_hash:
...//do stuff
break;
case "fill"_hash:
...// do stuff
break;
}

Re:Still half-assed C++11 support (1)

sideslash (1865434) | about 10 months ago | (#45158991)

Why don't you just write a source code generation script to write that section of logic?

Re:Still half-assed C++11 support (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 10 months ago | (#45159151)

Because it's a pain in the ass, that's why.

Also, I don't like wasting my time writing tools to "fix" somebody else's partially complete implementation of something... in this case, C++11.

Yes, I'm lazy. I'm a computer programmer.

Re:Still half-assed C++11 support (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about 10 months ago | (#45159173)

Because modern C++ developers want C++ to work like javascript

Re:Still half-assed C++11 support (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 10 months ago | (#45159451)

Speaking for myself, there's some truth in that.

Only faster runtime.

Re:Still half-assed C++11 support (2)

AstrumPreliator (708436) | about 10 months ago | (#45160131)

You need to be careful with constexpr as it is not guaranteed to be evaluated at compile time. I don't have a link handy, but if I remember correctly the only time a constexpr function is guaranteed to be evaluated at compile time is if all of it's parameters are constant expressions and it is used in a constant expression. Compilers are of course free to evaluate constexpr functions in other situations, although to my knowledge neither clang nor gcc does this yet.

In your example "show"_hash and "fill"_hash should be evaluated at compile time. However if you had someFunc(int hash, int runTimeParameter); and you passed "show"_hash to someFunc, there is no guaranteed it will be evaluated at compile time.

Re:Still half-assed C++11 support (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45159401)

...and have they ever bothered to upgrade the C compiler beyond ANSI 89??

Did they put Brief emulaton back in yet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45158277)

If not, fuck 'em.

Learning this dross (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45158279)

Just stepped into an organisation running TFS '08 & VS '10.

Coming from a background in open source, using Eclipse, SVN, Bugzilla & TRAC this MS stuff seems like absolute dross to me but I'm not in the position to change it yet.

Anyone have any advice regarding getting up to speed on this stuff. In particular the team I'm working with have NO concept of bug tracking which seems like madness. Is this side of TFS really so terrible?

Re:Learning this dross (1)

cbhacking (979169) | about 10 months ago | (#45158867)

That's mostly a problem of team, not tools. Lots of open source developers are shit at bug tracking too. TFS isn't my first choice of tool, but it works.

Also, to the extent that the tools are the problem, that's largely because you're using tools that are 3-5 years old. Updating to newer versions won't make them any more familiar to you (as if ability to adapt to tools isn't a vital skill for a professional coder...) but it will add a lot of functionality that you may be looking for.

It won't fix team stupidity, though. There's really no solution for that one.

I'd offer suggestions, but you completely neglected to explain what (in terms of the tools) you were having problems with, so rather than give a full course of
"MS Dev Tools 101: Tutorial for the Anonymous Coward Who Thinks it is "Dross"
I think I'll just suggest looking up online anything that you're trying to do and can't figure out; you're hardly the first person to use this software, even coming from a background like yours.

Re:Learning this dross (1)

murdocj (543661) | about 10 months ago | (#45158927)

Just stepped into an organisation running TFS '08 & VS '10.

Coming from a background in open source, using Eclipse, SVN, Bugzilla & TRAC this MS stuff seems like absolute dross to me but I'm not in the position to change it yet.

Anyone have any advice regarding getting up to speed on this stuff. In particular the team I'm working with have NO concept of bug tracking which seems like madness. Is this side of TFS really so terrible?

If you are referring to Bugzilla as your "bug tracker", god help you. What a nightmare of a user interface. It would be easier to track bugs by chiseling them into granite than to use Bugzilla.

Give Visual Studio a chance. I haven't used it for a few years but it's clean and works well. Don't pine for your old environment till you've tried the new.

TFS... (1)

dkegel (904729) | about 10 months ago | (#45158429)

Is it just me, or did other people read that as The F*cking Software?

Re:TFS... (2)

HalfFlat (121672) | about 10 months ago | (#45159471)

As someone who is obliged to use TFS, I would say that your reading is correct.

Re: TFS... (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | about 10 months ago | (#45160223)

Please. TFS 2010 Is very good. TFS 2012 is excellent.

