| Groups | Blog | Home |
visual studio .net general : VS.Net is slow for web development
[quoted text, click to view]
"Shaji" <shaji@diverseinc.com> wrote > I am using VS.Net (and most of you, of course) for a quite long period for > web development for medium to large development tasks. My humble opinion is > vs.net is eating up a lot of developer time, as far as the web development > is concerned. > Edit,Compile,Debug, then fix errors, then Edit , Compile.... > This process is painfully slow, and most of the time developers are simply > waiting for vs.net to open the browser and to hit the breakpoint, some time > it took nearly 1 min (may be I am exaggerating, but even 15 seconds is a > pain). > Shaji, How much memory and processor speed do you have on your dev boxes? I have found that the more memory you have (500 MB or greater), the better Visual Studio .NET performs! Of course having a faster processor helps also. ;-) I have a P4 1.5 processor with 1 GB of memory... You can also use the other dev method: Edit -> Compile -> Refresh External Browser Of course you can't step through your code this way (unless you attached the debugger to the current running process), but this method speeds up the edit / test cycle greatly! Especially for small UI changes. -- Thanks, Carl Prothman Microsoft ASP.NET MVP Hire top-notch developers at http://www.able-consulting.com
Dear All,
I am using VS.Net (and most of you, of course) for a quite long period for web development for medium to large development tasks. My humble opinion is vs.net is eating up a lot of developer time, as far as the web development is concerned. Edit,Compile,Debug, then fix errors, then Edit , Compile.... This process is painfully slow, and most of the time developers are simply waiting for vs.net to open the browser and to hit the breakpoint, some time it took nearly 1 min (may be I am exaggerating, but even 15 seconds is a pain). Initially I thought that it is problem with the performance of my machine, but later I found that it is not the case. All of the developers I dealt with shared the same opinion (including some MS consultants). Usually this performance issues come into discussion when we gather around a single machine to resolve some complex issues....then while running the project every body start to comment like ... Developer 1: "Hey why is it so slow....?" Developer 2:"I also have the same performance issues... I thought that it is only for my machine" ......then they start to have a look on the resources of the pc; but will find that it is good if not excellent. ......then will try to see the task manager to see who is eating up the resources and it will be devenv.exe, vbc.exe/csc.exe This drama continues all the time... Performance is okay for debugging windows apps, but not for web apps. It might be because Vs.net needs to integrate the debugger with an external browser. But any way , it is causing a huge productivity loose. Shaji.
Carl Prothman,
Thanks for your comments. 512 MB and p4 1.x is what I have. Yes Edit,Compile.Refresh IE is what we follow...for minor bug fixing. I would like to hear the comments of developers if they also have the same frustration due to the performance of vs.net . Shaji [quoted text, click to view] "Carl Prothman [MVP]" <carlpr@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:O05ZWi2hDHA.1872@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > "Shaji" <shaji@diverseinc.com> wrote > > I am using VS.Net (and most of you, of course) for a quite long period for > > web development for medium to large development tasks. My humble opinion is > > vs.net is eating up a lot of developer time, as far as the web development > > is concerned. > > Edit,Compile,Debug, then fix errors, then Edit , Compile.... > > This process is painfully slow, and most of the time developers are simply > > waiting for vs.net to open the browser and to hit the breakpoint, some time > > it took nearly 1 min (may be I am exaggerating, but even 15 seconds is a > > pain). > > > > Shaji, > How much memory and processor speed do you have on your dev boxes? > > I have found that the more memory you have (500 MB or greater), the better > Visual Studio .NET performs! Of course having a faster processor helps > also. ;-) I have a P4 1.5 processor with 1 GB of memory... > > You can also use the other dev method: > Edit -> Compile -> Refresh External Browser > Of course you can't step through your code this way (unless you attached > the debugger to the current running process), but this method speeds up the > edit / test cycle greatly! Especially for small UI changes. > > -- > > Thanks, > Carl Prothman > Microsoft ASP.NET MVP > > Hire top-notch developers at http://www.able-consulting.com > > >
I think that means edit your code, compile it, then go to your open browser
