XPost: comp.os.linux.advocacy   
   From: zeke@nosuchmail.com   
      
   "Tom Shelton"  wrote in message   
   news:if7vuc$91g$1@news.eternal-september.org...   
   > Chris Ahlstrom pretended :   
   >>>   
   >>> Of course, I use it almost every day.  I just don't agree with that   
   >>> sentiment that it forces you to do anything.   
   >>   
   >> Sure it does.  It will write skeleton code for you, and, as far as I   
   >> know,   
   >> it doesn't even come close to the one-man project BoUML in how much you   
   >> can   
   >> customize the code output to fit your coding standards.   
   >>   
   >   
   > You can create your own templates.  And you can modify the existing   
   > templates.  To what extent, I really can't recall because it's been quite   
   > a while since I've felt the need to do that :)   
      
      
   We got back earlier today from a family holiday (great to be home again BTW)   
   and I haven't been following this or any thread. But I was reading your   
   reply to Chris and from the little I've read this is beyond a lame argument.   
      
   It looks as if Chris is complaining that "VC wizards will generate skeleton   
   code" then goes on to complain about not being able to customize the code   
   output. This position is ridiculous Chris... because *you* never bothered to   
   try and customize the generated code is hardly a reason to criticize a   
   product for lack of customization.   
      
   At  the group that does some of the thick client GUI's uses Visual   
   Studio and those guys have edited the default MFC and ATL templates and   
   created some new ones for themselves. A quick snipped from one of the   
   template files looks like this:   
      
   // [!output DIALOG_CLASS] message handlers   
      
   BOOL [!output DIALOG_CLASS]::OnInitDialog() {   
    [!output DIALOG_BASE_CLASS]::OnInitDialog();   
   [!if ABOUT_BOX]   
    // Add "About..." menu item to system menu.   
   [!endif]   
      
    // Set the icon for this dialog.  The framework does this automatically   
    //  when the application's main window is not a dialog   
    SetIcon(m_hIcon, TRUE);   // Set big icon   
    SetIcon(m_hIcon, FALSE);  // Set small icon   
      
   [!if MAIN_FRAME_MINIMIZED]   
    ShowWindow(SW_MINIMIZE);   
   [!endif]   
    // TODO: Add extra initialization here   
      
   etc, etc.   
      
      
   It's not exactly rocket science to customize this to fit someone's "coding   
   standards."   
      
   Dealing with build systems isn't much more difficult either. At    
   our build system does automated builds and test runs on Mainframes to   
   Windows PC's and everything in between. Automating Windows builds in even   
   the most demanding of environments is absolutely trivial. Just use an   
   external makefile if you want (or ant, etc) and run it from the CLI or add   
   it as a "custom tool" and bind it to some keyboard combination. I hit Ctrl+B   
   to run external build tools and the output shows up right in the Output pane   
   of Visual Studio.   
      
      
   What gets me is that this entire debate is about as valid as some 'stupid   
   wintroll' complaining that Emacs can't be customized. And gee... the persons   
   entire argument is based on their absurd position that they've never   
   actually tried to customize Emacs but they're going to complain anyhow.   
      
   Somehow arguing that Emacs can't be customized is something that a 'stupid   
   wintroll' would do. Meanwhile these same people are the ones arguing that   
   Visual Studio sucks because it can't be customized or because of some   
   imaginary  problem that they can't actually specify.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)