|
|
|
| Related Articles |
| VS 2008 Compatibility with Older VS 2005 Add-in Packages |
28 November 2007 |
| I've helped a few people over the last week who have run into issues with VS 2008 where it would immediately crash when the IDE was launched, or upon creating new projects (usually failing with a "Visual Studio has encountered an unexpected error" dialog). After debugging the issues, it turned out that they were caused by an older VS 2005 add-in that people had installed on their machines that wasn't compatible with VS 2008. In each of these specific cases it was an older version of the VisualSVN source control utility (note: Version 1.3.1 of VisualSVN works fine with VS 2008 - but older versions have problems). By default when you install VS 2008 on a machine that has VS 2005 on it, setup will use your existing settings to configure VS 2008, and will import your current VS 2005 preferences and add-in packages. If you see any crashes or issues (especially upon first launching the IDE) it could be that they are caused by one of your older add-in packages having some compatibility issue with VS 2008. If you run into a situation like this, one option to try is to launch VS 2008 in "safemode". This will launch the IDE with add-in packages disabled, and provides you with a good way to determine whether it might be an add-in causing the problem. You can launch VS 2008 in safemode by passing the /safemode switch to the VS 2008 devenv process from the command-line: If you discover that the problem you encountered is related to an add-in, you can use the Tools->Add-In Manager menu option to disable the add-in within the IDE. As a general best practice, I'd recommend that you always keep close track of the add-ins you have installed with Visual Studio, and make sure to periodically check for updates of them (especially when upgrading to VS 2008). If you do ever report an issue with VS - please also make sure to detail the add-in packages you have installed, as this can help a lot in our investigations. Hope this helps, Scott P.S. Ilya Ryzhenkov from JetBrains recently published a blog post that details the plans to update the popular ReSharper add-in for VS 2008. You can read it here. |
| |
| Qantas admits to illegal activity and does a deal with the US Government |
28 November 2007 |
| agreeing to pay a fine of US$61 million for illegal conduct related to fuel surcharges in the international air cargo market |
| |
| Korean Air hit by state ruling |
28 November 2007 |
| The South Korean government introduced a rule stipulating that all budget airlines must operate domestic routes for two years before they are allowed rights to fly abroad |
| |
| Korean Air to launch budget offshoot in May |
26 November 2007 |
| The South Korean flag carrier will invest Won20bn to establish a discount carrier in May next year, launching "Air Korea" to compete with the likes of Singapore's Tiger Air in the low-cost Asian travel market |
| |
| Gun amnesty after air rifle death |
28 November 2007 |
| Residents ask for a gun amnesty after a 17-year-old boy died when he was shot with an air rifle. |
| |
| Nato bomb 'kills Afghan workers' |
28 November 2007 |
| A Nato air strike kills 12 men working on a road in Afghanistan's north-east, a provincial governor says. |
| |
| Programming less |
28 November 2007 |
| A programming lesson I keep relearning.
The design of the central data structure of an app determines the quality of the app, in every way.
Any extra thought that goes into this, will pay off in:
1. Maintainability of the code.
2. Size of the code (you'll write less code with a well thought-out central data structure).
3. Simplicity of the user interface (the structure inevitably shows through in the UI).
4. Ability to respond to feature requests.
5. Adapt to new hardware, OS changes, other apps.
6. More "it just works" experiences.
This is why it's sometimes the right thing to start over from scratch. Programmers often want to start over because they look at the code and it looks complicated, and they think they can make it simpler if they start over. They're right, of course, it will be simpler when they start over, because it won't do nearly as much as the mature product does. Once they finish building out the feature set, it may well be just as complicated.
It's a judgement call. I remember looking at the source of Unix kernel for the first time as a grad student in Wisconsin, and being amazed at the simplicity and obviousness of the code. I couldn't believe something so simple actually worked. Your code at its kernel level must have this simplicity. But at the edges, where you're accomdating the minds of users, inevitably it gets a little messy. The key thing to look for is how hard is it to add a completely new feature. It should be easy to do that. If it's not, it's likely because of a poorly organized (and therefore not well-understood) central data structure.
I've rewritten apps many times, over many years, because when I wrote the first or second versions, I didn't understand the problem well enough, and the code had turned into a morass of patches and workarounds.
Right now I'm recoding the internals of a special-purpose aggregator. I've written many of these, over the years, always quickly, trying to get something running fast, and then lived with data structures that resulted. This time I'm going slowly and carefully, with an installed base of one (me) and ripping up the pavement whenever I find even a slightly better way of doing something. I have other users who are waiting, but that's life.
5/7/97: "When a programmer catches fire it's because he or she groks the system, its underlying truth has been revealed." |
| |
| Google: Jolly green giant? |
28 November 2007 |
| The search and advertising company is a force to be reckoned with across the Web. Now it's looking to do the same in alternative energy (along with many others, large and small). |
| |
 |
|
|
|