By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
444,137 Members | 2,242 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 444,137 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

VS.NET is 10 times slower than VB6

P: n/a
Hello everybody,

I just wondered if anybody else has noticed this?

It takes around 6 seconds to start debugging a very simple ASPX page
with VS.NET whereas VB6 takes under 0.5 seconds, even with
very large and complex projects.

This is a real shame :(

John Rivers

Nov 19 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
87 Replies


P: n/a
John,

Are you saying that you are developing web applications with VB6?

Eliyahu

"John Rivers" <fi*****@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@o13g2000cwo.googlegr oups.com...
Hello everybody,

I just wondered if anybody else has noticed this?

It takes around 6 seconds to start debugging a very simple ASPX page
with VS.NET whereas VB6 takes under 0.5 seconds, even with
very large and complex projects.

This is a real shame :(

John Rivers

Nov 19 '05 #2

P: n/a
John :

I can count to 3 real fast.
To count to 100 takes a little longer.

Bottom line : debugging speed isn't everything.

btw, how did you debug an ASPX file with VB6 ?

;-)

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"John Rivers" <fi*****@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@o13g2000cwo.googlegr oups.com...
Hello everybody,

I just wondered if anybody else has noticed this?

It takes around 6 seconds to start debugging a very simple ASPX page
with VS.NET whereas VB6 takes under 0.5 seconds, even with
very large and complex projects.

This is a real shame :(

John Rivers

Nov 19 '05 #3

P: n/a
"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:%2******************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
btw, how did you debug an ASPX file with VB6 ?


Wow - we're in the presence of genius... ;-)
Nov 19 '05 #4

P: n/a
Before ASP.NET, it was standard practice to put your business logic,
data layer, and what we currently call CodeBehind into a VB .dll and
call it via COM. It would give you an order of magnitude performance
improvement as well as letting you develop in a real IDE. You could
fire up your project in debug mode by hitting F5, just like you can
today.

So yeah, he's saying he has developed web applications with VB6. If
you were in the industry more than 3 years ago, you probaby would have
too.

Jason Kester
Expat Software Consulting Services
http://www.expatsoftware.com/

Nov 19 '05 #5

P: n/a
you guys sure can confuse a poor little troll

i have timed it as 6 seconds between pressing F5 and the page actually
running

at $50 per hour 6 seconds is about 8 cents

that is real money!

it is just not acceptable performance - somebody agree with me!

Nov 19 '05 #6

P: n/a
How complicated are the applications you are comparing? I think you'll
find that 6 seconds remains pretty much constant as you scale up your
project. It's just the overhead involved in restarting IIS.

The last large VB/ASP project I worked on would take about 10 seconds
to fire up the debugger. I have an ASP.NET project of similar
magnitude for another client that takes about the same amount of time.
For tiny "Hello World" projects, I'd agree that VB/ASP is probably
faster. But in real world situations I've never noticed a difference.
As to whether it's acceptable to wait 6 seconds to debug? I'll have to
defer comment on that, since I can still recall a time where I'd queue
up a batch job when I left at night and hope it was finished by the
time I got to the office in the morning!

Jason Kester
Expat Software Consulting Services
http://www.expatsoftware.com/

Nov 19 '05 #7

P: n/a
I have two VB6 groups which are 9mb and 12mb of source code
I press F5 and I get a running app in under 1 second.
Close debugging takes 1 second.
I can compile a whole group in about 35 seconds.

With VS.NET i'm looking at 6 seconds plus to start the app
and about 4 seconds to close it again (that is hello world)

I bought a new computer with 1Gb ram just to run it and its still super
slow.

Its as bad as the java compilers.

jasonkester wrote:
How complicated are the applications you are comparing? I think you'll
find that 6 seconds remains pretty much constant as you scale up your
project. It's just the overhead involved in restarting IIS.

The last large VB/ASP project I worked on would take about 10 seconds
to fire up the debugger. I have an ASP.NET project of similar
magnitude for another client that takes about the same amount of time.
For tiny "Hello World" projects, I'd agree that VB/ASP is probably
faster. But in real world situations I've never noticed a difference.
As to whether it's acceptable to wait 6 seconds to debug? I'll have to
defer comment on that, since I can still recall a time where I'd queue
up a batch job when I left at night and hope it was finished by the
time I got to the office in the morning!

Jason Kester
Expat Software Consulting Services
http://www.expatsoftware.com/


Nov 19 '05 #8

P: n/a
re:
it is just not acceptable performance - somebody agree with me!
You're not talking about performance. You're talking about debugging.
"Debugging" and "performance throughput" are two different animals.

A 6 second debug response seems quite fast to me, considering that you're
dealing with much more complex code than VB6 ever had to deal with.

Get over it. VB6 for web apps is dead
because it's not as efficient as VB.NET.

For desktop apps you might have a point, but for web apps
VB.NET gets at least 200% more throughput than VB6 ever got.

Who cares if VB.NET debugging takes 6 seconds to start up!
All I care about is that my web *clients* get more throughput.

re: at $50 per hour 6 seconds is about 8 cents
If you're asking these questions
and you're getting $50 an hour...you're overpaid.

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"John Rivers" <fi*****@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com... you guys sure can confuse a poor little troll

i have timed it as 6 seconds between pressing F5 and the page actually
running

at $50 per hour 6 seconds is about 8 cents

that is real money!

it is just not acceptable performance - somebody agree with me!

Nov 19 '05 #9

P: n/a
"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:eD**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
If you're asking these questions
and you're getting $50 an hour...you're overpaid.


ROTFLMAO!
Nov 19 '05 #10

P: n/a
interesting logic
i should be paid less if i question
the bad performance of vs.net ide?

so if you pick up your new car
and it does 0-60mph in 45 seconds
whilst red lining at 7000rpm
you wouldn't question that?

in my experience if a computer is
at 100% cpu for 6 seconds just to
output "hello world" to a browser
something is very wrong indeed

i wouldn't be confident to use
such a system if my living depended on it
would you?

especially when you have a vb6 based system
that has run quickly and bug free for 3 years
why would you switch to such a system?

as most experienced developers will agree
there is more value in easy to maintain
code (and that includes a good ide) than
raw performance

especially when the bottleneck in most
applications isn't the runtime - it is
usually something else

Nov 19 '05 #11

P: n/a
re:
in my experience if a computer is at 100% cpu for 6 seconds just to
output "hello world" to a browser something is very wrong indeed
So, now you weren't "debugging" ? You were outputting "hello world" ?

Your original post stated that :
It takes around 6 seconds to start debugging a very simple ASPX page
with VS.NET whereas VB6 takes under 0.5 seconds, even with
very large and complex projects.
Which one was it ?
Were you "debugging" or were you outputting "hello world" ?

Liars need to have a good memory, if their lies are going to be believed.

Here's a page that demonstrates that you are lying through your teeth :

http://asp.net.do/test/helloworld.aspx

That page has a button, a label, a textbox and one click event procedure.

I added two Trace.Write statements at "Begin PreInit" and "End Render".

Click on the link above, and see how long it took
for ASP.NET to process and render helloworld.aspx.

Hint : it's about 1.5 milliseconds, not 6 seconds as you claim.

