John Barstow wrote:
>>Any objections to generating windows makefiles instead of
>>project files?
>>
>>
>I object, I'm doing daily builds with the source under Win32 and my entire
>production line comes crashing down around my ears if you switch to
>makefiles.
>BUT it might be easier to generate VC7-style project files and have an XML
>transform produce the DSP file.
>
I'm going to try a solution that can generate projects for VC6, VCNET,
and CPP Builder. But I will definitely make sure that I get makefiles
working for VCNET so that you have the option of using a build system
that doesn't suck.
>>After a half decent Visual Studio 6, I thought Visual Studio .NET might
>>be better. I couldn't have been more wrong...
>>
>>
>At least the .NET project files are in XML, so you can transform them to
>NAnt, DSP or SharpDevelop files.
>The good news is that VS.2003 will have a major upgrade to ANSI C++
>compliance. Boost and Loki are compiling!
>
>
Don't get me wrong, I like the compiler, but the GUI is a piece of junk.
I have a project that consists of 32 libraries, in Visual C++ 6.0 if
you hit Build on a the main project, it would quickly check dependencies
and come back with nothing todo in less than one second. Now if I hit
Build on a subproject in Visual Studio .NET it takes 45 seconds to
figure out that its not going to do anything as it loops through every
project independently and checks the dependencies, only it takes longer
to do that for each subproject than it did to check everything in VC6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Nov 21 15:19:10 2002