We use C++/CLI heavily and we are just realising how painful developing for a library like .NET is like without intellisense having tried to use the new visual studio, so no visual studio 2010 or .Net 4 for us until this is sorted.
See Microsoft connect issue 501921 if you are in the same situation as us and want to make MS aware of how much of a problem this is.
I am not using VS2010 for production or simply not for current project. But personally exploring it for future. Lots of features are there and I love them. I think it will improve the productivity once we start working on it for projects.
Regards - Kunal Chowdhury | Software Developer | Chennai | India | My Blog | My Tweets
I must disagree. They had a lot of requests, even from developers, of things that could/should be done. In the release 3 they only create some of them. So, they already know which ones are required, even if they must also change and correct bugs from the new version, they can schedule future improvements.
I must say I was one wanting generic-recursion for a long time
They (MS) have feedback about their product much before the final release date.
As an example, I dowloaded, started develop+testing and sending feedback about .NET 4 and Visual Studio 2010 since the first Beta. That was on may-2009 (almost a year ago).
Plus, consider that there are complex features that are announced with much anticipation and being developed, such as the "Compiler Services" first shown by A. Hejslberg on the PDC 2008.
So, based on behaviour/timing of previous releases, plus CTPs and other innovations rounding around (such as the Reactive Extensions), I'm expecting new stuff for the next PDC and a beta for 2011 of either VS-2012 or .NET 5 (or 4.5).
So, what's the alternative? Release product, then work in feedback and fixes, then design and create new version for a new release after 4 or 5 years? (a "waterfall"). I see like a "multi-spiral" of products (CLR + Languages + Libraries + Tools), co-evolving together in a good pace.
I have a large codebase using 3.5, and VS 2008 works great for what I'm doing. I see no reason to change horses just because a new one comes available; I'll wait until the old one is put out to pasture.
And anyway, experience tells me -- in a loud, clear voice -- NEVER to buy any Microsoft product until at least the first service pack has been released.
Feh! Windows 7 is nothing more that Vista sp 3. You can verify this by entering the VER command at the DOS prompt: Vista is Windows 6.0, Win7 is Windows 6.5. They rebranded it because
a) Windows 7 is Windows 6.1, not 6.5 (not that it matters) b) The major version number was not incremented for compatibility reasons. Windows 7 is a completely new operating system. By your logic, Windows XP is 5.1 (2000 is of course 5.0), and therefore only a service pack of Windows 2000.