DMD - Windows

[Mail Mantis]

2012/1/7 Nick Sabalausky <a at a.a>:
> news:mailman.144.1325892989.16222.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
> Yea, and that's very unfortunate. I used to be a huge fan of visual studio
> for years (from around MSVC 5 through the first or second VS.NET), but now
> that I've tasted the alternatives, I find the build/project management to be
> a little too "magical" and proprietary (or at least too incompatible and
> inbred), and the UI to be too bloated. I think a lot of the people who are
> unwilling to try anything but a heavyweight IDE are being unfair to
> themselves and their projects by keeping themselves blinded. (Obviously, if
> they've done both ways and still prefer big IDE's, that's different.)
>
> And the thing is too, with popular overrated langauges like C++ or Java, you
> *need* a fancy IDE to get anywhere and still maintain sanity. But what many
> of those people don't get, is that with better languages, you *don't*
> actually *need* all that other stuff. Sure, it can still be a nice bonus,
> but it's *not* a necessity like with the popular "puzzle" languages they're
> used to. It's like canned vegetables: You've gotta drench that shit in salt,
> sauces, spices, and all sorts of stuff just to make it go down. But with
> food that's quality in the first place, it doesn't matter: You can either
> dress it up or leave it as-is; either way it still works
> fine...no...*better* than starting with an inferior base.

I agree to some extent. Visual studio has a very convenient integrated
debugging environment, and good extensibility.
Yet, I've choosen to sacrifice it for better efficiency/portability of GCC...

The ability to automatize work by writing an extension in VB/C# in 5
minutes in kinda good, but inability to efficiently use assembler, for
example, negates this benefit, IMHO.