You are a lying troll!

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"John Rivers" <fi*****@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com... interesting logic
i should be paid less if i question
the bad performance of vs.net ide?

so if you pick up your new car
and it does 0-60mph in 45 seconds
whilst red lining at 7000rpm
you wouldn't question that?

in my experience if a computer is
at 100% cpu for 6 seconds just to
output "hello world" to a browser
something is very wrong indeed

i wouldn't be confident to use
such a system if my living depended on it
would you?

especially when you have a vb6 based system
that has run quickly and bug free for 3 years
why would you switch to such a system?

as most experienced developers will agree
there is more value in easy to maintain
code (and that includes a good ide) than
raw performance

especially when the bottleneck in most
applications isn't the runtime - it is
usually something else

Nov 19 '05 #12

P: n/a
Jason,

You are talking about debugging the business logic module. If I understood
you correctly, you debugged it in a Windows applicaction. To compare
debugging in Windows and web environment is like comparing apples to
oranges, isn't it? BTW in asp.net you also can debug yopur business logic in
a similar way.

Eliyahu

"jasonkester" <ja*********@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:11*********************@g43g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
Before ASP.NET, it was standard practice to put your business logic,
data layer, and what we currently call CodeBehind into a VB .dll and
call it via COM. It would give you an order of magnitude performance
improvement as well as letting you develop in a real IDE. You could
fire up your project in debug mode by hitting F5, just like you can
today.

So yeah, he's saying he has developed web applications with VB6. If
you were in the industry more than 3 years ago, you probaby would have
too.

Jason Kester
Expat Software Consulting Services
http://www.expatsoftware.com/

Nov 19 '05 #13

P: n/a
John Rivers wrote:
Hello everybody,

I just wondered if anybody else has noticed this?

It takes around 6 seconds to start debugging a very simple ASPX page
with VS.NET whereas VB6 takes under 0.5 seconds, even with
very large and complex projects.

This is a real shame :(

John Rivers


Of course it's slower. It's all being *compiled*, rather than
interpreted. Before it can start, all of the code behind has to be
compiled into a DLL, and then the start page (or possibly a batch of
pages, depends on some settings) have to be compiled. With the result
that once you're up and running and the pages you're using are
compiled, access to them is a lot quicker.

As opposed to ASP attitude of "we'll interpret it afresh every time" -
which only needs a text file on the file system, but is going to be
orders of magnitude slower for typical normal usage, and the VB6
attitude of "I'll start running your program fine, but there may be a
massive chunk of it that can't actually compile - we'll find out when
you get there". Hence the seperate Ctrl-F5 method of starting debugging
which takes a lot longer (and which was the worst bit, for me, of
adapting to VB.NET - Starting a program with Ctrl-F5, and watching it
zoom past all of my breakpoints)

Damien

Nov 19 '05 #14

P: n/a
ok you are right

technology that is 10 years advanced SHOULD run slower, not faster

that is progress right?

that's right

well done
Juan T. Llibre wrote:
re:
in my experience if a computer is at 100% cpu for 6 seconds just to
output "hello world" to a browser something is very wrong indeed


So, now you weren't "debugging" ? You were outputting "hello world" ?

Your original post stated that :
It takes around 6 seconds to start debugging a very simple ASPX page
with VS.NET whereas VB6 takes under 0.5 seconds, even with
very large and complex projects.


Which one was it ?
Were you "debugging" or were you outputting "hello world" ?

Liars need to have a good memory, if their lies are going to be believed.

Here's a page that demonstrates that you are lying through your teeth :

http://asp.net.do/test/helloworld.aspx

That page has a button, a label, a textbox and one click event procedure.

I added two Trace.Write statements at "Begin PreInit" and "End Render".

Click on the link above, and see how long it took
for ASP.NET to process and render helloworld.aspx.

Hint : it's about 1.5 milliseconds, not 6 seconds as you claim.

You are a lying troll!

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"John Rivers" <fi*****@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
interesting logic
i should be paid less if i question
the bad performance of vs.net ide?

so if you pick up your new car
and it does 0-60mph in 45 seconds
whilst red lining at 7000rpm
you wouldn't question that?

in my experience if a computer is
at 100% cpu for 6 seconds just to
output "hello world" to a browser
something is very wrong indeed

i wouldn't be confident to use
such a system if my living depended on it
would you?

especially when you have a vb6 based system
that has run quickly and bug free for 3 years
why would you switch to such a system?

as most experienced developers will agree
there is more value in easy to maintain
code (and that includes a good ide) than
raw performance

especially when the bottleneck in most
applications isn't the runtime - it is
usually something else


Nov 19 '05 #15

P: n/a
You still haven't answered.
Were you outputting a page, or were you debugging ?

First you said you were debugging.
Then you said it took 6 seconds to *output* a page.

I proved to you that it doesn't take 6 seconds to output
a "Hello World" page. It only takes about one millisecond.

So, answer my question, instead of using evasive tactics.

Were you lying...or were you confused ?

I really hate to say this, but you *really* look like a troll.

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"John Rivers" <fi*****@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:11*********************@z14g2000cwz.googlegro ups.com...
ok you are right

technology that is 10 years advanced SHOULD run slower, not faster

that is progress right?

that's right

well done
Juan T. Llibre wrote:
re:
in my experience if a computer is at 100% cpu for 6 seconds just to
output "hello world" to a browser something is very wrong indeed


So, now you weren't "debugging" ? You were outputting "hello world" ?

Your original post stated that :
It takes around 6 seconds to start debugging a very simple ASPX page
with VS.NET whereas VB6 takes under 0.5 seconds, even with
very large and complex projects.


Which one was it ?
Were you "debugging" or were you outputting "hello world" ?

Liars need to have a good memory, if their lies are going to be believed.

Here's a page that demonstrates that you are lying through your teeth :

http://asp.net.do/test/helloworld.aspx

That page has a button, a label, a textbox and one click event procedure.

I added two Trace.Write statements at "Begin PreInit" and "End Render".

Click on the link above, and see how long it took
for ASP.NET to process and render helloworld.aspx.

Hint : it's about 1.5 milliseconds, not 6 seconds as you claim.

You are a lying troll!

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"John Rivers" <fi*****@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
interesting logic
i should be paid less if i question
the bad performance of vs.net ide?

so if you pick up your new car
and it does 0-60mph in 45 seconds
whilst red lining at 7000rpm
you wouldn't question that?

in my experience if a computer is
at 100% cpu for 6 seconds just to
output "hello world" to a browser
something is very wrong indeed

i wouldn't be confident to use
such a system if my living depended on it
would you?

especially when you have a vb6 based system
that has run quickly and bug free for 3 years
why would you switch to such a system?

as most experienced developers will agree
there is more value in easy to maintain
code (and that includes a good ide) than
raw performance

especially when the bottleneck in most
applications isn't the runtime - it is
usually something else

Nov 19 '05 #16

P: n/a
I am discussing debugging performance.

Debugging in VS.NET is much much slower than VB6.

That is a fact.

My point is that it is not acceptable to have new technology that
takes 20 to 30 times longer to start debugging than the 10 year old
technology it is replacing.

VS.NET is supposed to be a tool for increasing developers productivity.

