- More comments on Tom Yager's article<P><A href="http://www.accidentalscientist.com/">Simon Cooke</A> posted a <A href="http://www.stevex.org/dottext/archive/2004/06/02/443.aspx#449">comment</A> on my last post on Tom Yager's Visual Studio .NET 2005 Preview <A href="http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/05/28/22FEvs2005_1.html?s=feature">article</A> asking me which parts I disagree with.</P>
<P>Well, lets see.</P>
<P>"Microsoft has let its developers down".</P>
<P>Even if you don't use .NET, Visual Studio .NET 2003 is still an excellent C++ development environment. Hardly letting us down.</P>
<P>All the supposed broken promises - how about some links to those promises? I don't remember Microsoft making most most of them.</P>
<P>He mentions "Major changes that seemed arbitrary" but doesn't say what they are.</P>
<P>"Microsoft is mounting a two-pronged offensive to win back its enterprise development credentials". Did Microsoft ever have enterprise development credentials? When exactly did they lose them? As far as I can see, Microsoft has been slowly building it's enterprise development credibility over the years (starting with almost none), and it's only accelerated lately. </P>
<P>"Visual Basic 2005 abridges .Net’s pedantic grammar to accommodate inexperienced and impatient developers." Pedantic grammar? The only relevant links on a Google search for <A href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=pedantic+grammar+%22visual+basic%22">pedantic grammar "visual basic"</A> are links to his article.</P>
<P>He says "VS .Net derailed Visual C++" but I build C++ applications with VS.NET for a living and I'm quite happy with it. When you 'derail' something does that mean to continue to support and improve it?</P>
<P>It's like he's created this alternate universe where Microsoft has been ignoring and alienating developers in which to set his story, and that's not the universe that I see at all.</P>
<P> </P>Thu, 01 Sep 2005 19:17:07 GMT