[lmm]

Software development just isn't mature enough yet. A bug-free, stable version of an IDE from 10 years ago would be much less pleasant to work with than the flaky version with all the features that have been invented in the intervening years.

[beagle3]

Visual c++ 6 circa 1998 was the pinnacle of responsive IDEs, and was more responsive in 2000 on 2000 hardware than the the visual studio 2013 o last used in 2015 - are new versions any better, or so you still wait a couple of seconds when pressing “run” just for the IDE to figure out that no compiling needs to be done?

[mrkeen]

Yes, so much this.

My thoughts on Eclipse the entire time I used it was "why can't this be as fast and reliable as VB6?"

[beagle3]

It is ridiculous.

In 2015, when I had to port something to Windows, I was so frustrated by the IDE speed that I was doing “make ; make test” outside instead - only using the ide when I needed the debugger. (I had makefiles from Linux, I would probably have been to lazy to create them if I didn’t)

[fomine3]

I refuse to use the VB6 IDE that truncates characters from variable viewer.

[pjmlp]

Delphi, C++ Builder vs Visual C++.

Visual C++ 6.0 vs Visual.NET

Visual Studio 2010 vs Visual Studio 2015

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

I know of several programmers still running Visual Studio 6 because of how much more pleasant it is to work with than any modern VS version due to its responsiveness. That's without it even being bug free.