It should debug much faster.

Anybody who can disagree with that is a fool.

Nov 19 '05 #17

P: n/a
Yadda, yadda.
Thank you for clarifying that you were not referring
to outputting a page. You were referring to debugging it.

You made two confusing, contradictory, statements.

Now, I ask you :

What's the use of debugging in 1/2 second instead of 6 seconds,
if the end result is a VB6 web application which is 1/3 as fast
as a comparable ASP.NET application ?

Using VB6 for a web app, instead of VB.NET/ASP.NET,
means you have to take a huge performance hit.

I'd rather have my developers spend a few more seconds
when debugging a page, if the end result is an ASP.NET app
which performs 3 times as fast as a VB6 web app.

What do you think about that ?

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"John Rivers" <fi*****@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@g43g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
I am discussing debugging performance.

Debugging in VS.NET is much much slower than VB6.

That is a fact.

My point is that it is not acceptable to have new technology that
takes 20 to 30 times longer to start debugging than the 10 year old
technology it is replacing.

VS.NET is supposed to be a tool for increasing developers productivity.

It should debug much faster.

Anybody who can disagree with that is a fool.

Nov 19 '05 #18

P: n/a
And, btw, your subject line was quite misleading.

VS.NET is *not* "10 times slower than VB6".

It might debug a bit slower than VB6 but, on the performance end,
it produces web apps which outpace -by far- anything VB6 can offer.

I'd rather have that.

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"John Rivers" <fi*****@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@g43g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
I am discussing debugging performance.

Debugging in VS.NET is much much slower than VB6.

That is a fact.

My point is that it is not acceptable to have new technology that
takes 20 to 30 times longer to start debugging than the 10 year old
technology it is replacing.

VS.NET is supposed to be a tool for increasing developers productivity.

It should debug much faster.

Anybody who can disagree with that is a fool.

Nov 19 '05 #19

P: n/a
Eliyahu Goldin wrote:
You are talking about debugging the business logic module. If I understood
you correctly, you debugged it in a Windows applicaction.


Sorry if I was unclear. In this setup, you would build a COM .DLL in
Visual Basic, and debug it by attaching to the ASPNET process. So it
wasn't quite the same as simply firing up a windows form in the
debugger.

That's not to say it was particularly elegant or fun. VB had a habit
of leaving stale .dlls in the GAC, so you would occasionally find
yourself furiously stepping over the line "x=4" and watching in rage
and disbelief as the value in the watch window stayed at 0.

In short, I started porting all my clients to ASP.NET on day one, and
have not looked back.

Jason Kester
Expat Software Consulting Services
http://www.expatsoftware.com/

Nov 19 '05 #20

P: n/a
> technology that is 10 years advanced SHOULD run slower, not faster

Technology that is 10 years advanced has 100's of times the functionality of
Technology that is 10 years behind it. Functionality requires more computer
resources. Therefore, the technology, run on the same hardware as the older
technology, certainly will run slower. However, as Moore's law points out,
machine hardware doubles in capacity every 5 years, so, comparing apples to
apples, it runs at an acceptable pace with the correct (current) hardware.
Of course, the older technology will run faster on the more current
hardware, but will do 100's of times less than the new technology. That is,
as they say, the way things work.
that is progress right?
You are a programmer, right? You should know these things.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
Paranoia is just a state of mind.

"John Rivers" <fi*****@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:11*********************@z14g2000cwz.googlegro ups.com...
ok you are right

technology that is 10 years advanced SHOULD run slower, not faster

that is progress right?

that's right

well done
Juan T. Llibre wrote: re:
in my experience if a computer is at 100% cpu for 6 seconds just to
output "hello world" to a browser something is very wrong indeed


So, now you weren't "debugging" ? You were outputting "hello world" ?

Your original post stated that :
It takes around 6 seconds to start debugging a very simple ASPX page
with VS.NET whereas VB6 takes under 0.5 seconds, even with
very large and complex projects.


Which one was it ?
Were you "debugging" or were you outputting "hello world" ?

Liars need to have a good memory, if their lies are going to be believed.

Here's a page that demonstrates that you are lying through your teeth :

http://asp.net.do/test/helloworld.aspx

That page has a button, a label, a textbox and one click event procedure.

I added two Trace.Write statements at "Begin PreInit" and "End Render".

Click on the link above, and see how long it took
for ASP.NET to process and render helloworld.aspx.

Hint : it's about 1.5 milliseconds, not 6 seconds as you claim.

You are a lying troll!

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"John Rivers" <fi*****@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
interesting logic
i should be paid less if i question
the bad performance of vs.net ide?

so if you pick up your new car
and it does 0-60mph in 45 seconds
whilst red lining at 7000rpm
you wouldn't question that?

in my experience if a computer is
at 100% cpu for 6 seconds just to
output "hello world" to a browser
something is very wrong indeed

i wouldn't be confident to use
such a system if my living depended on it
would you?

especially when you have a vb6 based system
that has run quickly and bug free for 3 years
why would you switch to such a system?

as most experienced developers will agree
there is more value in easy to maintain
code (and that includes a good ide) than
raw performance

especially when the bottleneck in most
applications isn't the runtime - it is
usually something else

Nov 19 '05 #21

P: n/a

"The observation made in 1965 by Gordon Moore, co-founder of Intel, that
the number of transistors per square inch on integrated circuits had doubled
every year since the integrated circuit was invented. Moore predicted that
this trend would continue for the foreseeable future. In subsequent years,
the pace slowed down a bit, but data density has doubled approximately every
18 months, and this is the current definition of Moore's Law, which Moore
himself has blessed. Most experts, including Moore himself, expect Moore's
Law to hold for at least another two decades."

Just to say that its not 5 years but 1.5 years.

Cheers,
Tom Pester
technology that is 10 years advanced SHOULD run slower, not faster

Technology that is 10 years advanced has 100's of times the
functionality of Technology that is 10 years behind it. Functionality
requires more computer resources. Therefore, the technology, run on
the same hardware as the older technology, certainly will run slower.
However, as Moore's law points out, machine hardware doubles in
capacity every 5 years, so, comparing apples to apples, it runs at an
acceptable pace with the correct (current) hardware. Of course, the
older technology will run faster on the more current hardware, but
will do 100's of times less than the new technology. That is, as they
say, the way things work.
that is progress right?

You are a programmer, right? You should know these things.

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
Paranoia is just a state of mind.
"John Rivers" <fi*****@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:11*********************@z14g2000cwz.googlegro ups.com... ok you
are right

technology that is 10 years advanced SHOULD run slower, not faster

that is progress right?

that's right

well done

Juan T. Llibre wrote:
re:
in my experience if a computer is at 100% cpu for 6 seconds just to
output "hello world" to a browser something is very wrong indeed

So, now you weren't "debugging" ? You were outputting "hello world" ?

Your original post stated that :
It takes around 6 seconds to start debugging a very simple ASPX page
with VS.NET whereas VB6 takes under 0.5 seconds, even with
very large and complex projects.

Which one was it ?
Were you "debugging" or were you outputting "hello world" ?
Liars need to have a good memory, if their lies are going to be
believed.

