XPost: comp.os.linux.advocacy   
   From: ahlstromc@xzoozy.com   
      
   Ezekiel pulled this Usenet face plant:   
      
   > "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."   
      
   Actually, I never knew there were templates behind Visual Studio wizards.   
      
   I guess I'm not quite the Windows programmer "Hadron" thinks I am.  :-D   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Cool.  You can also use MSBuild, have Hudson control the build, etc.   
   Which is indeed my preference -- to get *outside* of Visual Studio   
   as much as possible.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   There is a real issue nonetheless, Zeke.  Once you stop letting Visual   
   Studio do the work for you, you really have to be careful what you do, and   
   the level of effort needed rises greatly.   
      
   I wouldn't call it easy, at all.  Which is why most people give in and let   
   Visual Studio make the project files... and why you see project directories   
   with paths like these:   
      
      C:\Projects\Apps\Application One\Application One   
      C:\Projects\Apps\Application One\Application One\Unit Tests\Unit Tests   
      
   Very annoying with enough nested projects to make the paths exceed the   
   260-character limit.   
      
   I'm not saying Linux development doesn't have a lot of gotchas.  But I find   
   it quite a bit simpler, for what I do.   
      
   --   
   3M, under the Scotch brand name, manufactures a fine adhesive for art   
   and display work.  This product is called "Craft Mount".  3M suggests   
   that to obtain the best results, one should make the bond "while the   
   adhesive is wet, aggressively tacky."  I did not know what "aggressively   
   tacky" meant until I read today's fortune.   
      
   		[And who said we didn't offer equal time, huh? Ed.]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)