[oleganza]

I have clarified my point in another comment already. It's not about who's better. It's about who's trying to experiment and rethink things. In developer tools team of the top-10 tech company you have a great combo: best hard-core engineers on the planet + little need to maintain cruft and worry about competition. Why not experiment and try to be better at what you do? Xcode 4 is this radical attempt to improve old problems (of course introducing new ones). And VS does not try to eliminate old obvious problems and almost stays where it is in terms of UI.

Update: here are related thoughts on the subject: http://blog.oleganza.com/post/18156593863/why-apple-products...

[algoshift]

> Why not experiment and try to be better at what you do?

Herein lies the problem. The term "better" is most definitely subjective.

Not to pic on Xcode, but this is a prime example of focusing too much on making a consumer appliance rather than a professional tool. Like I said: I don't want iTunes, I want a kick-ass IDE.

I'm in the middle of a project that has, quite literally, thousands of assets to manage (images, audio, video). The thousands of files end-up piled-up without any semblance of organization in the project directory. I mean, who woke up one day and though "This is a good idea!" when you have a perfectly good file system to take advantage of? Updating assets is an absolute nightmare.

Yes, yes, there are crafty work-arounds. Each with its own pros-and-cons. The point is that the IDE itself was designed to totally ignore the underlying file system. Let's put it this way: If I wrote code like that at the many jobs I've had over the years I would have gotten fired in a microsecond. Yet, for some reason, this is "feature" is now considered good design?

Back to coding.

[oleganza]

The key was "try". Xcode is far from being focused on "consumers" and they are trying hard to make a kick-ass IDE. It could be a different definition of "kick-ass" from yours, that's fine.

Anyway, I emphasize this again: it's not a question if the actual result is better or worse, it's a complex question because there are thousands of people to evaluate it. The question is why not to experiment more where you have more liberty to do so. It's hard to experiment with a toolbar in Excel because millions of non-computer-geek users are used to certain operations and want to preserve their productivity. But it's not hard to throw away toolbar in an IDE because nobody will pay you less because of it. (Especially if you are actually trying to do your best.)

Metro after Windows is that kind of experiment (but way more risky and rewarding, of course). But Visual Studio is not inspiring at all after all these years.

PS. For that matter, Xcode 4 is not radical enough too. We are still typing a lot of boring cruft (even with ever-smarter autocompletion). But it's a huge difference with Xcode 3 and other IDEs out there.

[algoshift]

>It's hard to experiment with a toolbar in Excel because millions of non-computer-geek users

Excel is another of my favorite "Why did they do that?" examples. In my opinion, MS absolutely ruined Excel somewhere in the transition from Office 2003 to 2007. If you were a power user with Excel'03 you felt like a total idiot with Excel'07. And, this wasn't a matter of a few buttons here and there. The thing was almost utterly unusable compared to what you could do with the '03 version. Furthermore, they complicated the usage of VBA modules. If you had a library of VBA work that you used regularly you, all of a sudden, found yourself scratching your head trying to figure out how to do some pretty basic stuff.

I use Excel extensively for automated code generation. Simple examples are the generation of repetitive lookup table code in various languages. Or code to pre-stuff database tables. Or maintaining a complex LUT-driven state machine. I have custom Excel tools that have taken months to develop that do increase productivity in a measurable way. For example, one tool uses Excel to auto-magically write the code (LUT, callbacks, etc.) for a menu system on an embedded device with an LCD display. Before the tool it'd take hours, if not a couple of days, to maintain. After the custom VBA tool it was a matter of minutes.

Anyhow, upon switching to '07 (mostly a forced switch because I needed to migrate to a 64 bit OS for Finite Element Analysis work) I went from light speed to crawling. That, to me, is not an improvement. I am OK with learning new things, you have to be open to it if you want to remain in this game, but sometimes you can't help but scratch your head and try to figure out what the hell they were thinking.

Thankfully that was easily solved with a VM running XP and Excel'03.

[MartinCron]

I use Excel extensively for automated code generation.

I'm not going to argue if this is a good thing or a bad thing to do, but even you have to agree that this is an extremely rare thing to do, and something that would be more or less impossible for Microsoft to anticipate you doing.

[algoshift]

Of course. This was just one illustration of Excel as an augmentation tool. There are probably thousands of such special applications out there, some commercial, some not, that used Excel this way.

The greater point, perhaps, is that making things prettier at the expense of raw functionality isn't always the best idea.

For the record, on first inspection I like the outer appearance of VS 2011. I like the pictographic icons and clean uncluttered appearance. I hope that this effort did not come at the expense of function elsewhere. We'll upgrade when it comes out of beta and see.

[nonsensical]

I will argue, as I don't know who the submitter is, or even what this site is. HackerNews I think? I just got here via a Twitter post. So I have nothing to lose.

If you're using Excel for automated code generation, YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG

Surely there are better tools out there for the task.

[deniska]

Using tools in wrong way is a kind of entertainment for hacker. But hacker shouldn't complain if something breaks.

[algoshift]

That's really funny partner. Using Excel for generating code fragments that can be cut and pasted into your compiler is powerful and fast. Nothing wrong with it. But, go ahead and don't. I love compete with others doing thing less efficiently. Makes me smile.

[reddyjr]

I couldn't agree more. '07 excel is a major change from '03. I know that they are trying more of a shotgun approach to reach deeper into business but I'm not sure if MS considered how they have alienated the power users. '10 is much more SharePoint focused which I love but SharePoint out of the box is very very limited.

[Vitorio]

Dunno about 03 but I recently installed Office XP (2002) almost without pb on a Windows 7 64bits. The only pb was with the companion help API that doesn't exist anymore on Vista/7 but is downloadable as a hotfix from Microsoft.

So I'm perplex about the need of a VM to run Excel 03 and won't debate about the use of it to generate code as anyone have different habits for his workflow.

[glhaynes]

"pb" means "problem"?

[buff-a]

>PS. For that matter, Xcode 4 is not radical enough too. We are still typing a lot of boring cruft ... But it's a huge difference with Xcode 3 and other IDEs out there.

I can only conclude that you have absolutely no concrete experience of the state of other tools and languages. Eclipse, IntelliJ and Visual Studio with Resharper are lightyears ahead of XCode 4 when it comes to assisted programming.

Here's the clue: all of these tools expose the code DOM to tool writers. Even if Intellij didn't have over 100 different ways to refactor code, I could write my own. Fuck, I wrote a Resharper plugin that loaded javascript file to manipulate the dom and pass it to StringTemplate [1] The javascript file then decides based on what is at the cursor which templates to display when the user hits Alt-Enter. Think for a minute about what has to happen under the hood for that to happen. Then think what else is possible. Then realize that its not there in XCode 4.

[1] http://www.stringtemplate.org/

[rbanffy]

> We are still typing a lot of boring cruft

This is more due to a language/API design flaw, actually. When a program (a preprocessor, a part of the IDE) generates more code starting from the code you actually wrote, it's because, for some reason, whatever you expressed in your code could not express enough to build the whole application.