top | item 37633318

(no title)

sn_master | 2 years ago

Visual Studio 6 (1998) is an unappreciated piece of art for what it was back in the day and even by today's standards.

discuss

order

myk9001|2 years ago

I'd respectfully disagree on VS 6. It was OK for its time, but hardly a piece of art, in my experience.

Please excuse me copying the relevant portion from my other comment.

VS 6's support of C++ back in 2005 wasn't that great, at leat the way I remember it now.

Code navigation was very primitive, and you were lucky if it didn't consider the code too complex to offer any navigation around it at all.

Its built-in debugger often wouldn't let you inspect a string's content because it was just another pointer from the debugger's perspective.

And there was a bug, where the editor would slow down so much it would be littery unusable -- e.g., it'd take a couple seconds to react to a key stroke. The reason was it kept a file with the workspace's (solution in today's terms) code metadata and that file grew too big over time. So you had to remember to delete it regularly.

But VS 6 had a great plugin -- Visual Tomato, if memory serves -- that made things so much better in terms of code navigation/refactoring/etc.

sn_master|2 years ago

Compared to modern IDEs it won't do very well, but do you remember better alternatives back then, at least if you wanted a "friendly" UI instead of a command line one? Would you choose something different if you go back to 2005? how about 1998?

pjmlp|2 years ago

It was great for the context of 1990's IDEs, and most people would use plugins anyway.

Visual Assist being a well known one.

It isn't as if JetBrains products aren't full of plugins as well.