and refresh the page. 90% of what I do doesn't require stepping through the code line-by line. The few times I do need to step through I don't mind taking the extra hit of having to attach to a running process. Colin [quoted text, click to view] "martin" <cannell123456@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:%23Q6X42$hDHA.1048@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl... > hi, > > Could you please expand on the follwing statement > > > You can also use the other dev method: > > Edit -> Compile -> Refresh External Browser > > Of course you can't step through your code this way (unless you attached > > the debugger to the current running process), but this method speeds up > the > > edit / test cycle greatly! Especially for small UI changes. > > I can't see this in my edit menu or anywhere else for that matter :( > > and it sounds like a feature I would use a lot. > > cheers > > martin. > > > > > > "Carl Prothman [MVP]" <carlpr@spamcop.net> wrote in message > news:O05ZWi2hDHA.1872@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > > "Shaji" <shaji@diverseinc.com> wrote > > > I am using VS.Net (and most of you, of course) for a quite long period > for > > > web development for medium to large development tasks. My humble opinion > is > > > vs.net is eating up a lot of developer time, as far as the web > development > > > is concerned. > > > Edit,Compile,Debug, then fix errors, then Edit , Compile.... > > > This process is painfully slow, and most of the time developers are > simply > > > waiting for vs.net to open the browser and to hit the breakpoint, some > time > > > it took nearly 1 min (may be I am exaggerating, but even 15 seconds is a > > > pain). > > > > > > > Shaji, > > How much memory and processor speed do you have on your dev boxes? > > > > I have found that the more memory you have (500 MB or greater), the better > > Visual Studio .NET performs! Of course having a faster processor helps > > also. ;-) I have a P4 1.5 processor with 1 GB of memory... > > > > You can also use the other dev method: > > Edit -> Compile -> Refresh External Browser > > Of course you can't step through your code this way (unless you attached > > the debugger to the current running process), but this method speeds up > the > > edit / test cycle greatly! Especially for small UI changes. > > > > -- > > > > Thanks, > > Carl Prothman > > Microsoft ASP.NET MVP > > > > Hire top-notch developers at http://www.able-consulting.com > > > > > > > >
[quoted text, click to view]
"Shaji" <shaji@diverseinc.com> wrote > I would like to hear the comments of developers if they also have the same > frustration due to the performance of vs.net . Yes! Another thing that has given us a good laugh here: At the Danish launch event for VS2k3, some Microsoft official told the dumbstruck crowd that the new IDE uses a "load-on-demand technology" which makes loading it incredibly fast. I don't know about you, but on a 2.6GHz P4 with 1 GB of RAM, I don't find 17 seconds "incredibly" fast. (And this is before loading any files. Torben
[quoted text, click to view]
"Colin Young" <x@nospam.com> wrote > I think that means edit your code, compile it, then go to your open browser > and refresh the page. Correct, that is what I meant. [quoted text, click to view] > 90% of what I do doesn't require stepping through the > code line-by line. The few times I do need to step through I don't mind > taking the extra hit of having to attach to a running process. > Yup, I agree! ;-) -- Thanks, Carl Prothman Microsoft ASP.NET MVP
hi,
Could you please expand on the follwing statement [quoted text, click to view] > You can also use the other dev method: > Edit -> Compile -> Refresh External Browser > Of course you can't step through your code this way (unless you attached > the debugger to the current running process), but this method speeds up the > edit / test cycle greatly! Especially for small UI changes. I can't see this in my edit menu or anywhere else for that matter :( and it sounds like a feature I would use a lot. cheers martin. [quoted text, click to view] "Carl Prothman [MVP]" <carlpr@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:O05ZWi2hDHA.1872@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > "Shaji" <shaji@diverseinc.com> wrote > > I am using VS.Net (and most of you, of course) for a quite long period for > > web development for medium to large development tasks. My humble opinion is > > vs.net is eating up a lot of developer time, as far as the web development > > is concerned. > > Edit,Compile,Debug, then fix errors, then Edit , Compile.... > > This process is painfully slow, and most of the time developers are simply > > waiting for vs.net to open the browser and to hit the breakpoint, some time > > it took nearly 1 min (may be I am exaggerating, but even 15 seconds is a > > pain). > > > > Shaji, > How much memory and processor speed do you have on your dev boxes? > > I have found that the more memory you have (500 MB or greater), the better > Visual Studio .NET performs! Of course having a faster processor helps > also. ;-) I have a P4 1.5 processor with 1 GB of memory... > > You can also use the other dev method: > Edit -> Compile -> Refresh External Browser > Of course you can't step through your code this way (unless you attached > the debugger to the current running process), but this method speeds up the > edit / test cycle greatly! Especially for small UI changes. > > -- > > Thanks, > Carl Prothman > Microsoft ASP.NET MVP > > Hire top-notch developers at http://www.able-consulting.com > > >
I am not anti-vs.net....I love the tool ...but there are areas to be
