|Thursday, June 27, 2002|
The irony is painful:
Thank God, the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. [more boom in the room]
5:59:43 PM permalink
Maybe I should subscribe to Brad Wilson's comments RSS feed. A thread sprung up on his post on Advanced .NET Project Management post. Sam offered that Brad shouldn't exclude IDEs for project management, Brad opined that IDEs are for amatuers, Sam threatened to open up a can of old fashioned whup-ass, and in the thread ended with generally amicable chest pounding. Sam and Brad, I'll by tickets to that grudge match! :-)
I made a comment earlier about not using devenv.exe in the auto build. I have some hard personal experience with this: at my work, we've been doing this since August. I received a set of batch files from someone at Microsoft Consulting as a bootstrap to getting a build system up and running. Things were pretty straightforward, except that on this project they weren't doing Web Services. Things get complicated with building web applications.
The upshot of all this is that building web apps in devenv.exe is pretty tricky. But the thing is, it's totally unnecessary. All you need to do is invoke csc.exe (or whatever compiler you're using) on the source files. I built some Nant build scripts and proved that all this was possible, and much simpler. The one reason I haven't simply switched to NAnt is that we're using setup projects in each project to package our deployments. I haven't found a way to do this in NAnt. I suppose I could create a separate solution that incorporated all the setup projects into one solution, and then just build that out of devenv, but OTOH, I'm now rethinking the use of those MSI deployment packages. Nifty as they are, it seems like they're not worth the headaches; mostly, you just need to copy the files where they need to go and then run installutil.exe to run any custom installers that the project contains. Since our stuff is all being deployed on a server, most of what the MSI can do for us isn't really helpful.
As far as using the IDE during ordinary development, I'd be willing to bet that we'd have a mutiny if we took the IDE away. Personally, I like working out of the IDE, definitely over textpad. The difficulty would be in keeping the .build files in sync with the .sln files. A nice little macro or addin that automatically exported a build file would be nice (VC 6 had the option to save a makefile with each save, which I've used in the past with good results). Slingshot is OK, except that I don't like the format of the buildfiles it creates.
Anyway, since our future development direction is WebSphere Application Developer, this question is mostly moot. The thing is, I think I'll be taking the "IDEs are for weenies" tack when I start doing Java development. It's funny that as terrible as WSAD is (everyone on our team acknowleges this), pretty much nobody is willing to abandon the IDE in favor of Textpad and Ant.
8:33:27 AM permalink
Mike quotes a different section, but the part that made my eyes light up was this:
How true. I've seen and been a part of things where simple proposals die because of the amount of piling on that happens, but massive, complex projects that cost up into 9 fugures get approved off of a 1 page summary. The article also has some good, if sarcastic, advice for people posting on high traffic mailing lists. I've signed off of most of the ones I was subscribed to because I simply don't have the time anymore.
7:24:28 AM permalink