I wish they would dedicate more time to improving cl.exe and link.exe in terms of performance and language support and less time with these hokey team visualization gimics.
Every release since 2008 has been getting slower and slower for C++, the C compiler is awful, PGO instrumentation in Win8 is less capable, and there's no equivalents in the Windows ecosystem to gcc's likely/unlikely, oprofile, or valgrind.
It's at the point now where developing on Windows vs Linux is a serious performance and security impediment due to their withering native toolchain. But I guess nobody over there gets promoted for fixing the hard stuff.
Current VS-compiler dev here, the backend codegen team to be more precise (I actually own PGO). I wish this comment had been written in few days/weeks/months so I answer directly and talk specifics about some of the work that went into VS2013, but for now I just want you to know we've aware of all of the issues you brought up, and have either worked on or plan to work on many of them.
RE: likely/unlikely, VS has __assume(0), which isn't exactly the same thing I know, but it is something and does help. I'm actually in favor of us doing more with static annotations to bring PGO style optimizations to non-PGO builds. If you feel the same way please be louder about it, but realize there is a vocal group of people who consider static annotations harmful (and they have a large body of evidence in __forceinline backing them up).
oprofile: There is ETW/xperf, and of course a variety of instrumented profilers (both shipping and internal)
Although I do wish my team was larger, and it doesn't get all the love that some of the more flashing UI stuff does, I wouldn't go as far as to say the toolchain is withering. Some of the smartest people I know are working on my team with me on these problems.
It is never an either-or. It is always a complex mix of what customers ask for, what the strategic priorities/market realities are.
Often the problem with these queries is that there are not enough devs complaining to MSFT. No PM/engg manager is going to ignore a bug/problem if it shows up high in customer requests.
On promotions - I think it's the reverse problem. People only get promoted for working on something that's perceived to be hard.
Personally I would like to see proper C++11 support instead of playing around with C++/CX and while they are at it, either provide a native compiler for .NET or improve NGEN's optimizer for C++ performance level.
Given that Microsoft had .NET native compilers for Singularity and Windows Phone 8 .NET apps are compiled to native code, it isn't as if they don't have the tooling already available.
"hokey team visualization gimics" keep management off the teams ass, so I appreciate a little attention. Though I ultimately agree, there isn't a lot here that's scratching any of our itches.
It should be noted that features listed as included in the VS2012 Nov CTP, such as initializer lists, variadic templates, etc., should not in my view be listed. The CTP does not work via the Visual Studio interface, but only from the command line compiler. And the CTP is not included in either Update 1 or Update 2.
From the article: "I will not, in this post, be talking about many of the new VS 2013 features that are unrelated to the Application Lifecycle workflows."
It seems that the OP talked about what the blog's focus was first, then will come in later (maybe on a different blog?) to talk about anything else.
Yeah, it seems I was overly optimistic when I wrote that post on CppRocks. I was thinking that they would release another update of the CTP features pretty soon, but it doesn't look like it's happening...
Yet another Visual Studio, yet another truckload of "features" that do nothing to help day-to-day, heavy-lifting programmers. (And which probably help by adding bugs or just bloating the system). Sigh.
I am hoping they have made substantial improvements that are not mentioned in this blog post.
Note that the blog author is part of the Team Foundation Server organization, so it's natural that he's talking about those features and not the programming language and runtime features.
... though I guess if you look at the rationale behind all these features as "get people who buy into these features so tangled up in them that they can't use anything else, or reasonably port their applications to another OS", then it all makes sense.
Of course, that is the opposite of what I as a software developer want.
As someone who uses reharper to make the IDE cool, git for source control, teamcity for builds, nunit for C# tests, mocha and testacular for js tests, and a goddamn whiteboard, cards, pens, and blue-tack for "agile portfolio management", I'm not seeing a lot here that interests me.
I'm underwhelmed with the desire to suck all activities into the one tool to rule them all. Especially when it rules them from bleh TFS.
I want VS to let me write code. I want to find and manipulate text. I want it to compile fast and produce relevant warnings. I want a debugger. I want it to host duiverse plugins. That's mostly it. ALM? I'm probably doing whatever it is that you mean by that and I don't care about integrated tools for it.
I want VS to let me write code. I want to find and manipulate text. I want it to compile fast and produce relevant warnings. I want a debugger. I want it to host duiverse plugins. That's mostly it.
That's all I want Visual Studio for, too. Fortunately those things will continue to work and we can continue to ignore things like TFS and mstest.
Way way way way, WAY too soon Microsoft... most shops, including my current employer aren't even on 2012 yet... Honestly I prefer VS to be tied to desktop OS releases or SQL release or something other than yearly.
This is not a Madden game, nobody is asking for yearly updates for Visual Studio.
I find this response almost shocking. Most of HN criticizes microsoft for slow releases cycles, slow change but the Visual Studio has clearly made progress for the better by addressing UserVoice requests, integrating Git etc.
