Talk:Visual Studio

Supported products

Each of the languages are themselves major products and thus have their own pages on wwikipedia, so I feel that most of this section is redundant. DominicConnor (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

vs2010 Codename

As a heads up, VS 2010 was not codenamed 'Rosario'. 'Rosario' referred to a Visual Studio Team System only release that was going to be based on VS 2008. This was going to be released separately from the lower SKUs, VS Pro, VS Express, etc. Rosario in this context also didn't refer to Rosario Strait, but rather to the Rosario resort on Orcas island. In the same way that the Rosario resort was built on Orcas island, VS 'Rosario' would be built on top of VS 2008 ('Orcas'). While the Team System Product Group were working on Rosario, the rest of the VS team were working on what was called 'Dev10'. It became clear as the product cycle continued they were going to be targeting a similar timeframe (end of 2009/start of 2010), and rather than ship a version of Rosario that was based on VS 2008, that it would be better to build it on top of VS 2010. Hence, the two products merged and were released together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.81 (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Visual Studio 2010 for Windows Phone

i did not see a mention of the new addition to visual studio 2010. "visual studio 2010 for windows phone" is a new adittion for making phone applacations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keanwood (talk • contribs) 01:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Its an after-release addon for download. It doesnt ship on the CD.94.168.168.153 (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

True. But that doesn't mean that it has no place in the article. Quite on the contrary, a good article must be broad in coverage. So, feel free to add something about it. Fleet Command (talk) 06:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Survey

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

• Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?

Sure, constructive feedback is always welcome. --soum ^talk 04:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?

Mainly academic technical writing, aka, research papers. --soum ^talk 04:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?

Not anything particular. I just try to maintain a key things: short sentences, third person constructs, and not mixing active/passive voice. --soum ^talk 04:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

My GA Review of this article

A good article has the following attributes:

1. It is well written. In this respect:

(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

• I fixed some issues.
• Can you reword the paragraph about the Server Explorer tool—it is a little awkward.
• The Team Foundation Server paragraph has an incomplete sentence in the middle.
• Why the different font for names like "SVsSolution" and "SVsShell".
• Why are the languages available as part of the Express IDEs expressed in a list instead of prose?
• Pre-Installed Virtual Machines section has a string of bold text with no separating punctuation.
• Fix infobox (preview release? and languages (more?)) per Template:Infobox_Software

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:

(a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;

(b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;[2] and

(c) contains no original research.

• Lot of citation issues. A lot of sections (as marked) need citations that support the text and inline citations.

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:

(a) addresses the major aspects of the topic;[3] and

(b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).

• Are there any WikiArticle you could list in a See also section?
• The Supported products section seems to go into too much detail (and is also poorly sourced). Most of the current and previously supported products have their own WikiArticles, so not much need in dedicating an entire paragraph to each one--just provide a link. The article is pretty long, and (like I said) since this section is poorly sourced, I would cut it down significantly.

4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

• Good

5. It is stable; that is, it is not the subject of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Vandalism reversion, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing) and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.

• No prior issues

6. It is illustrated, where possible, by images.[4] In this respect:

(a) images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.[5]

• One image in good standing
• Not sure the Data tooltips screenshot is necessary.
• The Visual Studio Web Designer in code editor view image is no where close to the section that discusses the program. (The same could be said for most images--please think about placement.)

Conclusion

My initial feeling is to fail this GAN because I think it will take a while to fix all these issues, but since you've been waiting for a month to get this article reviewed, I'll be optimistic and put the article on hold for one week and give you a shot at it. Good luck! --Eustress (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review this. I probably will not have enough time (or energy) to devote to this article anytime soon. But I will try to clarify some questions you raised:

• Why the different font for names like "SVsSolution" and "SVsShell"?

Because they are not just names but interfaces to plug some stuff into the Visual Studio infrastructure. For regular readers, it will suffice as name, but for informed programmers, it is <code>-ified to indicate that it has some special use.

• Why are the languages available as part of the Express IDEs expressed in a list instead of prose?

Because they are the same as the versions in "Included products". Duplicating the prose isn't necessary.

• Are there any WikiArticle you could list in a See also section?

I don't think there is much need. Relevant articles are already linked to in the prose.

• The Supported products section seems to go into too much detail (and is also poorly sourced).

Each paragraph provides a very high level overview only, and is only three or four lines in average. Chopping any further would make things lose context. There are many people who would not like to read an entire article for one language that is not in their core abilities. For this reason, a centralized and high level overview of supported products is necessary.