Tried it - was very underwhelmed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45158517)

I tried the new VS 2013 RTM build today on a Win 7 x64 SP1 system. I'm really unimpressed - yes, it's quicker than 2010/2012, but I only used it for 1 hour (it was a lunchbreak), and the IDE crashed on me twice in 1 hour, on a virgin system. I'd previously tried the preview and RC build of 2013 with no such problems. Apart from being slightly snappier, I really can't see what it's given us vs 2012. Most of the code I maintain/write is not pushing the boundaries of C++11 etc, so am much more interested in other tools - better debuggers, editors, more speed, better static analysis etc.

Yes you can still target XP with it, albeit using old compiler toolsets.
Other stuff to be aware of: MS are looking to drop MBCS support (at least in MFC). If you need MBCS support with MFC, you need to download an extra set of files.

But for me the killer is it's apparent instability - two IDE crashes in 1 hour is terrible. I didn't have those reliability problems before...

Just downgraded something to .NET 2.0 (1)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | about 10 months ago | (#45158553)

At work, we just had to downgrade one of our products because the customer couldn't handle .NET 4.0. Will the world please catch up with Microsoft, please?

Re:Just downgraded something to .NET 2.0 (2, Funny)

0123456 (636235) | about 10 months ago | (#45158601)

I thought .NET was dead and the Microsoft future was HTML5 now?

Re:Just downgraded something to .NET 2.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45158729)

what are the fuck are u smoking? Silverlight as a product is dead. Go troll somewhere else..

Re:Just downgraded something to .NET 2.0 (1)

cbhacking (979169) | about 10 months ago | (#45158959)

What have *you* been huffing? .NET, in one form or another, is *the* main development framework Microsoft has been pushing the last few years, honestly.

Windows desktop pre-Win8: Native code or .NET.
Win8 / Windows RT apps: .NET (via the subset usable in WinRT), native code (same caveat), or HTML5/JS.
Windows Phone 7: .NET (via Silverlight) or .NET (via XNA).
Windows Phone 8: .NET (via WinRT subset for phone) or native code (WinRT).
Xbox 360 indie games: .NET (via XNA).

This goes back even further, actually, but those are just Microsoft's major ISV-facing platforms of this decade.

Re:Just downgraded something to .NET 2.0 (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45159711)

Apparently you missed the renewed interest in C++. .NET is still very popular, but the .NET team never sold the Windows development team on .NET, who went off in their own direction with Metro and additions to WinAPI. So, if we're talking the past two years, then .NET is definitely not *the* main development framework, it's C++ (i.e. native code). How have you missed this? There have been a ton of articles over the past couple of years analyzing Microsoft's schizophrenia.

Perhaps you were just working really hard on .NET code. There are Perl guys hammering away, still under the belief that Perl is still popular, too.

Re:Just downgraded something to .NET 2.0 (1)

xyourfacekillerx (939258) | about 10 months ago | (#45158723)

I also find myself having to use 2.0 a lot too.

Re:Just downgraded something to .NET 2.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45158751)

ahaha, losers. Tell your client there are reasons to move beyond the 286 architecture.

Re:Just downgraded something to .NET 2.0 (1)

xyourfacekillerx (939258) | about 10 months ago | (#45158889)

Sometimes our clients are mom and pop shops. Right now I'm working with the county whose budget for software alone is $800 this fiscal year, $4,000 for hardware. That's the budget for the county department I'm with. Fortunately the consulting budget is any dollars, so I can offset the cost of upgrading their software with that, but still.... Not everyone you work with understands the benefit of running an up to date setup.

VSS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45158625)

Oh my god if I have to use VSS one more time, I just might receive CANCER.

As a new user of Visual Studio (1)

Kwyj1b0 (2757125) | about 10 months ago | (#45158671)

I'd like to ask - what am I missing?

Until recently, I hadn't programmed in anything apart from Matlab in Linux (which has a crappy "IDE") in over ten years (the last version of VS I ever used in any way was VS6.0). Anyway, I started to work on Python and C++, and have so far found a lot of positives with the IDE (Ultimate VS2012 - free from my organization).

