Visual Studio 6 or .NET for C++?

[Carl Daniel [VC++ MVP]]

FWIW, I agree with the others that you should go with VC++ 2003.
However, I disagree with Carl

<G> I never said *I* wouldn't recommend 2003 for MFC code, just that many
people wouldn't recommend it... ;-)

-cd

 

[Julian Nicholls]

Do you realise that the whole of the Visual C++ .NET 2003 command line
tools, include files, and libraries can now be downloaded from the Microsoft
website, free and for nothing

I don't unfortunately have a link for you, but a search on the site should
turn it up.

Best Regards
Julian Nicholls

 

[Hendrik Schober]

Do you realise that the whole of the Visual C++ .NET 2003 command line
tools, include files, and libraries can now be downloaded from the Microsoft
website, free and for nothing

I don't unfortunately have a link for you, but a search on the site should
turn it up.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/visualc/vctoolkit2003/

Best Regards
Julian Nicholls
[...]

Schobi

--
(e-mail address removed) is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org

"Sometimes compilers are so much more reasonable than people."
Scott Meyers

 

[Arnaud Debaene]

Unfortunately VS .NET 2003 isn't possible. The judgement of the powers-
that-be was that 2003 doesn't offer enough to be worth the cost.

Too bad the powers-that-be aren't also the powers-that-know, because,
there is a *huge* difference in C++ conformance between VC 7.0 and VC
7.1 as soon as you start playing with templates (among other things.)

Arnaud
MVP - VC

 

[Rudy Ray Moore]

I have not noticed anything better about the 7.1/.net/2003 debugger over the
VS6 debugger. I have seen one quirky thing: Sometimes the call stack goes a
little bonko on the VS7.1/2003/.net debugger. In VS6 I could always go all
the way back to "main" in the call stack, but sometimes the newer debugger
goes into some assembly mumbo-jumbo and if I ever click on it "poof" there
goes my call stack and I have to wait for the next breakpoint for it to
reappear.