If your employer is to slow to keep updated, why should that slow MSFT down for you while the it is trying to reinvent itself, just catch up in 2015.
nobody is asking for yearly updates for Visual Studio
Ahem... I am. I would much rather have smaller more frequent updates to important tools than huge disruptive ones. Short feedback loops are a good thing.
How does it hurt, though? You say you're not running 2012 yet, so obviously you're not feeling forced to upgrade before you're ready. So why shouldn't they put out the latest bits when they've got them ready and we users can start using them when we're ready?
Seriously! My company has been keeping up with the latest stuff but I have hard time understanding what the justification was behind releasing a whole new Visual Studio version. Are there new features that won't be available in VS 2012? I guess we'll see at the Build conference.
I'm actually a bit relieved to see a new version of VS so soon. The Entity Framework team said that v6 would come out with the "New" Visual Studio and I was wondering how long that would be. Apparently it's a lot closer than I thought.
Personally, it's a bit unnerving to see a new version instead of another update so soon imho... an upgrade is nicer than having yet another version of VS installed... the VS installer installs so many bits and pieces, it's nearly impossible to get rid of all of the last version to upgrade to the new one.
I'd rather see a 2012.3 version... I'd also like to see a LOT more stability, as well as a non-building project (for external systems) that still has a pre/post-build event, but no compile step from inside VS... (mainly for projects that use other runtimes/build systems but make sense to include in a VS solution.
I know everybody is hot and bothered about C++11, but honestly I'd suggest just getting proper support for things we've needed for a decade or so before chasing the new shiny.
I was asked to renew our expiring VS licenses at my previous role, and was all but paralyzed by the bevy of options and bundles available.
What is the motivation behind having 10+ bundle and service options? Is it to trick us into buying the wrong thing, then forcing us to buy other addons that we initially didn't realize we needed? Is it an attempt to maximize sales by offering tons of bundle options to extract the maximum value out of the variety of customer needs that exist out there?
I guess shops that are even looking to buy VS are so locked into VS that we will spend the cognitive energy to figure out where the best value is for our needs, but this current method just doesn't seem elegant or efficient to me.
What is the motivation behind having 10+ bundle and service options?
Maximize revenues.
The trick is that many users will opt for the most expensive option because they don't understand or are intimidated by the marketing / licensing material and therefore make the safest choice. If you don't know what you need ( and most large corporate shops don't) you buy everything.
Having lower priced options mostly serves to hide the true costs of the product.
They don't support inline assembly because it messes with the register allocation in their compiler. It's likely they'll never support it because of this. :(
Description: An application error occurred on the server. The current custom error settings for this application prevent the details of the application error from being viewed remotely (for security reasons). It could, however, be viewed by browsers running on the local server machine.
Details: To enable the details of this specific error message to be viewable on remote machines, please create a <customErrors> tag within a "web.config" configuration file located in the root directory of the current web application. This <customErrors> tag should then have its "mode" attribute set to "Off".
[+] [-] CoolGuySteve|13 years ago|reply
Every release since 2008 has been getting slower and slower for C++, the C compiler is awful, PGO instrumentation in Win8 is less capable, and there's no equivalents in the Windows ecosystem to gcc's likely/unlikely, oprofile, or valgrind.
It's at the point now where developing on Windows vs Linux is a serious performance and security impediment due to their withering native toolchain. But I guess nobody over there gets promoted for fixing the hard stuff.
[+] [-] terrymah|13 years ago|reply
RE: likely/unlikely, VS has __assume(0), which isn't exactly the same thing I know, but it is something and does help. I'm actually in favor of us doing more with static annotations to bring PGO style optimizations to non-PGO builds. If you feel the same way please be louder about it, but realize there is a vocal group of people who consider static annotations harmful (and they have a large body of evidence in __forceinline backing them up).
oprofile: There is ETW/xperf, and of course a variety of instrumented profilers (both shipping and internal)
Although I do wish my team was larger, and it doesn't get all the love that some of the more flashing UI stuff does, I wouldn't go as far as to say the toolchain is withering. Some of the smartest people I know are working on my team with me on these problems.
[+] [-] sriramk|13 years ago|reply
It is never an either-or. It is always a complex mix of what customers ask for, what the strategic priorities/market realities are.
Often the problem with these queries is that there are not enough devs complaining to MSFT. No PM/engg manager is going to ignore a bug/problem if it shows up high in customer requests.
On promotions - I think it's the reverse problem. People only get promoted for working on something that's perceived to be hard.
[+] [-] echohack|13 years ago|reply
Gimmicks:
- Popout explorer windows (So you can get the old style Pending Changes window, if you like)
- Make comments and discussions on code through web UI
- New release management plugin
- “Team rooms” allow your team to collaborate on code
"I'm OK with this" improvements:
- “Indicators” in code that give you info about blocks of code
- Cloud load testing
- More agile portfolio management options
- Test cases can be worked on through web UI
Real Improvements:
:(
[+] [-] pjmlp|13 years ago|reply
Personally I would like to see proper C++11 support instead of playing around with C++/CX and while they are at it, either provide a native compiler for .NET or improve NGEN's optimizer for C++ performance level.
Given that Microsoft had .NET native compilers for Singularity and Windows Phone 8 .NET apps are compiled to native code, it isn't as if they don't have the tooling already available.
[+] [-] darkchasma|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TylerE|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FactoryFactory|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] GravityWell|13 years ago|reply
It should be noted that features listed as included in the VS2012 Nov CTP, such as initializer lists, variadic templates, etc., should not in my view be listed. The CTP does not work via the Visual Studio interface, but only from the command line compiler. And the CTP is not included in either Update 1 or Update 2.
Meanwhile GCC and Clang are both feature complete: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTM1N... http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/GCC-4-8-1-is-C-11-fea...
[+] [-] icesoldier|13 years ago|reply
It seems that the OP talked about what the blog's focus was first, then will come in later (maybe on a different blog?) to talk about anything else.
[+] [-] SupremumLimit|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jblow|13 years ago|reply
I am hoping they have made substantial improvements that are not mentioned in this blog post.
[+] [-] kvb|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jblow|13 years ago|reply
Of course, that is the opposite of what I as a software developer want.
[+] [-] Permit|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sixothree|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ksk|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gokhan|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SideburnsOfDoom|13 years ago|reply
I'm underwhelmed with the desire to suck all activities into the one tool to rule them all. Especially when it rules them from bleh TFS.
I want VS to let me write code. I want to find and manipulate text. I want it to compile fast and produce relevant warnings. I want a debugger. I want it to host duiverse plugins. That's mostly it. ALM? I'm probably doing whatever it is that you mean by that and I don't care about integrated tools for it.
[+] [-] MartinCron|13 years ago|reply
That's all I want Visual Studio for, too. Fortunately those things will continue to work and we can continue to ignore things like TFS and mstest.
[+] [-] evo_9|13 years ago|reply
This is not a Madden game, nobody is asking for yearly updates for Visual Studio.
[+] [-] samirahmed|13 years ago|reply
If your employer is to slow to keep updated, why should that slow MSFT down for you while the it is trying to reinvent itself, just catch up in 2015.
[+] [-] MartinCron|13 years ago|reply
Ahem... I am. I would much rather have smaller more frequent updates to important tools than huge disruptive ones. Short feedback loops are a good thing.
[+] [-] glhaynes|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vyrotek|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pjmlp|13 years ago|reply
Sadly it seems to be the way it is going. Most likely driven by Windows 8.1.
[+] [-] justncase80|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Gazk|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vyrotek|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tracker1|13 years ago|reply
I'd rather see a 2012.3 version... I'd also like to see a LOT more stability, as well as a non-building project (for external systems) that still has a pre/post-build event, but no compile step from inside VS... (mainly for projects that use other runtimes/build systems but make sense to include in a VS solution.
[+] [-] angersock|13 years ago|reply
I know everybody is hot and bothered about C++11, but honestly I'd suggest just getting proper support for things we've needed for a decade or so before chasing the new shiny.
[+] [-] pjmlp|13 years ago|reply
http://herbsutter.com/2012/05/03/reader-qa-what-about-vc-and...
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] MichaelGG|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] volandovengo|13 years ago|reply
ALM is that is where the money is. Higher-ups in orgs are much more willing to pay for oversight and management features than language features.
[+] [-] hkmurakami|13 years ago|reply
What is the motivation behind having 10+ bundle and service options? Is it to trick us into buying the wrong thing, then forcing us to buy other addons that we initially didn't realize we needed? Is it an attempt to maximize sales by offering tons of bundle options to extract the maximum value out of the variety of customer needs that exist out there?
I guess shops that are even looking to buy VS are so locked into VS that we will spend the cognitive energy to figure out where the best value is for our needs, but this current method just doesn't seem elegant or efficient to me.
[+] [-] forgotAgain|13 years ago|reply
Maximize revenues.
The trick is that many users will opt for the most expensive option because they don't understand or are intimidated by the marketing / licensing material and therefore make the safest choice. If you don't know what you need ( and most large corporate shops don't) you buy everything.
Having lower priced options mostly serves to hide the true costs of the product.
[+] [-] lawnchair_larry|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CoolGuySteve|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Associat0r|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wcdolphin|13 years ago|reply
Server Error in '/' Application.
Runtime Error
Description: An application error occurred on the server. The current custom error settings for this application prevent the details of the application error from being viewed remotely (for security reasons). It could, however, be viewed by browsers running on the local server machine.
Details: To enable the details of this specific error message to be viewable on remote machines, please create a <customErrors> tag within a "web.config" configuration file located in the root directory of the current web application. This <customErrors> tag should then have its "mode" attribute set to "Off".
<!-- Web.Config Configuration File -->
<configuration> <system.web> <customErrors mode="Off"/> </system.web> </configuration>
[+] [-] sergiotapia|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Create|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] forgotAgain|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chiph|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] r4vik|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] frozenport|13 years ago|reply
I can std::thread(a,b,c,d,e,f,g) more than 5 arguments?
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] lenkite|13 years ago|reply