h2inc
Joseph M. Newcomer
particular, it translates C structures to STRUCT declarations.
However VS2008 does not appear to have it, although I always do a complete install of
everything possible. Anyone have any ideas what happened to it?
joe
Joseph M. Newcomer [MVP]
email: newc...@flounder.com
Web: http://www.flounder.com
MVP Tips: http://www.flounder.com/mvp_tips.htm
Cmplx80
Joe - I think VS2003 might have been the last version to include h2inc.
It was part of a patch which should be available at this link:
http://download.microsoft.com/download/masm61/Patch/6.14/W9XNT4/EN-US/Ml614.exe
Frank
Joseph M. Newcomer
feature that has been removed is still documented; the Microsoft documentation acts as if
this feature is still present.
So we have features that DON'T exist that ARE documented, and features that DO exist that
AREN'T documented. Very sad.
(The most recent documentation I could find still tells how to create TSRs! And if you
don't know what that stands for, consider yourselves lucky!)
joe
Liviu
>
> So we have features that DON'T exist that ARE documented [...]
In fairness to MS, this _was_ documented as a new feature ;-)
|| http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/xw102cyh.aspx
||
|| The following features are new for MASM in Visual C++ 2005: [...]
||
|| * H2INC.exe will not ship in Visual C++ 2005.
|| If you need to continue to use H2INC,
|| use H2INC.exe from a previous version of Visual C++.
That said, the latest/last MASM having been marketed/sold standalone
was the v6.1x line. It included a vintage-1995 dos-extended h2inc.exe
(those who remember TSRs may recall PharLap as well).
Liviu
Joseph M. Newcomer
Sigh. Another wrinkle in the "every version we ship is less usable than the previous
version" approach to new products.
joe
SteveR
new VS version? Do you also keep an older version handy?
-----------
Scott McPhillips [MVP]
news:%230L0GYw...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> I'm wondering, how quickly do you "old" pros jump on the bandwagon with a
> new VS version? Do you also keep an older version handy?
I skipped the 2001 and 2003 versions entirely, as did my team of 8-10
colleagues. These were the 1st and 2nd versions to use the horrible 'new'
IDE. When I do upgrade it's usually a year or so after a new version is
released. There has been almost nothing new of interest to an MFC
programmer from 1997 until the 2008 feature pack.
--
Scott McPhillips [VC++ MVP]
David Ching
> I'm wondering, how quickly do you "old" pros jump on the bandwagon with a
> new VS version? Do you also keep an older version handy?
Since we can install multiple Visual Studio's with no problem, I keep VS6,
VS2005, and VS2008 on my system. When VS2010 releases, I'll add that.
Whether I use it or not is another question....
I don't install Microsoft beta products on my system ever since a
Silverlight beta caused serious problems for which I'm still not sure my
system is not fully recovered. It's not the Visual Studio betas that are
the problem, I don't think... it's the beta of the new .NET (.NET 4 in the
case of VS2010) that does not properly uninstall/update when the RTM
releases sometimes. These .NET installers are definitely not foolproof.
Read Aaron Stebner's blog for post after post of installation issues and
hairy workarounds.
-- David
Pete Delgado
"Scott McPhillips [MVP]" <org-dot-mvps-at-scottmcp> wrote in message
news:eNj$NuwhKH...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
Just out of curiousity, what are you using from the feature pack? I use the
TR1 extensions, most notably the regex classes, but not the new classes
within MFC.
-Pete
Joseph M. Newcomer
up using them for two or three years (I cannot deliver to my clients code that will not
compile on what they are using, and that is usually several years behind any release).
Only recently, with the ability to have virtual machines, would I ever consider loading a
beta. Since "beta testing" doesn't mean "find flaws in the design" but "find bugs we
failed to find in testing", I see no reason to be an unpaid tester for Microsoft. And I
can't risk the kind of damage a beta can do to a system. I made this mistake some years
ago with a beta and will never, ever repeat it.
The biggest problem Microsoft has these days is doing really, really, REALLY bad design,
such as the VS .NET IDE or the Office Ribbon; by the time we can make comments on it, it
is far too late to point out that the design was made by someone who was, to put it
mildly, totally clueless about the task of programming, writing documents, or creating
PowerPoint presentations. So I've found the irritation factor of new products usually
more than offsets any features they can offer.
I use VS 2008 for my new internal development, but external development is still largely
based in VS2003. I appear to lose nothing by this choice. Much of my Web site contains
VS6 code and I have no motivation to update it. My most recent projects are VS2008.
While VS2010 has a C++ compiler with cool features, I can't actually use any of these cool
features in any product I deliver, because none of my clients use VS2010. Most use
VS2003, some use VS2005, and only two are using VS2008, the last time I checked. The last
VS6 holdouts have moved to VS2005 for new development, but there is no way they are going
to convert their massive base of VS6 code to anything newer (essentially, they have
learned the hard way that upgrades always have "breaking changes" and you don't break
products that are out in the field and working).
