3 ms·

Visual C++ 6 was the first C(++) compiler I used. I'm fairly certain it had auto completion (Intellisense). Casey Muratori would point out the debugger ran fas

Visual C++ 6 was the first C(++) compiler I used. I'm fairly certain it had auto completion (Intellisense). Casey Muratori would point out the debugger ran faster on hardware from the era than modern versions run on today's hardware, though I don't have a link to the side–by–side video comparison. Edit: Casey Muratori showing off the speed of visual studio 6 on a Pentium something after ranting about it: Jump to 36:08 in https://youtu.be/GC-0tCy4P1U https://youtu.be/GC-0tCy4P1U — earlier section of the video is how it is today (or when the video was made)

reactordev 9mo ago
absolutely! When launching my editor today, it phones home, it checks location, it does everything that an editor SHOULDN'T DO. Not to mention the extensions... Software today is a horrible bloated mess on top of horrible bloated messes.
ack_complete 9mo ago
The VS debugger got an order of magnitude slower in the transition from VS6 to Visual Studio .NET. It's been sped up a bit but is still nowhere near as fast as the VS6 debugger at responding to step commands, debug output, or conditional breakpoints. In VS.NET you could be waiting as long as a full second on a contemporary dev machine for the debugger to finish stepping forward one line. Funny thing is that at the time, I was lamenting how much slower VC6 was than VC4. Macro playback, for instance, got much slower in VC6. It's all relative.
Borg3 9mo ago
I think you were using some 3th party software for auto completion. There was project called Visual Assist with was pretty popular and powerfull tool.
- direwolf20 9mo ago
  Nope!
- int_19h 8mo ago
  Visual Assist provided much better completion especially for (then brand-new) C++98 if you used templates, STL etc heavily, but VC had its own completion out of the box that was actually pretty good for plain C code like Quake. AFAIR the "IntelliSense" branding was also in place already.

reactordev 9mo ago

absolutely! When launching my editor today, it phones home, it checks location, it does everything that an editor SHOULDN'T DO. Not to mention the extensions... Software today is a horrible bloated mess on top of horrible bloated messes.

ack_complete 9mo ago

The VS debugger got an order of magnitude slower in the transition from VS6 to Visual Studio .NET. It's been sped up a bit but is still nowhere near as fast as the VS6 debugger at responding to step commands, debug output, or conditional breakpoints. In VS.NET you could be waiting as long as a full second on a contemporary dev machine for the debugger to finish stepping forward one line. Funny thing is that at the time, I was lamenting how much slower VC6 was than VC4. Macro playback, for instance, got much slower in VC6. It's all relative.

Borg3 9mo ago

I think you were using some 3th party software for auto completion. There was project called Visual Assist with was pretty popular and powerfull tool.

direwolf20 9mo ago
Nope!
int_19h 8mo ago
Visual Assist provided much better completion especially for (then brand-new) C++98 if you used templates, STL etc heavily, but VC had its own completion out of the box that was actually pretty good for plain C code like Quake. AFAIR the "IntelliSense" branding was also in place already.