Here's a page that demonstrates that you are lying through your teeth
:

http://asp.net.do/test/helloworld.aspx

That page has a button, a label, a textbox and one click event
procedure.

I added two Trace.Write statements at "Begin PreInit" and "End
Render".

Click on the link above, and see how long it took
for ASP.NET to process and render helloworld.aspx.
Hint : it's about 1.5 milliseconds, not 6 seconds as you claim.

You are a lying troll!

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================
"John Rivers" <fi*****@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
interesting logic
i should be paid less if i question
the bad performance of vs.net ide?
so if you pick up your new car
and it does 0-60mph in 45 seconds
whilst red lining at 7000rpm
you wouldn't question that?
in my experience if a computer is
at 100% cpu for 6 seconds just to
output "hello world" to a browser
something is very wrong indeed
i wouldn't be confident to use
such a system if my living depended on it
would you?
especially when you have a vb6 based system
that has run quickly and bug free for 3 years
why would you switch to such a system?
as most experienced developers will agree
there is more value in easy to maintain
code (and that includes a good ide) than
raw performance
especially when the bottleneck in most
applications isn't the runtime - it is
usually something else

Nov 19 '05 #22

P: n/a
Can I have 8 cents.

"John Rivers" wrote:
ok you are right

technology that is 10 years advanced SHOULD run slower, not faster

that is progress right?

that's right

well done
Juan T. Llibre wrote:
re:
in my experience if a computer is at 100% cpu for 6 seconds just to
output "hello world" to a browser something is very wrong indeed


So, now you weren't "debugging" ? You were outputting "hello world" ?

Your original post stated that :
It takes around 6 seconds to start debugging a very simple ASPX page
with VS.NET whereas VB6 takes under 0.5 seconds, even with
very large and complex projects.


Which one was it ?
Were you "debugging" or were you outputting "hello world" ?

Liars need to have a good memory, if their lies are going to be believed.

Here's a page that demonstrates that you are lying through your teeth :

http://asp.net.do/test/helloworld.aspx

That page has a button, a label, a textbox and one click event procedure.

I added two Trace.Write statements at "Begin PreInit" and "End Render".

Click on the link above, and see how long it took
for ASP.NET to process and render helloworld.aspx.

Hint : it's about 1.5 milliseconds, not 6 seconds as you claim.

You are a lying troll!

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"John Rivers" <fi*****@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
interesting logic
i should be paid less if i question
the bad performance of vs.net ide?

so if you pick up your new car
and it does 0-60mph in 45 seconds
whilst red lining at 7000rpm
you wouldn't question that?

in my experience if a computer is
at 100% cpu for 6 seconds just to
output "hello world" to a browser
something is very wrong indeed

i wouldn't be confident to use
such a system if my living depended on it
would you?

especially when you have a vb6 based system
that has run quickly and bug free for 3 years
why would you switch to such a system?

as most experienced developers will agree
there is more value in easy to maintain
code (and that includes a good ide) than
raw performance

especially when the bottleneck in most
applications isn't the runtime - it is
usually something else


Nov 19 '05 #23

P: n/a
I agree debugging time sucks. However like has been stated, the environment
is doing alot more that ol' VB6. I'd say if you have a system you're happy
with and you haven't changed it in 3 years, keep what you have. However, for
more advanced web applications .NET is slow at compilation, but once it's
compiled it executes 10 times faster. I can agree with you on the slowness
and it is somewhat annoying but the benefits of .NET outweigh the 6 - 10 sec
compile time.

I don't use .NET to write simple personal static websites. Much quicker and
faster in say dreamweaver, since the .NET debug starts and stops the
webserver. So yeah for that its over kill. But for complex apps I prefer
..NET. The slowness of compile/debug is completely outweighed by the blazing
fastness (is that a word) of production execution.

"John Rivers" wrote:
Hello everybody,

I just wondered if anybody else has noticed this?

It takes around 6 seconds to start debugging a very simple ASPX page
with VS.NET whereas VB6 takes under 0.5 seconds, even with
very large and complex projects.

This is a real shame :(

John Rivers

Nov 19 '05 #24

P: n/a
It doesn't look like you're getting anybody backing you up on your
contention. And you won't get one from me, either.

The advancement of the .NET framework, along with many advancements in the
IDE far FAR outweighs anything VB6 brings to the table. I'm sorry if you're
having problems with a 6 second delay (perhaps it's your code). We're not
racing cars here, we're developing complex (well in my case, anyway) software
applications. So stop trying to state that advancement in technology should
result in faster debugging times. I can guarantee you that the DOS apps I
wrote 20 years ago would simply fly on today's machines. That hardly means
that they're more advanced. Au contrare.

"John Rivers" wrote:
Hello everybody,

I just wondered if anybody else has noticed this?

It takes around 6 seconds to start debugging a very simple ASPX page
with VS.NET whereas VB6 takes under 0.5 seconds, even with
very large and complex projects.

This is a real shame :(

John Rivers

Nov 19 '05 #25

P: n/a
You'll increase you productivity when you quit this lame whining and go back
to work. .NET is a little slower in the debug... so what!..your increase in
productivity comes from the fact that .NET brings you 100's of easier ways to
do things than in VB6... once you learn how to use it you'll see what we
mean.

I cant get over the fact that I can write a .NET app in about 80% less code...
thats where productivity comes from dude!
"John Rivers" wrote:
I am discussing debugging performance.

Debugging in VS.NET is much much slower than VB6.

That is a fact.

My point is that it is not acceptable to have new technology that
takes 20 to 30 times longer to start debugging than the 10 year old
technology it is replacing.

VS.NET is supposed to be a tool for increasing developers productivity.

It should debug much faster.

Anybody who can disagree with that is a fool.

Nov 19 '05 #26

P: n/a
I may be the only one, but I agree with you. Our shop currently mainly
develops asp/vbscript applications and we realize the need to move to a .net
solution to provide more functionality and features.

At the same time debugging code, and especially working with source control
applications like microsoft visual source safe take an inordinately large
amount of time w/ vs.net which we have had to take into account with all our
new projects.

We are developing applications much slower now (due to the IDE environment)
and the fact we don't have as much resuable code in asp.net than in the past,
but we are aiming to harness the features of object oriented programming
which will allow us to develop much faster.

"John Rivers" wrote:
I am discussing debugging performance.

Debugging in VS.NET is much much slower than VB6.

That is a fact.

My point is that it is not acceptable to have new technology that
takes 20 to 30 times longer to start debugging than the 10 year old
technology it is replacing.

VS.NET is supposed to be a tool for increasing developers productivity.

It should debug much faster.

Anybody who can disagree with that is a fool.

Nov 19 '05 #27

P: n/a
> We are developing applications much slower now (due to the IDE
environment)
and the fact we don't have as much resuable code in asp.net than in the past,
Seems to me like a training issue?
but we are aiming to harness the features of object oriented programming
which will allow us to develop much faster. If you fail to account for the new environment and new paradigm, then yes,
developing applications will be a lot slower until you catch up
--
Regards,
Alvin Bruney [MVP ASP.NET]

[Shameless Author plug]
The Microsoft Office Web Components Black Book with .NET
Now Available @ www.lulu.com/owc
Forth-coming VSTO.NET
-------------------------------------------------------

"Kyle" <Ky**@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:33**********************************@microsof t.com... I may be the only one, but I agree with you. Our shop currently mainly
develops asp/vbscript applications and we realize the need to move to a ..net solution to provide more functionality and features.

At the same time debugging code, and especially working with source control applications like microsoft visual source safe take an inordinately large
amount of time w/ vs.net which we have had to take into account with all our new projects.

We are developing applications much slower now (due to the IDE environment) and the fact we don't have as much resuable code in asp.net than in the past, but we are aiming to harness the features of object oriented programming
which will allow us to develop much faster.

"John Rivers" wrote:
I am discussing debugging performance.

Debugging in VS.NET is much much slower than VB6.

That is a fact.

My point is that it is not acceptable to have new technology that
takes 20 to 30 times longer to start debugging than the 10 year old
technology it is replacing.

VS.NET is supposed to be a tool for increasing developers productivity.

It should debug much faster.

Anybody who can disagree with that is a fool.

Nov 19 '05 #28

P: n/a
> We are developing applications much slower now (due to the IDE
environment)
and the fact we don't have as much resuable code in asp.net than in the
past,
but we are aiming to harness the features of object oriented programming
which will allow us to develop much faster.
One of the features of OOP is reusability, and a consequence of this feature
is that sometimes it takes awhile to design and implement good reusable
classes. The advantage to it is that once these classes have been (well)
designed, future development in the form of new projects, extension of
existing projects, and maintaining existing projects is much faster.

As for the speed of the IDE, it is a necessary assumption that a developer
should upgrade his/her hardware every few years to accomodate newer
software, which automates much more than older software, and therefore
consumes more hardware resources, especially processor and memory. Of
course, the newer software increases productivity greatly when run on the
proper hardware platform.

Newer technology always has a learning curve associated with it, and the
transition from procedral to OOP is one of the most difficult and
time-consuming to make. This is simply a part of the technological
environment. The farther back from the "cutting edge" you position yourself,
the less this effect will be felt. But competition implies that one should
optimally try to keep abreast of the latest technologies. Still, there are
any number of jobs available for "legacy" developers out there.

All things being equal, and over a period of time, the newer hardware and
technology CAN tremendously increase productivity. It has certainly
increased my own, by leaps and bounds. Less at first, and much more in the
long run.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
Paranoia is just a state of mind.

"Kyle" <Ky**@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:33**********************************@microsof t.com...I may be the only one, but I agree with you. Our shop currently mainly
develops asp/vbscript applications and we realize the need to move to a
.net
solution to provide more functionality and features.

At the same time debugging code, and especially working with source
control
applications like microsoft visual source safe take an inordinately large
amount of time w/ vs.net which we have had to take into account with all
our
new projects.

We are developing applications much slower now (due to the IDE
environment)
and the fact we don't have as much resuable code in asp.net than in the
past,
but we are aiming to harness the features of object oriented programming
which will allow us to develop much faster.

"John Rivers" wrote:
I am discussing debugging performance.

Debugging in VS.NET is much much slower than VB6.

That is a fact.

My point is that it is not acceptable to have new technology that
takes 20 to 30 times longer to start debugging than the 10 year old
technology it is replacing.

VS.NET is supposed to be a tool for increasing developers productivity.

It should debug much faster.

Anybody who can disagree with that is a fool.

Nov 19 '05 #29

P: n/a
In ASP.NET V2.0 you'll get edit&continue ! The main delay for me is clicking
through the steps of business logic to get onto place what I want to debug.
And no, when I find the bug and correct it, I have to (for code) recompile -
prete slow cycle ! 6 seconds nothing.. btw on my 2 years old laptop it takes
9s in total: 4s buld, 2s openning IE (will be the same for ALL because this
is the same just clicking icon), 3s (something - probably restarting IIS,
attaching to process,...)
Nov 19 '05 #30

P: n/a
I completely agree. I am not quite sure why most everyone is in defense of
VS.NET when it is very obvious that it is very slow when debugging web
applications.

I am not coming from VB6 rather, I am coming from other open source
languages and IDEs.

In fact the only reason why I am using ASP.NET/VS.NET (Web Developer
Express) is because I was told that we (my company) would be *more*
productive and save *a lot more time*. I have yet to see any savingings.

So to answer your question John, I gree with you and I too am disapointed in
the performance of Visual Studio.

"John Rivers" wrote:
you guys sure can confuse a poor little troll

i have timed it as 6 seconds between pressing F5 and the page actually
running

at $50 per hour 6 seconds is about 8 cents

that is real money!

it is just not acceptable performance - somebody agree with me!

Nov 19 '05 #31

P: n/a
I totally agree. I am shocked at how many "really smart people" think that
slow is ok. Come on guys! We are the customer. If we accept horrible
performance and even defend what can be considered a broken development
environment, what is that really saying about us? Its saying that we are
commited religously to bad performance... that is sad.
"John Rivers" wrote:
interesting logic
i should be paid less if i question
the bad performance of vs.net ide?

so if you pick up your new car
and it does 0-60mph in 45 seconds
whilst red lining at 7000rpm
you wouldn't question that?

in my experience if a computer is
at 100% cpu for 6 seconds just to
output "hello world" to a browser
something is very wrong indeed

i wouldn't be confident to use
such a system if my living depended on it
would you?

especially when you have a vb6 based system
that has run quickly and bug free for 3 years
why would you switch to such a system?

as most experienced developers will agree
there is more value in easy to maintain
code (and that includes a good ide) than
raw performance

especially when the bottleneck in most
applications isn't the runtime - it is
usually something else

Nov 19 '05 #32

P: n/a
The obvious answer to why ASP.Net and VB.Net are slower to start than ASP3
and VB6 is that more is being done before the application starts. So what is
being done, you ask? You web application is being compiled so that it may run
in the .NET framework at blazing speeds instead of interpreted in a VM. The
speed you sacrifice during development with the added overhead of compilation
is regained on the client's end with pages that process much, much faster.

Better security, better performace, more features, a standardized, cross
language, cross platform library, all of these are afforded to Visual Basic
by making it a first class .NET language. So there is a price to pay, yes,
you must compile your programs. Oh well... get over it.

"John Rivers" wrote:
Hello everybody,

I just wondered if anybody else has noticed this?

It takes around 6 seconds to start debugging a very simple ASPX page
with VS.NET whereas VB6 takes under 0.5 seconds, even with
very large and complex projects.

This is a real shame :(

John Rivers

Nov 19 '05 #33

P: n/a
Pat
Thats a very good anwser.
Hope they understood?
Very good Sean.
Patrick
"Sean T. McBeth" <Sean T. Mc****@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0B**********************************@microsof t.com...
The obvious answer to why ASP.Net and VB.Net are slower to start than ASP3
and VB6 is that more is being done before the application starts. So what is being done, you ask? You web application is being compiled so that it may run in the .NET framework at blazing speeds instead of interpreted in a VM. The speed you sacrifice during development with the added overhead of compilation is regained on the client's end with pages that process much, much faster.

Better security, better performace, more features, a standardized, cross
language, cross platform library, all of these are afforded to Visual Basic by making it a first class .NET language. So there is a price to pay, yes,
you must compile your programs. Oh well... get over it.