VsVim and PTVS let me use a vim like editing features, and Python Tools for VS has also performed well (interactive debugging, autcomplete and command help). On the C++ side, the debugger (for simple code at least) is straightforward. The Git integration could be a better, but I can quite easily drop into the command line and sync with GitHub.

Since I am still learning the tools (and I have used Linux a lot over the last five years, so I am OS agnostic) and the language, I'd like to know what I am likely to miss out by using VS over say Eclipse (or other tools). I tried Eclipse for about half a day, but I had a bit of problem getting the debugger to work for C++. Again, since I am just starting out, I like the convenience of an IDE, rather than using vim+gcc at the command line - I'm not even sure how I'd do a command line debug.

Re:As a new user of Visual Studio (3, Informative)

cbhacking (979169) | about 10 months ago | (#45159063)

Missing relative to other tools? Not terribly much, honestly; I wouldn't use VS for Java (by preference, I'd use NetBeans) or for POSIX native code, but both are possible. Some VS extensions are very handy; there's a tool for finding, installing and updating them called NuGet (should be built into current versions of VS, I think); you may want to check them out although it sounds like you've already found some plugins that you like. The git integration will probably improve over time; there has already been an update or two. Eclipse has slightly more refactoring power than is built into VS, but there are plugins for that and the Eclipse UI drives me nuts when I try to use it. The only major thing that comes to mind is that VS isn't going to run on anything except Windows (unless Wine support for it is a lot better than I remember) so, although there are Linux-compatible IDEs that can read its project files, it might not be the ideal tool for mixed environments.

"furthered"??? No such word... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45158703)

"Graphics debugging has been furthered"

I don't believe that 'further' is a verb.

Re:"furthered"??? No such word... (1)

PT_1 (2425848) | about 10 months ago | (#45158893)

"Graphics debugging has been furthered"

I don't believe that 'further' is a verb.

Not sure if I'm missing the joke, but further is a verb and furthered is its past participle.

Re:"furthered"??? No such word... (1)

EvanED (569694) | about 10 months ago | (#45158919)

further

verb
[with object]
help the progress or development of (something); promote:
he had depended on using them to further his own career

Origin:

Old English furthor (adverb), furthra (adjective), fyrthrian (verb)

oxforddictionaries.com

Unfortunately I don't have access to the OED any more so don't know places where I can get dated citations of use, but it's a good thing you don't have to believe in facts for them to be true.

Re:"furthered"??? No such word... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45158925)

Just goes to show that reality doesn't always conform to what you believe:

further
frTHr/

      [...]

verb
verb: further;3rd person present: furthers;past tense: furthered;past participle: furthered;gerund or present participle: furthering

        1.
        help the progress or development of (something); promote.
        "he had depended on using them to further his own career"
        synonyms: promote, advance, forward, develop, facilitate, aid, assist, help, help along, lend a hand to, abet; More

Re:"furthered"??? No such word... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45159001)

You believe wrong!

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/furthered

Re:"furthered"??? No such word... (1)

synaptik (125) | about 10 months ago | (#45160213)

In English, almost any word can be verbed...

Seems to be fine, but (1)

xyourfacekillerx (939258) | about 10 months ago | (#45158709)

1) Where the heck did they hide the option to set which version of .NET I want to target for my build? Argh.

2) what's a good free code editor or IDE for C# or F# that still does projects/solutions, source control (maybe), and let's me control the resource and assembly files on my own as well as regulate the build process too (i.e. command-line or integrated build tool)? cos I'm not liking 2013 or 2012 VS and MSbuild that MS offers right now is for 4.5.1x only. What if I want to compile a single source file and I don't want the stupid dev command line or MSbuild to do it for me?

Re:Seems to be fine, but (1)

BradleyUffner (103496) | about 10 months ago | (#45159259)

1) Where the heck did they hide the option to set which version of .NET I want to target for my build? Argh.

It's right there in the very first page of the project properties for me, where it's been ever since that was a configurable option.

The GUI blows (0)

jez9999 (618189) | about 10 months ago | (#45158805)

Maybe I'm more irritated by this than most, but I liked the VS2010 GUI; colorful icons, a relatively smart professional image. With VS2013 they appear to have tried to "geek it up" or something by making all the tool menus have CAPITAL headings which looks fucking retarded, and making most of the items monochrome (what is that, retro?) Apparently they're trying to 'draw my attention' to the code without distracting me with icons that are nice looking and, ya know, give you a clue what the fuck they do. It just looks like a trainwreck. If there's a VS2010 skin, that's the first thing to install.

