Who uses microsoft visual studio .net 2003?

#1 Hi Corey,

Visual Studio .NET 2003 is a very powerful piece of kit, and unfortunately a bit expensive for the whole package if you don't already have it. I had the full suite installed at work, although we only used VB.NET, a little C++ .NET, and the debugging features.

You would only really need VC++.NET for Torque work, and the debugger is now built into the unified environment, rather than being a feature of Visual C++, so you would get that with any package from the suite. I've just ordered VC++.NET Standard Edition (82 GBP), and also VB.NET Standard Edition (same price). That price (for VC) gets you a fully-stocked VC++, and the MSDN Library (more help/reference that you could eat in a year). Whack on any updates, and you'll be ready to build Torque. And if you have any VStudio setup problems, I'm sure you'd get answers around here (maybe from me :-).

I think there is a VC.NET project/workspace in the Torque project (I haven't played with Torque for some time I'm afraid :-( ), and I'm sure people are using VS.NET to build their Torque projects.

The debugger is as good as it gets IMO - you can debug almost anything with it, from ASP pages to C++ code on another machine. If you're writing a DLL project, you can place a break point in the DLL, tell VC which external executable to run, and the breakpoint will be hit. Top debugger, and seems to work flawlessly every time.

My advice - if you think VS.NET is for you, get yourself VC++.NET Standard. It's cheap, and you won't regret it.

-Darren.

#2 One quick note, I don't think Standard comes with the full, optimizing compiler. I could be wrong.

#3 Ben is correct there are lots of compiler options, mainly the optimization ones missing from the Standard Edition.

You don't have to use the .Net Framework if you don't want to, they really screwed the market with the ridiculously confusing naming. That said the .Net version of Visual Studio ( 7.0/7.1 ) is head and shoulders above 6.0.

Add in Visual Assist and you have a pretty decent package. Codewarrior 8 for just doing C++ is a viable alternative, the IDE is easier to deal with and it feels less complicated.

#4 Damn, do you have to buy the professional edition to get those? That means buying the whole studio, which is 800 GBP :-( So are we talking about the compiler optimising .NET specific code here, or does the Standard Visual C++ lack compiler optimisation completely? I'd be pretty gutted if it's the latter, as the VC compiler has always had good code optimisations for general C++ code.

Thanks for this guys!

#5 VC 7.1 Pro has a good optimizing C++ compiler.

VC 7.1 Standard's isn't as good. I'm sure it does some optimization, but probably not enough.

Sorry. :(

#6 That's painful :-(

I can't find a price for a VC Pro, only Studio Pro. I also want to get VB.NET, as I'm developing business stuff with it to keep the pennies coming in. VC Pro and VB Pro on their own must be around the 400-450 GBP mark, and the upgrade price for Studio Pro is just over 460 GBP. I have a slightly unlicensed old copy of Studio 6.0, so I think I'll have to fork out the extra for Studio and 'upgrade' from that. It seems a bit pointless buying both VB and VC pro, and missing out on extra features I *may* use for the sake of 60 GBP. Oh, that and the full price for Studio Pro without upgrade is 800+ GBP. Yikes.

Grud dammit! Just when I thought I was getting two good products for 160 GBP, I have to go and fork out nearly 500 instead. I'll have to stop by Redmond when I next visit the states, and give a certain Gates a big biatch slap...

Again, thanks for this info guys - I hadn't spotted the lack of optimisation, and I've actually cancelled the order I had. I now sit looking at the order page for Studio Pro, directing an evil glare at the 'Empty your bank account NOW' button. It isn't having any effect...

-Darren.

#7 From microsofts web page.

"Microsoft Visual C++ .NET Standard Edition is available for the hobbyist, student, or beginner programmer looking to learn the Visual C++ language by constructing applications for Microsoft Windows and the Web."

This version does not even have any options in the "optomize" drop down.

The Pro version has the ability to pick from compiler optomizations, standard has NO options in the drop down.

here is the for feature comparions of the different versions.

The standard edition of either one is probably fine for anything other than retail distribution. But if you want to distribute you probably want to at least get it compiled under the Pro version of .Net Studio.

#8 I do believe, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, that Visual Studio itself may not allow turning on advanced optimizations (the combo is empty). But the compiler is the same for Standard and Pro. Likewise, you can download the compiler (and the whole .NET framework) for free. It's Visual Studio that costs money, not the compiler.

I would think, therefore, that you could write a batch file to do your Release builds. For normal testing you could probably get by with the non-optimized compile. Or always use a batch file (or similar) while testing.

-Nerseus

#9 It's generally not a good idea to try to "skirt" copyright. Being able to download something, does not give you the right to use it however you wish.