"John Rivers" wrote:
Hello everybody,

I just wondered if anybody else has noticed this?

It takes around 6 seconds to start debugging a very simple ASPX page
with VS.NET whereas VB6 takes under 0.5 seconds, even with
very large and complex projects.

This is a real shame :(

John Rivers

Nov 19 '05 #34

P: n/a
I'm not a VB guy, but I agree about the performance. You can't be as
productive when the debugger is 20-30 times slower. It is just unacceptable.
Imagine if your new car was 50 times slower than your 10 year old car. You
would not be happy with performance 100 slower than what you were used to
having. It's unreasonable to expect developers to be happy with 500 times
slower tools than the old tools. I'm not sure how we develop applications
when our new tools are 1000 times slower. It sure seems like a drag on
productivity when the new stuff takes 10000 times as long to load.

"John Rivers" wrote:
I am discussing debugging performance.

Debugging in VS.NET is much much slower than VB6.

That is a fact.

My point is that it is not acceptable to have new technology that
takes 20 to 30 times longer to start debugging than the 10 year old
technology it is replacing.

VS.NET is supposed to be a tool for increasing developers productivity.

It should debug much faster.

Anybody who can disagree with that is a fool.

Nov 19 '05 #35

P: n/a
I agree with John. VS is very slow and i guess the only reason so many of the
programmers are supporting it is that it still keeps their pay check coming
in. Disagreeing would mean going back to the VB6 pay level ...
"Paul Hepworth" wrote:
I completely agree. I am not quite sure why most everyone is in defense of
VS.NET when it is very obvious that it is very slow when debugging web
applications.

I am not coming from VB6 rather, I am coming from other open source
languages and IDEs.

In fact the only reason why I am using ASP.NET/VS.NET (Web Developer
Express) is because I was told that we (my company) would be *more*
productive and save *a lot more time*. I have yet to see any savingings.

So to answer your question John, I gree with you and I too am disapointed in
the performance of Visual Studio.

"John Rivers" wrote:
you guys sure can confuse a poor little troll

i have timed it as 6 seconds between pressing F5 and the page actually
running

at $50 per hour 6 seconds is about 8 cents

that is real money!

it is just not acceptable performance - somebody agree with me!

Nov 19 '05 #36

P: n/a
> I totally agree. I am shocked at how many "really smart people" think that
slow is ok. Come on guys! We are the customer. If we accept horrible
performance and even defend what can be considered a broken development
environment, what is that really saying about us? Its saying that we are
commited religously to bad performance... that is sad.


Playing devil's advocate, this quick "enter some code and test it by
running" isn't necessarily the best approach. When complilation used to take
a lot longer (hours with punch cards & batch jobs), programmers got used to
writing code right the first time, thinking more about it before submitting
it.

Don't know if there are any stats available as to whether they produced more
bug free code first time but I suspect it could be true.

It also reminds me of when I was a games programmer and assembling could
take 15 minutes on a fast 286 PC... And don't forget, this was in DOS so no
multitasking - you had to sit there and watch it. Anyway, I modified the
make file for the project and let it log the total assembly time for the
entire team and project. The total project time was something like four
months. The results showed that even if we reduced the assembly time down to
nothing, it would only save the project 3 days (~4%) What this said to me is
that if you looking to make yourself more efficient, you don't bother
worrying about how fast it takes to compile & run as that'll only save you a
few percent overall. Instead, look at the remaining 96% and see how you can
improve efficiency there. Learning to touch-type will give you 5% :-)

Cheers, Rob.
Nov 19 '05 #37

P: n/a
yantr tantr wrote:
I agree with John. VS is very slow and i guess the only reason so many of the
programmers are supporting it is that it still keeps their pay check coming
in. Disagreeing would mean going back to the VB6 pay level ...

No, I believe a great many people are sticking with it because it
allows us to be more productive. I feel *pain* when I have to go back
and work in the VB6 IDE. Thankfully, that's becoming more a thing of
the past (as in, I've trained other developers in the team on the older
VB6 Apps, and then whenever any problems come up, I point the helpdesk
towards the other developers :-D)

Damien

Nov 19 '05 #38

P: n/a
Paul Hepworth wrote:

In fact the only reason why I am using ASP.NET/VS.NET (Web Developer
Express) is because I was told that we (my company) would be *more*
productive and save *a lot more time*. I have yet to see any savingings.


Ah, but there's the thing. Web Developer Express is not Visual
Studio.NET.

Language, Platform and Operating System aside, Visual Studio.NET is
simply the most productive IDE available. Plug in ReSharper and
install CodeSmith beside it, and you'll be surprised how much you can
crank out in a day.

Take away the IDE, and C# is just another language. It's
understandable that you were underwhelmed since you never looked at the
one thing that makes .NET such a pleasant platform to develop for.

Jason Kester
Expat Software Consulting Services
http://www.expatsoftware.com/

Nov 19 '05 #39

P: n/a
Why dont you get a real life???

First, If you were as good as you said, you should know or infer the inner
mechanics of VB6 and those of .NET. By the way, VB6 is out of the window.

Bad performance in debbuging time or production just points out some things:

1) You are the typical "Install Windows with wizard": Just next, next ,next
whatever the option is.

2) Your knowledge in "ANCIENT" technologies and "State-Of-The-Art"
technologies is poor.

3) At least try one of those fast tracks with Paul D. Sheriff. He is good at
trainning (as i saw many friends with Sheriff material learning at fast pace).

4) Dont asume everyone has a problem just because you are another VB6-backed
programmer. YES! The kind of programmer that was made just using code wizards
and searching the web just to do something. The kind of programmer that
writes the line but dont understand what the line does exactly at any level.

5) Get a life morooon!!!!
"John Rivers" wrote:

The Troll wins ... again.

Microsoft has resolved this issue in VS.NET 2005

they saw it as a major hurdle to PRODUCTIVENESS

and fixed it by splitting up the single assembly created by VS.NET 2003
into many smaller ones

they have managed to decrease the recompilation time to under 2 seconds
and the detach time is instantaneous
and removed the requirement to detach before editing

but, of course, all the people who responded to my original post
argumentatively will *not* be using these features.

For them I have written a special adapter that SLOWS DOWN the
development process in VS.NET 2005 this will help them to avoid being
hypocrites.

To obtain your copy, just reply to this post with subject "I am a
nincompoop"

Nov 19 '05 #40

P: n/a
can't we all just get along?

--
Regards,
Alvin Bruney [MVP ASP.NET]

[Shameless Author plug]
The Microsoft Office Web Components Black Book with .NET
Now Available @ www.lulu.com/owc
Forth-coming VSTO.NET - Wrox/Wiley 2006
-------------------------------------------------------

"Win32, VB, .NET n COM Developer" <Win32, VB, .NET n COM
De*******@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:EC**********************************@microsof t.com...
Why dont you get a real life???

First, If you were as good as you said, you should know or infer the inner
mechanics of VB6 and those of .NET. By the way, VB6 is out of the window.

Bad performance in debbuging time or production just points out some things:
1) You are the typical "Install Windows with wizard": Just next, next ,next whatever the option is.

2) Your knowledge in "ANCIENT" technologies and "State-Of-The-Art"
technologies is poor.

3) At least try one of those fast tracks with Paul D. Sheriff. He is good at trainning (as i saw many friends with Sheriff material learning at fast pace).
4) Dont asume everyone has a problem just because you are another VB6-backed programmer. YES! The kind of programmer that was made just using code wizards and searching the web just to do something. The kind of programmer that
writes the line but dont understand what the line does exactly at any level.
5) Get a life morooon!!!!
"John Rivers" wrote:

The Troll wins ... again.

Microsoft has resolved this issue in VS.NET 2005

they saw it as a major hurdle to PRODUCTIVENESS

and fixed it by splitting up the single assembly created by VS.NET 2003
into many smaller ones

they have managed to decrease the recompilation time to under 2 seconds
and the detach time is instantaneous
and removed the requirement to detach before editing

but, of course, all the people who responded to my original post
argumentatively will *not* be using these features.

For them I have written a special adapter that SLOWS DOWN the
development process in VS.NET 2005 this will help them to avoid being
hypocrites.

To obtain your copy, just reply to this post with subject "I am a
nincompoop"

Nov 19 '05 #41

P: n/a
That is the most ludicrous argument I have heard in a long time. Why don't
you factor in the rest of the equation? In VB6 you had to create a DLL which
you had to stop the Web Server to test. You really had no true debugging
environment, so unless you were using VB6 Web Classes, there was no debugging
environment at all.

What about all the other tools you get in .Net? You get a true debugging
environment that works on both client and server side. You are using true
objects, you have a trace facility and the list goes on. I suggest you do
your homework.

"John Rivers" wrote:
you guys sure can confuse a poor little troll

i have timed it as 6 seconds between pressing F5 and the page actually
running

at $50 per hour 6 seconds is about 8 cents

that is real money!

it is just not acceptable performance - somebody agree with me!

Nov 19 '05 #42

P: n/a
In VB 2005, the background compiler and the dynamic compiler error listing
far outweigh the startup time. In VB 6, I frequently have to compile a
program to get all the compile time bugs out. In VB 2005 with Option Strict
On the compiler also catches almost all my type casting errors as well -
something VB 6 simply cannot do except at runtime. I can't speak for VB 7.x
as I skipped them due to lack of Edit & Continue.

Mike Ober.

"Lynn" <Ly**@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2C**********************************@microsof t.com...
That is the most ludicrous argument I have heard in a long time. Why don't you factor in the rest of the equation? In VB6 you had to create a DLL which you had to stop the Web Server to test. You really had no true debugging
environment, so unless you were using VB6 Web Classes, there was no debugging environment at all.

What about all the other tools you get in .Net? You get a true debugging
environment that works on both client and server side. You are using true
objects, you have a trace facility and the list goes on. I suggest you do
your homework.

"John Rivers" wrote:
you guys sure can confuse a poor little troll

i have timed it as 6 seconds between pressing F5 and the page actually
running

at $50 per hour 6 seconds is about 8 cents

that is real money!

it is just not acceptable performance - somebody agree with me!


Nov 19 '05 #43

P: n/a
> > at $50 per hour 6 seconds is about 8 cents

So concentrate on the other 4,992 cents to find out where to improve
efficiency...

Rob.
Nov 19 '05 #44

P: n/a
> can't we all just get along?

We can have a fight whilst waiting for Windows to boot :-)
Nov 19 '05 #45

P: n/a
No matter how many "excuses" people may throw at it: 6 seconds *is* a lot of
time.

Sure, I'm not saying I want to go back to vb (i'm not even a vb programmer)
I'm not saying you shouldn't be more efficient, get your design right, type
faster without errors, etc. etc.

In the end, you might still need to use debugging.
And although I also go way back to those days you had to wait hours for a
project to compile (if all went well) I don't advocate that "tradition" is an
excuse for not doing things right.

Come on ppl, we are working with Gigahertz CPUs, gigabytes of Ram, Raid
arrays with hundreds of MB/s transfers, and near raytrace quality realtime
rendered images!
That's thousands of millions of instructions per second... x6 seconds. :P

Granted, you can't handtune every loop in windows in ASM, and sometimes we
can trade off efficiency (speed) for some other aspect. But I agree, there's
a lot of things that could (*should*) be looked into it.

When - after all your efficient design issues - thing still go bad and you
need debugging *and* you have to thing running "yesterday", every second
takes forever.

You shouldn't be looking at this like: "6 seconds is fine, it used to take 1
hour"
You should be looking at it like: with all this processing power at our
disposal, why can't we make it instantaneously?

I'll shut up now. :)

Carlos

"Rob Nicholson" wrote:
at $50 per hour 6 seconds is about 8 cents


So concentrate on the other 4,992 cents to find out where to improve
efficiency...

Rob.

Nov 19 '05 #46

P: n/a
point taken!

--
Regards,
Alvin Bruney [MVP ASP.NET]

[Shameless Author plug]
The Microsoft Office Web Components Black Book with .NET
Now Available @ www.lulu.com/owc
Forth-coming VSTO.NET - Wrox/Wiley 2006
-------------------------------------------------------

"CarlosMMartins" <Ca************@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:34**********************************@microsof t.com...
No matter how many "excuses" people may throw at it: 6 seconds *is* a lot of time.

Sure, I'm not saying I want to go back to vb (i'm not even a vb programmer) I'm not saying you shouldn't be more efficient, get your design right, type faster without errors, etc. etc.

In the end, you might still need to use debugging.
And although I also go way back to those days you had to wait hours for a
project to compile (if all went well) I don't advocate that "tradition" is an excuse for not doing things right.

Come on ppl, we are working with Gigahertz CPUs, gigabytes of Ram, Raid
arrays with hundreds of MB/s transfers, and near raytrace quality realtime
rendered images!
That's thousands of millions of instructions per second... x6 seconds. :P

Granted, you can't handtune every loop in windows in ASM, and sometimes we
can trade off efficiency (speed) for some other aspect. But I agree, there's a lot of things that could (*should*) be looked into it.

When - after all your efficient design issues - thing still go bad and you
need debugging *and* you have to thing running "yesterday", every second
takes forever.

You shouldn't be looking at this like: "6 seconds is fine, it used to take 1 hour"
You should be looking at it like: with all this processing power at our
disposal, why can't we make it instantaneously?

I'll shut up now. :)

Carlos

"Rob Nicholson" wrote:
> at $50 per hour 6 seconds is about 8 cents


So concentrate on the other 4,992 cents to find out where to improve
efficiency...

Rob.

Nov 19 '05 #47

P: n/a
Everything in the programming business is a trade-off. The bottom line is,
when the trading is finished, have you made a profit? In other words, taking
more time here, and less time there, what is the net saving or loss of time
overall? You can't simply look at one aspect of the problem and pretend to
understand it fully.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
Neither a follower nor a lender be.

"CarlosMMartins" <Ca************@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:34**********************************@microsof t.com...
No matter how many "excuses" people may throw at it: 6 seconds *is* a lot
of
time.

Sure, I'm not saying I want to go back to vb (i'm not even a vb
programmer)
I'm not saying you shouldn't be more efficient, get your design right,
type
faster without errors, etc. etc.