Re:The GUI blows (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45159263)

There are both of these, at least for VS2012:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12087949/is-it-possible-to-change-icons-in-visual-studio-2012
Turning the menus back to non-all upper caps is a registry hack.
The tool that gives colorful icons back to VS2012 needs to steal the icons from an installation of VS2010. The icons do not come with that app.

I can see having the monocromatic icons while the mouse is hovering over your code and you're presumably "not looking at them". But, could it have been simple enough to colorize them if the mouse moved over the toolbars?

Re:The GUI blows (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45159453)

I encountered Windows Server 2012 the other day using RDP from AWS. Gawd that looked awful. I hit those utterly flag 2D-ish UI elements and thought "Windows 3.11."

What's wrong with these people? Just what is their major malfunction? It must be some manifestation of the Spielberg effect.

Re:The GUI blows (1)

jd2112 (1535857) | about 10 months ago | (#45159483)

Maybe I'm more irritated by this than most, but I liked the VS2010 GUI; colorful icons, a relatively smart professional image. With VS2013 they appear to have tried to "geek it up" or something by making all the tool menus have CAPITAL headings which looks fucking retarded, and making most of the items monochrome (what is that, retro?) Apparently they're trying to 'draw my attention' to the code without distracting me with icons that are nice looking and, ya know, give you a clue what the fuck they do. It just looks like a trainwreck. If there's a VS2010 skin, that's the first thing to install.

There is a registry hack to get rid of the dreaded ALL CAPS.
2012 Full: HKCU:\Software\Microsoft\VSWinExpress\11.0\General\\SuppressUppercaseConversion DWORD 1
2012 Express: HKCU:\Software\Microsoft\VWDExpress\11.0\Genera\\SuppressUppercaseConversion DWORD 1
For 2013 replace 11.0 with 12.0.

Re:The GUI blows (2)

norite (552330) | about 10 months ago | (#45160015)

Flat, minimalist 'design' (And I use that word loosely) is all the rage these days. Take a look at google+ ...it looks fucking hideous. There are plenty of other websites following this shitty trend, miles of brilliant whitespace everywhere, no borders around anything to give it some context, It gives me a headache and ensures I won't visit again. Office 2013 is just as awful; NOT ONLY DO THE RIBBON MENUS SHOUT AT YOU, it's a bland wasteland of empty ideas, with only three colour schemes - brilliant white, off white and slightly more off white.

It all looks bad now, but in 5 years time people will be shaking their heads thinking 'Just what the fuck were we doing?'

C support stopped at ANSI 91 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45158961)

As a C programmer, not useful; MS support ANSI C 1991 and that's it.

I'm moving to Linux on my next laptop, because of the NSA issues with MS, which will also let me move forward to the modern version of C.

Too much hate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45159383)

I'm not a Microsoft fanboi, but for the sake of a bit of balance around here...

At least they've shown that their shift back to AOT compile development tools and C++ (even if adulterated with their extensions) is proving real. The more coders using generally portable languages the better. The alternative is they invest exclusively in their .NET stack.

from demos (1)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | about 10 months ago | (#45160215)

It seems that the editor changes are mainly a roll in of the powertools (I don't do client side web dev so javascript and ASP side of things don't matter to me). Makes me wonder: what will the next power tools be as it seems to be the only way I'll be getting new editor features?

I can't remember if VS2012 added it or not as my work developes mainly in 2010 but a big one I'd like to see is coding time checks on stored procedures for database projects. It annoys me that I have to migrate my database and run unit tests against my model to find out that one of my stored procs is trying to use a parameter in another proc called @Cust when it really is @Customer. This is something that is obvious if they just did a basic parse on the project contents. Probably "just" need to roll in the TSQL parser/lexer side of things from SQL.

zero cost? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45160345)

I tried to download it, then I was prompted to sign in.

Let me know when Express editions are available without the non-zero cost of the inconvenience of signing up for a Microsoft account. Previous versions of Visual Studio Express did not require a Microsoft account.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>