If you want a free compiler that does work with TGE, get minGW.

#10 @Harold - the .NET compiler, the related SDK, and also the full documentation for all the libraries/languages involved is provided free by Microsoft. Nerseus is correct - Visual Studio is the component you pay for, and MS encourages (heh :-)) people to download the free bits. Heck, remember the comments Gates was making when they released Windows CE ("In the future you'll have intelligent refridgerators that run Windows CE"). He'd love you to use Notepad and write .NET apps ;-)

You could have a very good point there Nerseus - I couldn't get over the fact that microsoft would effectively 'cripple' their compiler, which always came with full power available, regardless of your studio edition. You may well have a point about command-line settings, and if that's the case you could simply adjust the make files that studio standard produces, adding/changing the flags for optimisation to create the desired build.

However, I wouldn't want to waste the cash on Standard edition to find out they have been 'typically MS'!

#11 You wouldn't have to "waste any cash" to find out. Simply download the .NET framework with compiler and try it out. I don't think you'd be "skirting" around anything as MS is providing these things for free. Personally, I love the Visual Studio environment - the intellisense keeps getting better and better - and I'd recommend buying whatever makes you most productive.

However, I'm not 100% sure the .NET compiler will:
A. Allow you to compile non-managed C++ applications.
B. Allow you to override (or add) compiler optimazation switches.

But like I said, it doesn't hurt to try. Just a download and a batch file, really.

-Nerseus

#12 Well, the other option might be to Try Before You Buy.

But, personally -- I love/hate VS.NET. For web apps it is disturbingly capable, given MS' track record (vbscripted asp . . . . *shudder*).

But it feels so freaking bloated, even for that. I have to learn it for work, but I'm going to keep with vanilla MSVC++ for Torque, probably for a while.

#13 My only suggestion is to make sure if you plan to use the "free" .NET framework compiler is you make sure you understand the EULA.

You will notice on the download page that it is to deploy .NET Framework applications. Torque is NOT a .NET Framework application.

If you want a free command line compiler get MinGW, for that matter get MinGW and Eclipse. You'll then have free IDE and compiler with optimization that works with Torque.

#14 The Standard compiler is indeed crippled, it has no real optimization support.

For those looking to sell their game(s) commercially and who plan to release one within the next year, another option you might want to take a look at is signing up for Microsoft's Empower program. This has certain benefits and drawbacks. The big benefit is that for only $375 you get 5 MSDN Universal subscriptions which means you get legal access to use not only 5 licensed copies of Visual Studio .NET (with updates as they are released, eg the upcoming Whidbey update) but also 5 licensed copies of XP/2000 Pro, Microsoft Office, Visio, Project, etc), you also get Longhorn preview copies -- the big drawback is that the licenses only cover you for a year...

#15 I am using VC7.NET also, but I find there are strange in using with TGE.
While I have openned the TGE solution, most of the projects don't have the option C/C++ (except map2dif). Moreover, although I have selected a project as "Startup project", "Build" or F7 (VC6 layout) doens't build that project, rather I need to right click on the project and select "Build".

Is it the problem of TGE project, VC7.NET or my computer's?

#16 @George:
I don't think the Empower program will work for most of us here, probably not for Corey either. It stipulates that you must maintain a website and deliver a product within a year (give or take, I'm sure).

Per Corey's original question: I love Visual Studio. I know some people find it bloated and they're right. But you get a lot of functionality in that bloat and it can be worth it if you use it. If you have a fast machine (or machines) then you're in luck as it definitely runs better with 1gig or more of memory.

If you were asking because you haven't chosen an IDE yet, I'd take some of the suggestions offered here, such as Eclipse.

If you're new to programming in general, you probably won't need the extra functionality that Visual Studio gives you. You'd do better to save your money and get started programming.

In my tests so far, I've done a LOT more with the scripting than the engine. And when I do tweak the engine, it's only to compile not to debug. Most of the "meat" of a game is in the scripting and Visual Studio won't help you there.

-Nerseus

#17 There's also a free, multiplatform IDE for MingW under devlopment called MingWStudio. I've been using it for some of my work lately and it's rather sweet for what it does. It is modelled upon VC, and has many features implemented already. More are coming in later releases. And considering that GCC is available on multiple platforms, has improved standards compliance with each new release, and decent optimization, I can't see a viable reason to purchase VS .NET.

#18

Quote:For those looking to sell their game(s) commercially and who plan to release one within the next year, another option you might want to take a look at is signing up for Microsoft's Empower program.

From FAQ:
·ISV must pay the membership fee $750 US (fee varies from country to country).