> Doesn't that go against your argument? Didn't the iPhone prove that developers were very willing to pay to develops apps?
$99. And only after being able to play with the full/complete development tools and simulator for free. If that's what Visual Studio cost, I'd pay it now.
> You keep insisting that the full version of VS is necessary, but that simply isn't true, and repeating it over and over again will not make it true.
As an non-MS developer that's just now working with Windows 7 and Visual Studio (C++, and the AVR Studio 5 that's built on top of the VS shell), I can state definitively that the full version is necessary to get any real work done.
At the very least, I need VCS integration, a profiler, and an x86-64 compiler.
And all are tier 2 solutions. "You can make Visual Studio work with elbow grease" isn't the way to convince anyone to jump on the MS developer bandwagon.
What makes you say they are "tier 2" solutions? The VCS integration is right into the file system. I personally like this much more than just IDE integration, but YMMV. CodeAnalyst is a state of the art profiler, even better than the one in paid VS versions. The only thing that's more advanced is Intel's vTune. The x64 compiler is definitely not "tier 2", since it is from the standard SDK and the same as you get with paid VS versions.
You said that you needed those tools, so I tried to help. But this comment and your other comments make it clear that you don't really need them, you just want to prove a point.
> You said that you needed those tools, so I tried to help. But this comment and your other comments make it clear that you don't really need them, you just want to prove a point.
No, I do need them, though I looked up the answers when I ran into the issues. I made do, but the VSE/MSDN experience left me with a bad taste in my mouth.
I'm mainly trying to prove a point, which is that VS Express is frustratingly hobbled, the non-hobbled version is unusually expensive, and that state of affairs is counter-productive to encouraging developer adoption.
I'm using Microsoft's tools as a hobbyist whose day job is in running a growing desktop & mobile software development company. If they got me onboard, I'd be all that more likely to consider jumping on the Microsoft bandwagon.
> $99. And only after being able to play with the full/complete development tools and simulator for free. If that's what Visual Studio cost, I'd pay it now.
The "full" tools isn't a fair comparison. Visual Studio is much more feature-rich than Xcode. Apple does not give away the equivalent of Visual Studio for free.
Maybe Microsoft will add some of the "must-have" features to VS Express in the 2011 edition.
> As an non-MS developer that's just now working with Windows 7 and Visual Studio (C++, and the AVR Studio 5 that's built on top of the VS shell), I can state definitively that the full version is necessary to get any real work done.
At the very least, I need VCS integration, a profiler, and an x86-64 compiler.
From what I've read, it's possible to get Express to do amd64 compilation. There seem to be some gymnastics necessary, though. I'm not sure why it doesn't work out of the box.
As for VCS and a profiler, there are other profilers available, and VCS doesn't have to be integrated. These are not necessary features for the IDE.
Having worked on Unix for several years, I find all this "must-have" stuff bizarre. The tools might be necessary, but the idea that they must be integrated is pretty weak. Having a good IDE is very nice, but a text editor and a bunch of command-line tools can get the job done. (With that said, I definitely missed VS.)
When you're talking about "necessary" features, "get the job done" very much does cut it. Now, if you want to talk about nice-to-haves and how great it is to have integrated source code management and whatever, that's fine. But "necessary to get any real work done" is a rather large overstatement.
Also, I'm surprised you're comparing Eclipse to Visual Studio. I've always found Eclipse unpleasant, to the point that I favor a text editor and the command line. I'd much rather use VS Express than Eclipse.
$99. And only after being able to play with the full/complete development tools and simulator for free. If that's what Visual Studio cost, I'd pay it now.
> You keep insisting that the full version of VS is necessary, but that simply isn't true, and repeating it over and over again will not make it true.
As an non-MS developer that's just now working with Windows 7 and Visual Studio (C++, and the AVR Studio 5 that's built on top of the VS shell), I can state definitively that the full version is necessary to get any real work done.
At the very least, I need VCS integration, a profiler, and an x86-64 compiler.