OT: on IDEs and code writing on steroids

[Daniel Keep]

grauzone wrote:
>> and the .net cil is a genious idea. The most succefull compilers are
>> the ones that recognize that there is multiple languages, multiple
>> archictectures and that there should be something in the middle. CIL
>> just leaves it in the middle code until the last minute. MS may not do
>> the best operating systems but the whole .net thing is very good in my 
> 
> And what exactly is good about byte code?
> 
> It's portable? My D code is portable too. Sure, it requires
> recompilation, but it doesn't need a clusterfuck-VM just for running it.

There's a few points here:

1. Users don't like compiling software.  Hell, *I* don't like having to
compile software since it invariably doesn't work first go, even when
the build instructions are correct (they often aren't.)

2. A very large number of Windows developers write closed-source
software.  The idea of having customers obtain and compile their
software scares the pants off of them.  If it didn't, they wouldn't
invest so much money in obfuscators.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but... MS didn't design .NET to
make you happy.  *ducks*

  -- Daniel