Home > General Development > Visual Studio .NET 2003 ReviewVisual Studio .NET 2003 Review Eugenia Loli 2003-04-28 General Development 14 CommentsActiveWin features a review of Visual Studio .NET 2003 development suite. They cover feature-set, usage, installation, pricing and what’s still missing.About The Author Eugenia LoliEx-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli 14 Comments 2003-04-28 7:33 am i only quickly read over the article, one thing they missed *i think* is that microsoft is claiming that the c++ compiler is 97% ISO compliant.i like this qouteAside from the uglier Java syntax, it works exactly the same as any other .NET application. 2003-04-28 7:57 am Does Visual Studio integrate a tool for Unit Testing (a la Eclipse/IntelliJ)? 2003-04-28 8:28 am I don’t know about this new version, but last year’s Visual Studio .Net can be extended with CppUnit (cppunit.sourceforge.net). I don’t know the download URL, but it works for me. 2003-04-28 9:18 am And if you’re using managed code, then you can use NUnit2.http://sourceforge.net/projects/nunitYou can also get a VS.NET plugin for thathttp://dotnetweblogs.com/NUnitAddin/This is very cool. I can’t remember whether it installed correctly under VS2k3, or whether I had to edit the registry and copy its keys from 7.0->Addins to 7.1->Addins, but it works anyway, 2003-04-28 9:21 am Standard C++ compilance is a small gain because investment in MFC wrappers are diminished by their object oriented user mode platform (.Net). System development is not encouraged on a closed implementation. If you ask me, the Microsoft platform is obsolete anyway. 2003-04-28 10:43 am Also, IIRC, Winforms are now available to C++ applications. Maybe in the future they’ll make a tool that will automatically move the code from MFC to Winforms? 2003-04-28 12:08 pm I doubt anything on activewin should be considered an actual “review”… More like an MS fanboy gushing over how brilliant any piece of data coming out of Redmond is… like the art teacher on the simpsons: “… Marvellous! Another Triumph!” 2003-04-28 1:31 pm Well, considering this is out of ActiveWin, I think it is a quite objective review. A step in the right direction, you might say. If they continue this way they might one day regain my respect… 2003-04-28 2:26 pm i won’t bitch about minor glitches and bugs, because i have been using the latest beta, and those bugs will hopefully be gone by the final release, but still there are a few things i just can’t grasp– this is what the first visual studio should ‘ve been like, it’s not a very big upgrade, but it is a bit better worked out. the previous one came out too soon and it shows, this release is the same as the previous only done better .– why is it apparently incompatible with the previous visual studio .NET. you cant open a 2k3 project in the regular VS,… until you open the project file in notepad and change the version numbers, then it’s compatible again– why does it use different incoming ports every time you debug a web project. this way it’s impossible to open a single firewall port, you need to take out the entire firewall (the previous vs did this too)in short:this is just a minor upgrade imo, not worth the excessive price tag. the price for upgrades are absurd if you consider most company’s bought the previous version only months ago.i know i won’t upgrade my home pc to visual studio 2k3 because this is just getting too much to pay. 2003-04-28 2:29 pm the upgrade from vs.net to vs.net 2003 for every version (pro, ent. etc) is $29. That’s pretty good imo. 2003-04-28 3:39 pm – this is what the first visual studio should ‘ve been like, it’s not a very big upgrade, but it is a bit better worked out. the previous one came out too soon and it shows, this release is the same as the previous only done betterI’ve got to be honest here, you’re right. VS.NET 2003 is more stable than VS.NET was. It took an extra year and a half to get it out the door though. Just how well do you think that the .NET platform would have been adopted if there had been no professional development environment for it? VS.NET was shipped when it was for business reasons. MS knew that it would be possible to come back and fix it up later, but they had to get something out the door that was at the very least usable.Remember, at the end of the day, Microsoft is a business. They exist in order to make money. Part of the success strategy for Microsoft is pushing their platform (Windows & .NET). I feel pretty good about the $29 upgrade. You can think of the $29 as the cost of the original VS.NET, and the larger cost can be associated (mentally ) with the new version. 2003-04-28 6:24 pm the upgrade from vs.net to vs.net 2003 for every version (pro, ent. etc) is $29. That’s pretty good imo.Would you care to expound upon that information a little bit. I have contacted MS trying to get an upgrade to my personal copy of VS.NET 2002 (which I just bought a month ago), and they have been far from helpful. 2003-04-29 12:07 am Here you go…http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/howtobuy/upgrade/vstudio03/defaul… 2003-04-29 6:37 am Thanks. I should have avoided the call and gone straight to the web site.