In the end, you might still need to use debugging.
And although I also go way back to those days you had to wait hours for a
project to compile (if all went well) I don't advocate that "tradition" is
an
excuse for not doing things right.

Come on ppl, we are working with Gigahertz CPUs, gigabytes of Ram, Raid
arrays with hundreds of MB/s transfers, and near raytrace quality realtime
rendered images!
That's thousands of millions of instructions per second... x6 seconds. :P

Granted, you can't handtune every loop in windows in ASM, and sometimes we
can trade off efficiency (speed) for some other aspect. But I agree,
there's
a lot of things that could (*should*) be looked into it.

When - after all your efficient design issues - thing still go bad and you
need debugging *and* you have to thing running "yesterday", every second
takes forever.

You shouldn't be looking at this like: "6 seconds is fine, it used to take
1
hour"
You should be looking at it like: with all this processing power at our
disposal, why can't we make it instantaneously?

I'll shut up now. :)

Carlos

"Rob Nicholson" wrote:
> > at $50 per hour 6 seconds is about 8 cents


So concentrate on the other 4,992 cents to find out where to improve
efficiency...

Rob.

Nov 19 '05 #48

P: n/a
for once, I don't want to.
and secondly, I don't know enough yet.

but, and that's important :
instead of listening to the man, you're jumping on him alltogather.

I did not hear even one time a "maybe something's wrong with your config,
let's see how we can help you".

nah-ah.
you are MS-Protectors. you will defend VisualStudio to the death.
do you get payed for that ?

C'mon !
the man is saying something does not feel right to him.
instead of trying to help, you do this ?

Sorry - I must've thought the MS Community would be somewhat different, but
what did I expect ?
"Win32, VB, .NET n COM Developer" wrote:
Why dont you get a real life???

First, If you were as good as you said, you should know or infer the inner
mechanics of VB6 and those of .NET. By the way, VB6 is out of the window.

Bad performance in debbuging time or production just points out some things:

1) You are the typical "Install Windows with wizard": Just next, next ,next
whatever the option is.

2) Your knowledge in "ANCIENT" technologies and "State-Of-The-Art"
technologies is poor.

3) At least try one of those fast tracks with Paul D. Sheriff. He is good at
trainning (as i saw many friends with Sheriff material learning at fast pace).

4) Dont asume everyone has a problem just because you are another VB6-backed
programmer. YES! The kind of programmer that was made just using code wizards
and searching the web just to do something. The kind of programmer that
writes the line but dont understand what the line does exactly at any level.

5) Get a life morooon!!!!
"John Rivers" wrote:

The Troll wins ... again.

Microsoft has resolved this issue in VS.NET 2005

they saw it as a major hurdle to PRODUCTIVENESS

and fixed it by splitting up the single assembly created by VS.NET 2003
into many smaller ones

they have managed to decrease the recompilation time to under 2 seconds
and the detach time is instantaneous
and removed the requirement to detach before editing

but, of course, all the people who responded to my original post
argumentatively will *not* be using these features.

For them I have written a special adapter that SLOWS DOWN the
development process in VS.NET 2005 this will help them to avoid being
hypocrites.

To obtain your copy, just reply to this post with subject "I am a
nincompoop"

Nov 19 '05 #49

P: n/a
> and secondly, I don't know enough yet.

Indeed you do not. In fact, you don't know enough about the history of this
thread and several others, as well as the nature of ASP.Net to make any
comment or criticsm at all.
I did not hear even one time a "maybe something's wrong with your config,
let's see how we can help you".
He didn't ask for help, and he didn't indicate that he had a problem.
Obviously, "maybe something's wrong with your config, let's see how we can
help you" would not be an appropriate response to someone who is not
complaining about having any problem. Refer to my first paragraph.
you are MS-Protectors. you will defend VisualStudio to the death.
do you get payed for that ?
Now, who is judging whom based upon what here? First, this thread is not a
discussion regarding Visual Studio.Net, so your criticism is well off the
mark. Second, as you are apparently ignorant of the context of this
discussion, you are in no place to make any judgement about why anyone
participating in this thread is asserting anything. Therefore, you are
ignorantly jumping to conclusions, and making accusations based upon false
information that you manufactured from your own subjective and inaccurate
perception of the situation. That sort of thinking will not help you as a
developer. If you have no aspirations of becoming a developer, you're in the
wrong place.

I have seen all of this thread, as well as all of the related threads, and
all the messages in them. I don't intend to explain the context of this
discussion to you; if you wish, you can read it for yourself. There have
been some rather angry and hot-headed remarks made in this thread, both by
the OP and by those who have responded to him. Now, if you want to complain
about angry and hot-headed remarks, obviously you have a point. However,
these remarks have been confined to a limited number of the participants,
certainly not all of them. Of course, your remarks, while not angry or
hot-headed, are certainly critical and judgmental. So, I suppose that makes
you as human and fallible as those whom you accuse.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
Neither a follower nor a lender be.

"Dried Cactus" <Dried Ca****@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F5**********************************@microsof t.com... for once, I don't want to.
and secondly, I don't know enough yet.

but, and that's important :
instead of listening to the man, you're jumping on him alltogather.

I did not hear even one time a "maybe something's wrong with your config,
let's see how we can help you".

nah-ah.
you are MS-Protectors. you will defend VisualStudio to the death.
do you get payed for that ?

C'mon !
the man is saying something does not feel right to him.
instead of trying to help, you do this ?

Sorry - I must've thought the MS Community would be somewhat different,
but
what did I expect ?
"Win32, VB, .NET n COM Developer" wrote:
Why dont you get a real life???

First, If you were as good as you said, you should know or infer the
inner
mechanics of VB6 and those of .NET. By the way, VB6 is out of the window.

Bad performance in debbuging time or production just points out some
things:

1) You are the typical "Install Windows with wizard": Just next, next
,next
whatever the option is.

2) Your knowledge in "ANCIENT" technologies and "State-Of-The-Art"
technologies is poor.

3) At least try one of those fast tracks with Paul D. Sheriff. He is good
at
trainning (as i saw many friends with Sheriff material learning at fast
pace).

4) Dont asume everyone has a problem just because you are another
VB6-backed
programmer. YES! The kind of programmer that was made just using code
wizards
and searching the web just to do something. The kind of programmer that
writes the line but dont understand what the line does exactly at any
level.

5) Get a life morooon!!!!
"John Rivers" wrote:
>
>
>
> The Troll wins ... again.
>
> Microsoft has resolved this issue in VS.NET 2005
>
> they saw it as a major hurdle to PRODUCTIVENESS
>
> and fixed it by splitting up the single assembly created by VS.NET 2003
> into many smaller ones
>
> they have managed to decrease the recompilation time to under 2 seconds
> and the detach time is instantaneous
> and removed the requirement to detach before editing
>
> but, of course, all the people who responded to my original post
> argumentatively will *not* be using these features.
>
> For them I have written a special adapter that SLOWS DOWN the
> development process in VS.NET 2005 this will help them to avoid being
> hypocrites.
>
> To obtain your copy, just reply to this post with subject "I am a
> nincompoop"
>
>

Nov 19 '05 #50

87 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.