Re: In regards to my giving up on programming?
- From: Jes <theeternalkid@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 04:15:14 -0400
Alex wrote:
"You can't get visual studio 2008 any more. I tried. "
> Alex, If you are looking for v s express 2008 edition, I have a copy. Drop
> box it to you?
On Jul 6, 2010, at 12:59 PM, Alex Midence wrote:
> You can't get visual studio 2008 any more. I tried. They've come out
> with 2010 now and I can't find a download link to a 2008 version.
> 2010, I found out this weekend, has a bug which aMS claims to have
> fixed but doesn't seem to have in truth. It uses uia (user interface
> automation) and apparently knows when you are using ascreen reader.
> Thing is, it crashes on you when this is activated. Something to do
> with intelisense. There's a patch you can download for it but, mine
> said the error didn't apply. Go figure. Crashed like crazy till I
> told it not to automate visual settings (deactivated uia). Worked
> without crashing then but navigation with Jaws was a pain. So if
> anyone is going to buy the professional version of 2010 or will
> upgrade, "caviat emptor!" Buyer beware.
>
> Alex m
>
>
> On 7/5/10, Dave <davidct1209@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Thanks for posting that Jamal.
>>
>> I think a better title for the article would have been "Does Visual
>> Studio and .Net Rot the Mind?". I, personally, love .Net + Visual
>> studio as you can write a Windows app at break neck speed and the
>> process of building/running is lightning fast.
>>
>> However, for new comers, I can see why Petzold seemed so hesitant to
>> write a guide to winforms as opposed to full on development. I can
>> see how easy it would have been to drag a few controls around and even
>> adding a few event handlers to an app would have yielded a sense of
>> accomplishment, but if anything ever went wrong or if I was actually
>> serious about doing professional development that would have been a
>> hinderence. It's somewhat revealing to see that even Microsoft hasn't
>> adopted .Net for its serious revenue generating applications (Office,
>> IE, Windows, etc.). For that matter, most screen readers use
>> win32/C++/MFC/COM. .Net allows programmers to remain oblivious of
>> core Windows concepts as it does all of the heavy lifting, so that
>> when things go wrong, you have no idea what happened or even where to
>> start looking. It also skirts around the pure joy of designing or
>> seeing core algorithms implemented.
>>
>> Having recently been coding mostly in C++/StL/COM, I can appreciate
>> how much work it takes to get low-level details right especially with
>> a big project; but with those struggles comes greater control,
>> performance, and cross-platform possibilities. Now, if I write a .Net
>> app, I'm conscious of what exactly occurs when I assign object
>> references or how much boxing/unboxing costs or using StringBuilder,
>> etc.
>>
>> This isn't to say .Net is "bad", but for someone who wants the full
>> story on Windows development and not a watered down version more apt
>> for hobbiest, win32/C would be a great jumping off point as .Net
>> serves mostly as a wrapper for those legacy technologies (with the
>> noteable exception of WPF which is based on DirectX).
>>
>> On 7/5/10, Jamal Mazrui <empower@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> This reminds me of an article:
>>>
>>> Does Visual Studio Rot the Mind?
>>> Ruminations on the Psychology and Aesthetics of Coding
>>> By Charles Petzold
>>>
>>> http://www.charlespetzold.com/etc/DoesVisualStudioRotTheMind.html
>>>
>>> Jamal
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/2/2010 7:49 PM, Jes wrote:
>>>> Ken wrote:
>>>> "You can get up and running much faster on a language like, python, or c
>>>> and
>>>> actually see results. Results is what matters when you start out
>>>> coding"...
>>>>
>>>> I couldn't agree more with that. The IDE is a lazy man's way to begin to
>>>> program. To me, any text book or college material which gives you a
>>>> prepackaged formula, claiming to teach you something isn't really doing
>>>> you any good and shouldn't even be used by the college. As an example,
>>>> the
>>>> book I am using is "An Introduction to Programming with C plus plus, by
>>>> Diane Zak." Thank goodness they used programming, not coding. They only
>>>> show you the code you need to copy and paste into your IDE, which, in
>>>> this
>>>> case, is Visual Studio. I like the way the book introduces new concepts
>>>> of
>>>> the C plus plus language to you, but they fail to really get down into
>>>> the
>>>> dirt with all of it. For example, they tell you what an algorithm is, and
>>>> they tell you the various procedures to start writing a program; 1,
>>>> analyzing a problem, 2, planning an algorithm, 3, desk-checking your
>>>> algorithm, etc. Basically, it just feels like I'm copying and pasting in
>>>> a
>>>> bunch of code, into an IDE so I can pass a c
>>> ourse. Furthermore, when we finally have no errors in the code, the .exe
>>> opens up in a command prompt. They don't even help us build real genuine
>>> Windows apps, it's all console applications. I've always associated C plus
>>> plus with genuine Windows gui application development. What's wrong with
>>> this picture?
>>>> Jes, the proud man.
>>>>
>>>> __________
>>>> View the list's information and change your settings at
>>>> //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
>>>>
>>>>
>>> __________
>>> View the list's information and change your settings at
>>> //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
>>>
>>>
>> __________
>> View the list's information and change your settings at
>> //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
>>
>>
> __________
> View the list's information and change your settings at
> //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
>
__________
View the list's information and change your settings at
//www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
Other related posts:
