|
That's actually pretty cool. I really like the OSS touch. Crazy to see MS heading in that direction. The times; they are-a changing.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah I read about that man. Even though I'm still a C/C++ guy, I have to admit I'm liking this a lot. If it becomes truly cross platform, instead of having to use a mono-type knock-off, I'm going to be extremely tempted to make the switch.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Is it just me, or is there a huge gap between companies that have ~250 PCs, and companies that make in the neighborhood of $1 million in yearly revenue?
Or to put it another way... what company has 249 PCs but makes less than $1 million a year?
Pretty sure there should be an extra 0 or 2 on that revenue amount for the comparison to be relevant.
|
|
|
|
|
I think they intended that as a catch-all, to prevent someone from using it for free in a large corporation that did not yet have sales, or never would.
I suppose a research subsidiary of a for-profit corporation?
A million in revenue is a pretty low target too. Product sales company on a 5% net margin, still only $50K a year net income.
|
|
|
|
|
I think revenue is a company's gross income, not their net.
Even non-profit organizations require revenue to pay the salaries of their employees.
How many employees can a company afford to have if they are making less than $1 million a year?
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I was pointing out that as it applies to for-profit companies, the license restricts it to probably 1 or 2 employees.
They're aiming at making it free for start-ups, students, and lone programmers, probably on the theory that if you write enough of your code in it, you'll pay to use it rather than switch.
|
|
|
|
|
The problem is that MS doesn't currently offer a viable solution for "small" software development companies anymore.
In "ye olden tymes", it was simple, you just bought a MSDN subscription for every in-house developer and they were legal to create software for every MS OS using any/every Microsoft tool available.
Now you have to purchase separate licenses for the particular version of Visual Studio you want to use/support, so you end up with situations like ours: a small handful of people doing "new" work in Visual Studio 2012 while the rest do their maintenance work using VS2005.
I had hoped that the new Community Edition might provide a solution, but MS's odd definition of "Enterprise Organization" leaves us out.
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps the Microsoft definition of 'Enterprise Organization' should read 'Possibly Viable Business'.
Once a startup has a few paying customers, Microsoft wants a piece of the action.
Probably someone tallied up their net revenue from educational licences and realized that it would be far cheaper to give the software away.
|
|
|
|
|
Just get it. Get it now!
(I was able to modify some MFC code I couldn't work on before. I also did a 30 sec test of the resource editor in a C# project, and it worked. Far better than Express, and worth the additional 5 GB on the hard drive.)
|
|
|
|
|
For 2015 I shall. Going old school for 2013.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
One important difference in it - you can use extensions in it. Express didn't let you.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, that's cool. Richard mentioned it's just the Pro version with a different license. Spiffy stuff.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
And... Resharper works with Community Edition! 
|
|
|
|
|
The sensitivity of my scar-tissue from other adventures in the early-release fun-house of Microsoft dev tools renders me unable to shake hands with this latest tar-baby wonder right away, so I am hanging back, but I am watching what people are posting on the VS dev forum: [^] from time to time.
cheers, Bill
«OOP to me means only messaging, local retention and protection and hiding of state-process, and extreme late-binding of all things. » Alan Kay's clarification on what he meant by the term "Object" in "Object-Oriented Programming."
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like something liberals have cooked up...
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
I can't help but wonder if this is an attempt to lure developers over to a monthly fee service. Though its not required to use TFS/VSOL it certainly makes it seem a lot more palatable to spend $20 or $45 (US) per month when you feel you are saving the hefty fee that VS Pro used to be. Nothing malicious here (that I can see) but the pay as you go model is where they want to be heading with many of their products (Azure, Office, possibly Windows)
|
|
|
|
|
That wouldn't surprise me at all. But at least we can use other tools for code repos, so at least it's win-win ya know.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
I really like clear explanations which don't skip detail.
I'm reading a very well written, well informed book on ASP.NET MVC 5 (Professional ASP.NET MVC 5 - amazon link[^]).
The authors write very clearly and mention important details that other authors don't:
[-- MVC as a User Interface Pattern
Notice that we've referred to MVC as a pattern for the UI. The MVC pattern presents a solution for handling user interaction, but says nothing about how you will handle other application concerns like data access, service interactions, and so on. It's helpful to keep this in mind as you approach MVC: It is a useful pattern, but likely one of many patterns you will use in developing an application.
--]
That is very nice summary. With all the hype that surrounds MVC people often forget it is one part of the design.
A little further down the authors also mention:
[-- 3. The Controller: A set of classes that handles communication from the user, overall application flow, and application-specific logic. --]
That's a good reminder of what the controller does.
It's a great book, check it out.
|
|
|
|
|
Rule 1 of good documentation:
1. Say what it is and what it does, not what it is not or what it does not do.
The reason for that is very simple: people can (and do in software manuals! Often!) fill hundreds of pages explaining what a product or feature does not do, where it is possible to explain what it does do in just a few pages -- which of those two is more useful to the struggling user who is trying to figure out how to work the damned thing?
I don't need to be told that a product or feature won't iron my shirts, clean my car, or bring about world peace; I need to know what it is and how to make it go.
What the text could have done is use a prettified version of "This product does A. To do B or C, use something else", but it is usually better to stop at "This product does A".
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: 1. Say what it is and what it does, not what it is not or what it does not do.
While that is probably a good rule to have, it is not rule 1 at all!
There are many cases where explaining the limitations (ie what it does not do) is an important thing for noobs to understand early on. it also makes it clear, without being too wordy, what the scope is.
For example, hearing
"Product A does X, Y, Z"
the first question is "Ah!. But does it do W?"
This all assumes, of course, that it is somewhat logical that W is a valid function!
e.g.
MyWordProcessor has templates, uses multiple fonts, has spell checking and allows you to insert images"
Does it have grammar checking?
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
_Maxxx_ wrote: "Product A does X, Y, Z"
the first question is "Ah!. But does it do W?"
Obviously not.
_Maxxx_ wrote: MyWordProcessor has templates, uses multiple fonts, has spell checking and allows you to insert images"
Does it have grammar checking?
Not in the same section of the document, so that is not being discussed.
Look in the table of contents for the grammar-checking section. If it does it, it will be in the ToC (or, if it's a much more minor function than that, the index).
Unless, of course, you want to discuss everything in a single section, which will make the document completely unusable.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Don't do it. Its disgusting food. I really feel like puking right now.
Just an FYI if you are ever tempted.
|
|
|
|
|
Been there once, in Louisiana, felt the same way. Never went back either.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
I feel you pain. Ate there once....once.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