Microsoft's view that "as soon as we release a new version of VS, every programmer in the
known Universe switches to it the day after they receive the distribution disk" is
actually destructive to their credibility. Even the "open source" people make every past
version available for download, even if the version is deprecated.
Sadly, the problem of maintaining older versions is that you must install them in order;
if you install VS6 after you install VS2010, then every time you double-click a file, you
get the VS6 compiler, because the system has this quaint "file association" mechanism that
does not allow multiple versions to coexist. The fact that all solution files are now
called .sln and project files are called .vcproj, instead of encoding the version in them,
really is a total pain. In a rational world, the extension of the solution files and
project files would change on every release, so you would always launch the correct
(rather than the latest) version of VS for a project. But as we know, software evolves,
because there is little evidence of Intelligent Design anywhere.
joe
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 10:05:32 -0500, "SteveR" <maxsrussellatremovethisembarqmail.com>
wrote:
Stephen Myers
We were actively using VS 2003 while upgrading to VS2008. The file
association for .sln is to a VSLauncher which did bring up the proper
IDE. You are certainly correct that installation order is critical.
We skipped VS2005 and didn't move from VS2003 to VS2008 until last year.
It comes down to what exactly do you gain by doing the upgrade. The
profiling that was added with VS2005 is the only thing that was of much
interest to us. The migration was not free, as we have a ton of very
old code which generated various new compiler warnings and errors.
Steve
David Ching
"Stephen Myers" <""StephenMyers\"@discu...@microsoft.com"> wrote in
message news:exZvygGl...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> We skipped VS2005 and didn't move from VS2003 to VS2008 until last year.
> It comes down to what exactly do you gain by doing the upgrade. The
> profiling that was added with VS2005 is the only thing that was of much
> interest to us. The migration was not free, as we have a ton of very old
> code which generated various new compiler warnings and errors.
>
It's interesting how both you and Joe skipped VS2005 in favor of VS2008.
For C++, I find no advantage of 2008 over 2005, and in fact 2008 builds more
slowly than 2005. So my C++ projects are in 2005 and my .NET projects are
in 2008 (for .NET, there are significant advantages of 2008).
The only thing remotely interesting in VS2008 for C++ is the MFC Feature
Pack, but it is poorly implemented compared to CodeJock so I don't use it.
-- David
Stephen Myers
We decided to bite the bullet once. One of the reasons was we were
using .NET in some projects and as you say there are advantages to 2008.
We did revise our builds to use precompiled headers because of the
longer build times with 2008.
Steve
Drew
"> We decided to bite the bullet once. One of the reasons was we were
> using .NET in some projects and as you say there are advantages to 2008.
>
> We did revise our builds to use precompiled headers because of the longer
> build times with 2008.
>
> Steve
If you want to speed things up even more, and you have a multi-processor
machine, use the /MP compiler switch and watch things fly.
Drew
Giovanni Dicanio
news:#V8imkWj...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Just out of curiousity, what are you using from the feature pack? I use
> the TR1 extensions, most notably the regex classes, but not the new
> classes within MFC.
I'm not sure (I didn't verified), but I think that those extensions are
available as freely downloadable Boost code as well, and they work in VS2005
as well.
Giovanni
Giovanni Dicanio
"Scott McPhillips [MVP]" <org-dot-mvps-at-scottmcp> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:eNj$NuwhKH...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> I skipped the 2001 and 2003 versions entirely, as did my team of 8-10
> colleagues. These were the 1st and 2nd versions to use the horrible 'new'
> IDE. When I do upgrade it's usually a year or so after a new version is
> released.
This may be an interesting reading:
"There are no silver bullets..."
http://www.codewiz51.com/blog/post/2010/01/16/There-are-no-silver-bullets.aspx
Giovanni
Pete Delgado
"David Ching" <d...@remove-this.dcsoft.com> wrote in message
news:u83hjzGl...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> "Stephen Myers" <""StephenMyers\"@discu...@microsoft.com"> wrote in
> message news:exZvygGl...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> We skipped VS2005 and didn't move from VS2003 to VS2008 until last year.
>> It comes down to what exactly do you gain by doing the upgrade. The
>> profiling that was added with VS2005 is the only thing that was of much
>> interest to us. The migration was not free, as we have a ton of very old
>> code which generated various new compiler warnings and errors.
>>
>
> It's interesting how both you and Joe skipped VS2005 in favor of VS2008.
> For C++, I find no advantage of 2008 over 2005, and in fact 2008 builds
> more slowly than 2005. So my C++ projects are in 2005 and my .NET
> projects are in 2008 (for .NET, there are significant advantages of 2008).
I also hate the fact that the XML schema editor was removed from Visual
Studio 2008. Microsoft seems to believe that few people used it, but for
people like me who didn't want to take the time or trouble to type in our
schemas and instead wanted a visual representation of what we were doing, it
was invaluable. Certainly there were problems with it, but to remove it
rather than fix it is ludicrous!
I now have at least four versions of Visual Studio on my primary development
machine... Ugh!
-Pete