I realize sourcing is an issue and that facet needs to be improved. But won't have time anytime soon. Plus with the upcoming SP1, the article might get unstable. I suggest you fail it for now. --soum ^talk 20:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding and for your responses to my inquiries. I'll fail it per our discussion, but feel free to let me know when it's up for GAN again—I'd be happy to review it if circumstances permit. Best --Eustress (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose the merge currently listed on this article. It appears that the creator of the article VSX was unaware of this article. Now I am no expert but both articles seem to be talking about the same things. I hence propose a merger of the article located at VSX to come here (and whatever info is already said here to just be deleted). As I said I am no expert, so maybe I have missed something, so anyone with knowledge about this topic should handle the move/next line of action. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 06:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Conditional support. The extensibility section in this article is just an introduction. It can be covered more deeply, and for this reason the VSX article is of great potential. But the way it stands, its barely more than a personal essay and does not provide too much of an encyclopedic information not already here. If that is fixed and the VSX article fleshed out considerably, it should be linked from here as a {{main}} article. Failing that, it can be merged here. --soum ^talk 06:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Due to the length of the Visual Studio article, I think a full merge would be unnecessary, and would rather have VSX as a separate page going more in depth than a section here. — Northgrove 11:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Visual Studio 2010

I skimmed the existing section on this product, and it seemed like it wasn't updated for the new (official) information here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/vstudio/products/cc948977.aspx. I'm just telling, because I don't have time for this myself at this exact moment. :-) Update: Also, more material here and here on Channel 9 as videos. — Northgrove 23:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Should probably mention the supposed black box feature for reproducing test cases of bugs in applications which can be ticked on. Can't find the link at the moment, probably on MSDN but was mentioned on cnet news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.162.101.108 (talk) 13:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Also VS 2010 now has F# as standard, guess that ought to be there, in fact I can't find an article on F#, might start that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DominicConnor (talk • contribs) 23:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Parallelism support in VS 10

If someone is up for the task, here is the information you need: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc817396.aspx. --soum ^talk 03:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a framework addition, not a VS 10 addition. --Blowdart | ^talk 11:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Not really. The APIs are framework addition, but the debugging and profiling tools are VS additions. --soum^talk 05:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

MS Babble?

This article is well written, however, some of the language is over precise and lacks a human element, things 'integrate' and have 'functionality', in the style of MS written material. Current MS IP (such as .NET) is discussed in detail although it has its own articles.

The article gives no context, no history. No mention is made of why Dev Studio was created, what inovations it has introduced, how it has influenced development practices. There is a version history but this is presented as a list of features.

So change it then. §FreeRangeFrog 23:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised that this article mentions nothing about Visual Studio Premier Partner Edition... You can see Premier Partner Edition Setup and User Guide for more information... UU (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It's because VSPPE is known as "Visual Studio Shell" since VS2008, and that is described in the article. -- int19h (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

source safe

Corrected wrong stuff, but now it's too long. Feel free to cut it back again. 150.101.166.15 (talk) 03:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

DreamSpark

It is unclear whether Dreamspark is just for US students or students worldwide. Can someone find out and add the necessary words in that sentence? Also, if you do, modify the DreamSpark article.

a_boardley (talk) 15:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

DreamSpark is available in many different countries. Just go to the website and check out the language selector dropdown... -- int19h (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Im using it in the UK.81.23.50.232 (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I wrote an article for the Register on it, and D is as international as MS can manage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DominicConnor (talk • contribs) 23:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Dont think its in india. You can get vouchers for Microsoft certification exams through DS and it says "Not available in india" and something about them not having valid student IDs. And seeing as you need a student ID to get onto DS.... 94.168.168.153 (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Visual C# 2008

Hi, i'm refering to "The Visual C# 2008 compiler supports version 3.0 of the C# language specifications". If im not mistaken, version 3.5 is supported. Could somebody familiar with VS check this? Kind regards, -mafutrct (talk) 10:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "C# 3.5". You're probably confusing it with .NET 3.5. However, there is a version mismatch there - .NET 3.5 came with C# 3.0 (and .NET 3.0 was just a library add-on for .NET 2.0). -- int19h (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Earlier Versions

The version history starts at 5.0 and should include earlier versions. I used 4.2, 4.1 and earlier versions (and was trying to find out their features). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.172.126 (talk) 01:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft Visual Studio 1998 bis 2003

Version 6.0

Das Microsoft Visual Studio 6.0 wurde von Microsoft entwickelt fuer die Betriebssysteme der Jahre 1998 bis 2000 Windows 98, Windows NT, Windows ME, Windows 2000.

Das 1998 veröffentlichte Microsoft Visual Studio 6.0 war eine Sammlung der Programmiersprachen Visual Basic 6.0, Visual C++ 6.0, Visual J++ und den Programmiersprachenanwendungen Visual InterDev (ASP Webapplikationsentwicklung), Visual FoxPro.

„Visual J++“ wurde nach dieser Version (aber in der teuersten Version Microsoft Visual Studio 6.0 Enterprise III/1999 noch in Deutschland verkauft) eingestellt. Sun hatte die Weiterentwicklung verboten. Visual FoxPro wurde nach dieser Version getrennt weiterentwickelt und ist nicht mehr Bestandteil von Visual Studio nach der Version 6, da die wenigsten Visual-Studio-Kunden auch Visual-FoxPro-Programmierer sind.

Neben der Programmierumgebung selbst sind noch diverse Tools zur Unterstützung des Entwicklers bzw. zur Erweiterung von Team-Arbeits-Funktionen integriert. Einige wichtige Module sind die MSDN-Library als eingebundene kontextsensitive Online-Hilfe, „DDE Spy“, „Spy++“ und der Verpackungs- und Weitergabe-Assistent.

