Home > General Development > What’s New in Visual Studio .NET 2003What’s New in Visual Studio .NET 2003 Eugenia Loli 2003-01-13 General Development 20 Comments“Visual Studio .NET 2003 just came out as a “final beta.” I’ve been developing on it for a while now, and I want to point out some of the signature features and tools in this product.2 Read the article at 3Leaf.com. About The Author Eugenia LoliEx-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli 20 Comments 2003-01-13 3:46 pm If you don’t have anything constructive to say, please don’t say it. We used to have good discussions on this site and now we have nothing but pointless posts. .NET is an interesting technology and it will probably have a lot of influence in the future, so show some respect of the articles, maybe you’ll learn something. 2003-01-13 3:50 pm Your comment is very constructive Max. : ) 2003-01-13 4:54 pm it takes 1.5 hours to install on my machine and 2 to uninstall it. not to mention the interface is cluttered, and it is to complicated to make simple programs….VS 6 is much better…it almost seems like they want to be more like borland. 2003-01-13 5:23 pm http://www.eclipse.orgECLIPSE is the future of IDE’s.-] It is not bloated and slow like pig as VS.NET calamity.-] It is free as in beer.-] It is open source.-] It is written in Java, so that it works on Linux, MacOS, BeOS, Windows, Unix etc.-] It supports refactorings.-] It is universal IDE, meaning that it is possible to create Eclipse projects for Java, C++, etc.-] There are many universities and organizations performing research on Eclipse (Look at projects page.).-] It is controlled by 30+ industry giants.-] There are 200+ plug-ins already available from organizations, 3rd party, euthisiasts, etc. 2003-01-13 5:40 pm ive been annoyed that i couldnt afford vs .net when it came out and basically settling on the .net framework sdk and sharpdevelopmaybe it isnt all bad maybe ill have some $$ by the time this hits retaili assume this is to .net framework sdk 1.1 what the old vs .net is to the .net framework sdk i was playing with?may be worth looking into :o) 2003-01-13 5:42 pm “ECLIPSE […] is not bloated and slow like pig as VS.NET calamity. ”That is a joke right? ‘Cause it is pretty funny…-G 2003-01-13 6:16 pm 1. Eclipse is 60 MB. VS.NET is 2 GB.2. I tried both of them. Eclipse is WAY FASTER. Try it and see by yourself. =)So, what are you talking about? 2003-01-13 7:54 pm i read a thread on this very site that claims ms is scraping they’re .NET bullshit. i guess 2 years of trying to explain wtf .NET is was unsuccessful. the article went as far as saying they’re change they’re next server product to Server 2003, dropping the .NET entirely. VS 6 was a decent product. i learned to program with it, but this whole .NET crap is just that, crap. 2003-01-13 10:31 pm I’ve been looking into both languages (anything has got to be better than C++), and while VB.NET is more appealing to me because i’ve been coding in VB6 for awhile, I don’t know if there’s any possibility that VB will ever go cross-platform. 2003-01-13 11:28 pm “VB.NET is more appealing to me because i’ve been coding in VB6 for awhile”VB.NET and VB6 are fundamentally different. Do not let the titles confuse you, you can read the cries of VB6 developers trying to learn VB.NET everywhere.No, VB will never go cross platform. Learn Java instead. It is the only cross platform compatible technology available. Forget .NET, it is MS’s next world dominion plan.: ) 2003-01-14 12:28 am sure there are problems with it, but you compair C++ to VB!! ha…VB is a load of crap when compaired to C++, the only think it is good for is making quick little Windows programs or building interfaces for your C/C++ windows programs. 2003-01-14 12:48 am Learn Java instead. It is the only cross platform compatible technology available. Forget .NET, it is MS’s next world dominion plan.Honestly, I have no desire to even RUN (much less code) anything in Java. And I do use the term ‘run’ losely .. more like crawl. My grandma can even run faster than Java apps, and she ain’t got no legs!!sure there are problems with it, but you compair C++ to VB!! ha…I was not attempting to compare VB to C++ in terms of power. When you think about it, assembly is more poerful than C++, so why not code with that? Hell, as long as you’re a masochist, might as well go all the way, right? With as many advancements in the computer field as there have been over the years, you’d think somebody could make a language that’s as fast and powerful as C++, but without the same frustrating and lopsided semantics. Personally, I think I’d have a better shot learning the Chinese alphabet before I ever got a handle on C++. 2003-01-14 12:53 am it is very difficult to write very large and detailed programs in pure assembly, it is also hards to port a program to a diffrent platform with assembly….being close to machine code does not make a language powerful, it is what you can do with it that does….I will say that adding assembly into a C++ program is good becasue it can make the program execute faster, but pure assembly no way. 2003-01-14 12:59 am it seems that there is a pebkac error here.I mean realy, I can not get a grasp on lisp, so does that make it a bad language? no…but Darius, you seem to criticise anything that you can not understand in a few minutes.(no offence, just an observation I have made) 2003-01-14 1:42 am No, VB will never go cross platform. Learn Java instead. It is the only cross platform compatible technology available. Forget .NET, it is MS’s next world dominion plan.Well there is also Perl/Tk and Python/Tkinter. The source and libs can be nicely packaged for Windows users.I don’t see .NET ever being cross-paltform. C#? Yes. .NET? No. 2003-01-14 2:24 am The reason VS .NEt is so big is because of all of the documentation that is available. As for speed, there is no comparison, Eclipse seems relatively fast at first, but as soon as you bring in a enterprise level project, it just crawls. There is no comparison performance-wise between the two.-G 2003-01-14 3:11 am It’s so bad it’s almost HTML.I laugh when people say that they ‘program’ VB applications. LOL.Code C++ and http://kdevelop.org“>use . 2003-01-14 4:16 am The article completely fails to mention the single largest improvement in Visual Studio .NET 2003: C++ standards compliance. The C++ compiler that will ship with VS2003 will be one of the most compliant compilers out there, able to compile all the popular meta-programming libraries without any work-arounds. Libraries like boost, lambda, loki, pooma — they all just work! 2003-01-14 12:27 pm If you have a look at http://www.go-mono.com VB.NET support has already started. I am not too clued into it, however, it shouldn’t be too much hassle considering that VB.NET is compiled into MSIL.From what I have heard, Microsoft is suggesting that VB developers move to C# if they can as it will open them to more opportunties when Office embraces C# for writing macros. 2003-01-14 5:56 pm that is a kick butt IDE and it uses GCC 3.2 for the 5.0 version.