Microsoft Visual Studio's interface feels so kiddy. It's like Microsoft Word for Programmers.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-24 20:37
At least it has lambdas.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-24 21:03
It's somewhere between Java and FIOC.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-24 21:05
Aside from your non sequitur in jumping from a language to an IDE, you are right in observing that VS's interface is an industry-standard high-usability advanced environment with many innovative and productivity-enhancing features.
It is not necessary to use Visual Studio to program in C#. Use MonoDevelop or ed if you like.
Thankfully the language has lambdas now, but I still wish it had conveniences like let ... in and where, and tuples. A set of functional primitives to go with the new language features would be nice too. (LINQ is part-way there)
I haven't used Java, but it sounds dreadful compared to C#. I also hate the idea of a one-public-class-per-file restriction.
I used to disregard C# as Microsoft's copy of Java, but now that I've actually used it for a while in my job I must admit that it isn't all that bad. In fact it's more workable than Java in many parts.
This is not Visual Basic! This is the Sea Octothorpe!
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-25 12:37
>>8 I also hate the idea of a one-public-class-per-file restriction.
Why? Because you can't figure out how to open more than one file at a time in vi?
Java is full of painfully braindead design decisions, but that's the least of them.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-25 12:40
>>11
One-public-class-per-file can't compare to the elegance of C++, which allows complete separation between interface and implementation.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-25 12:45
>>12
Having to compile megabytes of headers with every file can't compare to the elegance of Java, which enforces clean separation of concepts and doesn't recompile megabytes of headers with every file.
>>15
No, it isn't. What the hell are you talking about?
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-25 13:24
>>17
Explain it, then. It doesn't make a lick of sense to me.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-25 13:28
>>18
Explain what? I don't know what's your problem with it.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-25 14:30
>>19
How it works. If it were simple, you would have explained it by now, so I can only conclude that it is as retarded as it seems. Don't bother explaining now though—my questions have been answered perfectly.
>>21
It's not vague at all. It's "explain the fucking system for editing multiple files in vi". That's pretty specific. For example, in Emacs one opens files with C-x f, then switches buffers with C-x b. A window can be split with C-x 2, windows deleted with C-x 0, and cycled through with C-x o. :next, my ass.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-25 16:22
>>22
All file/buffer related commands: :h edit-files
All window related commands: :h windows
All tabpage related commands: :h tabpages
Stuff that you asked:
Open file: :e <filename>
Jump to buffer: :b<buffer-number>
Jump to buffer: :b (<filename>|<buffer-number>)
Next buffer: :bn
Split horizontally: C-w s
Split vertically: C-w v
>>40
I use Kate. It's nice, keys can be fully, painlessly customized, it can be made to support CUA (and does by default) instead of some piss old, completely retarded convention, (by editing config and session files) it can be uncluttered to the point it's like Kwrite with several files (I get rid of all the bullshit toolbars and panes wasting visual space), and it's powerful enough to do the job. Even if I theoretically *could* get pretty-emacs to work like this, it'd take two life expectancies to reach that; if I'm going to use emacs and make it not suck as it horribly does by default, I might as well write my own editor; it's going to be faster and lots of fun.
My issues with it are that it lacks better script integration, and that I have to add scripts to duplicate lines and move lines above and below. I would also like Ctrl+Up/Down to move the cursor as well as the screen.
>>46-47 Even if I theoretically *could* get pretty-emacs to work like this, it'd take two life expectancies to reach that; if I'm going to use emacs and make it not suck as it horribly does by default, I might as well write my own editor; it's going to be faster and lots of fun.
All I did to Kate was to unclutter the UI and to write three 6 line Perl scripts that use DCOP to do what I need, then I bind them to keys in Kate's config.
In that time, I could have got emacs to... stop to annoy me with the way it handles lines and cursor movement, perhaps. Key bindings would take twice as much, and I guess they'd still suck. Colours, another day. And who knows what else's waiting for me in emacs config; I spent an hour swimming through its immense universe of options and I ran away scared.
correct if wrong but edit.com links to qbasic.exe (edit.exe was the standalone version until msdos 4 or 5 when microsoft realised the redundancy slash moved from gwb to qb) and any educated computer user knows that qbasic.exe is BEST FUCKING THING EVER
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-27 1:49
>>49
The funny thing is EDIT.COM is still there in Vista. Still says it's the "MS-DOS Editor." Even has the 1995 copyright date.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-27 1:54
>>49
edit.com didn't exist until MS-DOS 5, it was a stub that started QBasic until MS-DOS 7, when they introduced the standalone version. it wouldn't be so bad if it didn't add 9000 blank lines to the end of any file I edit with it. >_>
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-27 2:30
I wish they had ported edit.com and edlin.exe over to Vista x64. It would have been a much better use of their time than implementing the shitfest that is UAC.
>>49-51
Yeah, there are two editors by the name of "MS-DOS Editor". The one that was just a stub was rather awful, being limited to 255-byte-long lines and only being able to edit files that fit into lower memory. The standalone is a lot better -- it adds binary mode (you can do simple hex, or rather, decimal editing with it), a less cluttered menu system, and the ability to open files up to 4MB using some sort of wierd virtual memory system. I still use it quite a bit.
Brief research with my array of virtual machines shows that
* Edlin and GWBasic 3.22 come with MS-DOS 3.30.
* Edit 1.0 and QBasic 1.0 come with MS-DOS 5. Edit will not run without qbasic.exe present [hence same version number?]
* Edit 0.9.019 and QBasic 1.1 come with MS-DOS 6.22, seem to run independently of one another.
* Edit 2.0.026 and CScript 5.0 come with Windows 98SE/MS-DOS 7.10, run independently of one another.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-27 3:55
MS-DOS 6.0 doesn't have a separate EDIT. It is simply a stub for QBASIC.EXE.
FreeDOS edit is a bloated piece of shit. Almost 200K, and even packed it's still 70K. MS's was a little over 64K, not packed, if I remember correctly. It's also missing binary mode, and for some reason when I tried the EXE on XP, ntvdm.exe went to 100% CPU and stayed there. MS edit doesn't do that. Back then, I guess MS did have better programmers.
>>59
ClearType is not the bomb, but (at least on Windows XP) you can use the old renderer and Lucida Console sized 14 and over, which will yield a nice, crisp, clear, Unicode-enabled font on the Windows console.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-28 15:12
>>57 MS-DOS 6.0 doesn't have a separate QBASIC. It is simply a stub for EDIT.EXE.
fixed