Durch das integrierte Microsoft Visual SourceSafe ist es mehreren Personen möglich, gleichzeitig an zentralen Projekten zu arbeiten. Visual SourceSafe erledigt Aufgaben wie Versionsmanagement, Dateisperren und dergleichen. Es gibt allerdings zahlreiche Visual-Studio-AddIns anderer Anbieter, mit denen alternative Versionskontrollsysteme wie Subversion oder CVS auf ähnlich einfache Weise verwendet werden können.

Durch Verwendung der ActiveX-Technik ist die Entwicklungsumgebung als solche erweiterbar, die hierfür notwendigen Module werden als AddIns bezeichnet.

In der Microsoft Visual Studio 6.0 Enterprise Version war die MSDN Textbibliothek und Codebibliothek auf 2 CDs beigelegt. Die Entwicklungsumgebung zusammen mit den Programmiersprachen umfasste 4 CDs und die fuenfte CD war die fuer die Programmiersprache Visual J++.

http://de.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Microsoft_Visual_Studio&action=edit&section=4

Microsoft Visual Studio 6.0 (Enterprise edition)

The next version, version 6.0, was released in June 1998 and is the last version to run on the Windows 9x platform. The version numbers of all of its constituent parts also moved to 6.0, including Visual J++ which jumped from 1.1, and Visual InterDev which was at 1.0. This version was the basis of Microsoft's development system for the next four years, as Microsoft transitioned their development focus to the .NET Framework.

Visual Studio 6.0 was the last version to include the COM-based version of Visual Basic; subsequent versions would include the version of the language based on .NET. It was also the last version to include Visual J++, which was removed as part of a settlement with Sun Microsystems that required Microsoft to stop producing programming tools that targeted the Java Virtual Machine.

Visual Basic, Visual C++, and Visual FoxPro had separate IDEs, while Visual J++ and Visual InterDev shared a common new environment. This new IDE was designed with extensibility in mind, and would go on (after several internal revisions) to become the common environment for all languages with the release of Visual Studio .NET. Visual Studio 6.0 was also the last version to include Visual FoxPro.

As usual, Visual Studio 6.0 came in several editions: Standard, Professional & Enterprise. The Enterprise edition contains extra features not found in Standard or Professional edition, which includes:

• Application Performance Explorer
• Automation Manager
• Microsoft Visual Modeler
• RemAuto Connection Manager
• Visual Studio Analyzer

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Microsoft_Visual_Studio&action=edit&section=14 82.109.84.114 (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Microsoft Macro Assembler

I have been working in the Microsoft Macro Assembler page and it is starting to have some reliable content. It has been a component of the Visual Studio development environment since the processor pack dated 2000 and should be added to this page. I have not edited the current page as there are considerations in terms of its content and layout that I am not familiar with.

Hutch48 (talk) 11:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Helpful reference information for users

As the history of this page evidences, people are interested in more than basic product information when reading articles like this. Maybe a good way to provide that information, without compromising Wikipedia policy, is to add links to sites like [MSDN] and [StackOverflow] at the bottom of the article? LarsKemmann (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I also think it needs a table of versions numbers. It is confusing enough that VS2010 is version 10 (from which a lot of people extrapolate that VS2008 was version 8). However, the confusion with the file version numbers had me pulling my hair out (since VS2003 the file format version numbers have been one more than the product version number!?!@#$!). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.41.222.1 (talk) 01:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool Section

• This IT page needs many inputs.

First of all, it should compare various versions of the tool and show main features in a table for the programmers to review.

122.169.93.238 (talk) 07:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean comparing different versions (e.g., VS6, VS2002 ".NET", VS2008, VS2010...) or different editions (e.g., Express, Professional, Ultimate...)? The former is currently handled by the different sections which talk about the product, and since that kind of comparison is mostly for historical interest, it makes sense to write it in prose. The latter is already in the article. What is the value of comparing different versions' features over time in a table? Maybe a small summary table would be helpful? --LarsKemmann (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

C# in "Written in" field

Someone recently removed C# from the written in field. Due to the code editor using WPF now and the lack of external XAML files, according to information on MSDN it is impossible for them not to be using at least some C#, if only in the AssemblyInfo.cs of a resource-holding DLL. Washington Irving Esquire (talk) 11:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That looks like Original Research to me; even less than that. Such contents are not allowed in Wikipedia. In Wikipedia, everything must come from a reliable source. Complex and controversial conclusions like this are not allowed, especially given the fact that you have assumed too much for granted. Fleet Command (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think my statement required any assumption as the MSDN page makes it clear that a C# DLL is necessary to implement WPF in C++. I'm not going to argue about it though, I'm not the one that originally added C# to that field and so I don't really care either way, was just stating a thought. Washington Irving Esquire (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

VS 2010, Visual Studio Shell, partner edition

Is there a 2010 version of "Visual Studio Shell" (2008) aka "Visual Studio Premier Partner Edition" (2005)? I haven't found anything, so I'm thinking they may have dropped this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.162.148 (talk) 05:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

There is one. See:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb129445%28v=VS.100%29.aspx

Fleet Command (talk) 06:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)