3 ms·
I got bit by being really productive in VC6 like 10 years ago. Had a script to clone a template dsw/dsp file, which make a new one, so I have about 400 projects
by herf 13y ago
I got bit by being really productive in VC6 like 10 years ago. Had a script to clone a template dsw/dsp file, which make a new one, so I have about 400 projects like that, for little experiments, little projects.
Upgrading each of these projects to the 2010/2012/2013 IDE requires about 5 minutes of manual steps - per project!
I still keep a VC6 on my machine (even though it barely works on Win7) because of all that.
What got me stuck on VC6: I benchmarked OutputDebugString in the 2002/2003 versions, and noticed that they were ~10x slower.
The new compilers are a lot better, for sure.
- anotherbadlogin 13y agoHa ha, OutputDebugString. Heaven forbid that printf go to the goddamned console like a normal system. And that's just one of many asinine deficiencies in VS. It is indeed going backward: http://goldmanosi.blogspot.com/2012/05/visual-studio-is-it-getting-worse-as.html http://goldmanosi.blogspot.com/2012/05/visual-studio-is-it-g...
- to3m 13y agoVC6 was notable for simply discarding OutputDebugString output when things got busy. This was a problem I used to suffer from quite regularly, and it caused me a lot of bother. I have no idea just how they managed to utterly fuck up the performance in VS2002 and later, but it does at least capture every last char of output, if you have the patience to wait for it. (Perhaps on modern multi-core multi-GHz CPUs the VC6 approach is reliable enough, assuming it's some timing issue. But I have to say that I do prefer the VS2002+ tradeoff. Wish somebody would just fix the whole sorry mess though.)