Re: In regards to my giving up on programming?
- From: Alex Midence <alex.midence@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 11:59:05 -0500
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
Other related posts:
