GNU+Linux does not have Visual Studio

I thought people said this was the best OS to develop on.

For optimal Linux Apping I recommend using the text editor EMACS.

>>2
I am more interested in suboptimal Linux Apping, what can you recommend for that?

vim

>>4
nano

>>1
Don't worry, friend. Eclipse is at least as bloated as Visual Studio, and twice as slow. You'll feel right at home, especially after the first crash.

>>5
Hakase!

>>7
Hakasedanyan~!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am12GlkJktc

>>3
emacs

>>8

http://imgur.com/WITExp8

>>8,10
You've got to have an infantile mind to like this shit.

>>11
You've got dubs. Nice dubs, bro.

>>11

Wowzers!

>>8
I want to cum in Nano's keyhole.

>>10
She was annoying anyway.

>>1
The game programmer here. I'm forced to use Visual Studio 2013 at work every day. It's fine on small projects, but it shows its true colors when you have a large solution with 30+ library projects, thousands of source files and hundreds of thousands of lines of code.

You'll be left wondering why you couldn't just have a simple text editor and command prompt after MSVS locks up for the third time in the day, and your coworker groans in pain as the same thing happens to him, and threatens to throw his system out the window.

I use vim and sublime text at home so I don't go insane.

>>8

your anus when nikita sadkov's the narrator for this shit

>>15
I'm still on VS 2010 at work. It not completely terrible as a text editor, but as an IDE it is shit. Intellesense is always misscanning a header and saying that there are errors when there are none, and rescanning the project does not help. That's excusing the immense amount of time it takes to scan. And why can't it work properly with MFC? Sure, MFC is a bloated spaghetti plate, but why can't Microsoft even test it against their own software? On the upside, it isn't too bad handling the STL. The compiler is pretty bad too. Why is there no full C99 support? Microsoft, it's been fifteen years! They claim that that's because it's a C++ compiler with incidental support for plain C, but that's bullshit because they can't even implement C++11 properly (not that they would issue an update for 2010 anyway).

I wish they would stop focusing on C# so much. Who even uses it? No one I've ever met that didn't work for Microsoft or Novell, and now that that shilling Mixican is gone, not there. Though with Oracle strangling Java, ENTERPRISE might make a mass migration.

At least they've finally added git support. Team Foundation Server is an annoying pain in the ass.

Why is there no full C99 support? Microsoft, it's been fifteen years!

justusemingwlol

>>18
I don't think that my coworker's and managers would find it amusing that I start using a different compiler and coding to a different standard than everyone else. Sadly, I don't have the luxury of programming in a bubble that you NEET scum have.

>>15
You can use vim and Sublime at work, too; you only need to set up devenv / msbuild to rebuild after you save changes to a source file you have edited.

>>17

Intellesense is always misscanning a header

C# doesn't have headers, dolt. C/C++ support is a legacy and going to be removed from the future versions of Windows.

In a few years, .Net will no longer support C++/CLI and the future of .Net will be exclusively based on Microsoft's programming languages

>>17
The last version has limited C99 support

>>21
You can program in various flavours of C++ in VS 2010. As for "legacy," well, that's an interesting opinion, but it doesn't have much application to someone who is working in C++ today.

>>20
Having done that... for C at least, you suffer twenty seven kinds of shit trying to get a perfectly reasonable C program to compile in VS. It's got its own semi-standards-compliant compiler, just like IE is (or was) semi-standards-compliant with JavaScript.

>>23
Oh how wonderful, and it only took them a decade and a half to implement what every other major compiler vendor had by 2001. At this rate, maybe C11 will be supported before the century is up.

What's with the delays? Could it be that it is difficult to maintain? I wonder what the internals look like. I bet it's all gross like GCC, but filled with Enterpriseisms too. Or maybe the problem is that they were using SourceSafe to work on the codebase for all those years, and the daily database corruptions are what held it back.

>>24
The upside of this is that if you write for VS, you'll be using a subset that every other compiler pretty much any compiler down to OpenWatcom will be able to work with it. As long as you avoid anything in Windows.h of course. _{^{But then, why are you using VS?}}

>>25

Watcom

What's the point? That's archaic. Who programs for DOS32 anymore anyway?