Visual Studio 6 or .NET for C++?

[Paul Schauble]

I'm about to move a moderately large program from a different
environment onto Windows. The program is written in C++

I have a choice of Visual Studio 6 or Visual Studio .NET 2002.

What are the pros and cons of these two environments for a straight C++
windows app. Does VS .NET get me a better compiler? How? The managed
code features are of no interest in the foreseeable future.

Thanks,
++PLS

[William DePalo [MVP VC++]]

"Paul Schauble" <4v*******@spam ex.com> wrote in message
news:MP******** *************** *@msnews.micros oft.com...

I have a choice of Visual Studio 6
This one is five or six years old.
or Visual Studio .NET 2002.

This one is about two years old.

Go with VS.Net 2003, it has the best compiler to come out of MS in a while.

Regards,
Will

[Carl Daniel [VC++ MVP]]

Paul Schauble wrote:

I'm about to move a moderately large program from a different
environment onto Windows. The program is written in C++

I have a choice of Visual Studio 6 or Visual Studio .NET 2002.

What are the pros and cons of these two environments for a straight
C++ windows app. Does VS .NET get me a better compiler? How? The
managed code features are of no interest in the foreseeable future.

Since you're moving from a different environment, it stands to reason that
the code is not MFC-based. If it were, many people would recommend using
VC6.

For straight C++, Visual Studio .NET 2003 is really what you want. If 2002
is your only option, it's a little better than VC6 with regard to language
conformance, and a lot better with regard to standard library conformance.

-cd

[Tim Roberts]

"Carl Daniel [VC++ MVP]" <cp************ *************** **@mvps.org.nos pam>
wrote:

Since you're moving from a different environment, it stands to reason that
the code is not MFC-based. If it were, many people would recommend using
VC6.

Carl, I've never heard that. Can you explain why this should be? Has the
MFC in VC.NET reached its "Peter Principle" limit?
--
- Tim Roberts, ti**@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc

[Julian Nicholls]

No, MFC 7.0 is fine, it's more that the Visual Studio for VC++ 6 is geared
toward developing MFC programs, and VS .NET 2003, as its name suggests, is
aimed toward developing .NET applications. The main loss is the
ClassWizard.

Best Regards
Julian Nicholls

"Tim Roberts" <ti**@probo.com > wrote in message
news:4u******** *************** *********@4ax.c om...

"Carl Daniel [VC++ MVP]" <cp************ *************** **@mvps.org.nos pam>
wrote:

Since you're moving from a different environment, it stands to reason thatthe code is not MFC-based. If it were, many people would recommend using
VC6.

Carl, I've never heard that. Can you explain why this should be? Has the
MFC in VC.NET reached its "Peter Principle" limit?
--
- Tim Roberts, ti**@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc

[Ioannis Vranos]

"Paul Schauble" <4v*******@spam ex.com> wrote in message
news:MP******** *************** *@msnews.micros oft.com...

I'm about to move a moderately large program from a different
environment onto Windows. The program is written in C++

I have a choice of Visual Studio 6 or Visual Studio .NET 2002.

There is also Visual Studio .NET 2003.
What are the pros and cons of these two environments for a straight C++

Regarding ISO C++ conformance 2002 and 2003 have far better conformance than
VC++ 6, with the 2003 version having ~100% and 2002 ~90+%.
2003 also has a RAD for VC++ (common for all languages VB, VC# etc).
windows app. Does VS .NET get me a better compiler? How? The managed
code features are of no interest in the foreseeable future.

Yes the compiler is better, the .NET API is the *same* for all languages,
code written in different languages can interoperate since everything is
translated to MSIL.


Ioannis Vranos

[maddog]

I've found that doing MFC with dot net just as good as Dev6. All the bits
class wiz did have just moved to the properties panel. I like the changes,
not that bad a change.
The real downer of .net for me, which i`ve only just found out today, is
that the profiler has vanished!

"Julian Nicholls" <so************ *********@mccue plc.nospam.com> wrote in
message news:OU******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP12.phx.gbl...

No, MFC 7.0 is fine, it's more that the Visual Studio for VC++ 6 is geared
toward developing MFC programs, and VS .NET 2003, as its name suggests, is
aimed toward developing .NET applications. The main loss is the
ClassWizard.

Best Regards
Julian Nicholls

"Tim Roberts" <ti**@probo.com > wrote in message
news:4u******** *************** *********@4ax.c om...

"Carl Daniel [VC++ MVP]" <cp************ *************** **@mvps.org.nos pam>

wrote:

Since you're moving from a different environment, it stands to reason thatthe code is not MFC-based. If it were, many people would recommend usingVC6.

Carl, I've never heard that. Can you explain why this should be? Has

the MFC in VC.NET reached its "Peter Principle" limit?
--
- Tim Roberts, ti**@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc

[Carl Daniel [VC++ MVP]]

maddog wrote:

I've found that doing MFC with dot net just as good as Dev6. All the
bits class wiz did have just moved to the properties panel. I like
the changes, not that bad a change.
The real downer of .net for me, which i`ve only just found out today,
is that the profiler has vanished!

It has... but you can download a version of Comuware's DevPartner Profiler
for free.

See (very long URL - watch for wraps)

http://www.compuware.com/products/de...evPartner&sf=1

-cd

[Julian Nicholls]

I have developed one MFC app from scratch since having VS .NET 2003 and,
like you, I thought it was OK. I missed the ClassWizard because its
functionality was in one place rather than spread about.

It's particularly noticeable when wiring up a dialog's fields, in that you
can only do one at a time with VS .NET 2003.

All the Best
Julian N.

"maddog" <ri*****@collin s1969.fsnet.co. uk> wrote in message
news:c5******** **@newsg1.svr.p ol.co.uk...

I've found that doing MFC with dot net just as good as Dev6. All the bits
class wiz did have just moved to the properties panel. I like the changes,
not that bad a change.
The real downer of .net for me, which i`ve only just found out today, is
that the profiler has vanished!

"Julian Nicholls" <so************ *********@mccue plc.nospam.com> wrote in
message news:OU******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP12.phx.gbl...

No, MFC 7.0 is fine, it's more that the Visual Studio for VC++ 6 is geared toward developing MFC programs, and VS .NET 2003, as its name suggests, is aimed toward developing .NET applications. The main loss is the
ClassWizard.

Best Regards
Julian Nicholls

[Peter van der Goes]

"Carl Daniel [VC++ MVP]" <cp************ *************** **@mvps.org.nos pam>
wrote in message news:ur******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP10.phx.gbl...

For straight C++, Visual Studio .NET 2003 is really what you want. If

2002 is your only option, it's a little better than VC6 with regard to language
conformance, and a lot better with regard to standard library conformance.

-cd

Amen. Best compliance with standards yet.
(To the OP) Go with the current version (Visual Studio .NET 2003) in the
edition you need.

--
Peter [MVP Academic]