improved. I too agree that 90% (approx) of the time it doesn't require stepping thru the code. Yes, the 10% requires. Or may be more depending on the complexity and size of the application that you develop. Even if it is 10% (let me stick to your calculation) , it is 1 day as far as a 10 day long development task- (a small project) is concerned. If the vs.net irritates the developer for that one day he need an additional day to finish the tasks for the other day.... don't simply think that it is a matter of a day, it might even cause major schedule slips, if you see the big picture. Also programming is turned out to be a practice of "trail and error", no body can be a master of anything. We never rewrite the things, the code we once written will be reused.That means the things that we write now....is always new stuff! Which definitely requires "step-thru" with an eagle eye. Regards, Shaji. www.DotNetMe.com [quoted text, click to view] "Carl Prothman [MVP]" <carlpr@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:OANe3DIiDHA.1864@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > "Colin Young" <x@nospam.com> wrote > > I think that means edit your code, compile it, then go to your open > browser > > and refresh the page. > > Correct, that is what I meant. > > > 90% of what I do doesn't require stepping through the > > code line-by line. The few times I do need to step through I don't mind > > taking the extra hit of having to attach to a running process. > > > > Yup, I agree! ;-) > > -- > > Thanks, > Carl Prothman > Microsoft ASP.NET MVP > >
[quoted text, click to view]
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:12:23 +0200, Torben Frandsen wrote: >At the Danish launch >event for VS2k3, some Microsoft official told the dumbstruck crowd that the >new IDE uses a "load-on-demand technology" which makes loading it incredibly >fast. I don't know about you, but on a 2.6GHz P4 with 1 GB of RAM, I don't >find 17 seconds "incredibly" fast. (And this is before loading any files. Just goes to show how incredibly out of touch they've got. Sad. -- Bob Moore [WinSDK MVP] http://www.mooremvp.freeserve.co.uk/ (this is a non-commercial site and does not accept advertising) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Do not reply via email unless specifically requested to do so. Unsolicited email is NOT welcome and will go unanswered.
[quoted text, click to view]
> I am using VS.Net (and most of you, of course) for a quite long period for > web development for medium to large development tasks. My humble opinion is > vs.net is eating up a lot of developer time, as far as the web development > is concerned. I agree with that. Web development with vs6 and vb was much faster. Hit run and everything appears instantly. Obviously this is due to the interpretted nature of the work as opposed to the dot net compilation and loading of dlls into memory. My team would love the option to be able to run web apps in a dev interpretted mode, then compile when we're ready to release. Web development in vs.net is incredibly slow, but running multiple compiles during development is a pain on any project. An interpretted option would greatly improve development time on all projects.
You are better off forgetting this idea. It won't happen. The movement is
away from code interpretation for obvious reasons. -- ----------- Got TidBits? Get it here: www.networkip.net/tidbits [quoted text, click to view] "Marc" <marc_ziman@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:7b05f028.0310310423.7b3ed74e@posting.google.com... > > I am using VS.Net (and most of you, of course) for a quite long period for > > web development for medium to large development tasks. My humble opinion is > > vs.net is eating up a lot of developer time, as far as the web development > > is concerned. > > I agree with that. > > Web development with vs6 and vb was much faster. Hit run and > everything appears instantly. Obviously this is due to the > interpretted nature of the work as opposed to the dot net compilation > and loading of dlls into memory. > > My team would love the option to be able to run web apps in a dev > interpretted mode, then compile when we're ready to release. > > Web development in vs.net is incredibly slow, but running multiple > compiles during development is a pain on any project. An interpretted > option would greatly improve development time on all projects. > > Just my 2p.
I had a similar problem. I had about 30 breakpoints. Once I got that
number down to about 5 its started working fine again. [quoted text, click to view] "Alvin Bruney" <vapordan_spam_me_not@hotmail_no_spamhotmail.com> wrote in message news:<ufgf9JPoDHA.3288@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>...
> You are better off forgetting this idea. It won't happen. The movement is > away from code interpretation for obvious reasons. > > -- > > > ----------- > Got TidBits? > Get it here: www.networkip.net/tidbits > "Marc" <marc_ziman@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:7b05f028.0310310423.7b3ed74e@posting.google.com... > > > I am using VS.Net (and most of you, of course) for a quite long period > for > > > web development for medium to large development tasks. My humble opinion > is > > > vs.net is eating up a lot of developer time, as far as the web > development > > > is concerned. > > > > I agree with that. > > > > Web development with vs6 and vb was much faster. Hit run and > > everything appears instantly. Obviously this is due to the > > interpretted nature of the work as opposed to the dot net compilation > > and loading of dlls into memory. > > > > My team would love the option to be able to run web apps in a dev > > interpretted mode, then compile when we're ready to release. > > > > Web development in vs.net is incredibly slow, but running multiple > > compiles during development is a pain on any project. An interpretted > > option would greatly improve development time on all projects. > >
[quoted text, click to view]
mikemurf22@hotmail.com wrote in message news:<6d11e569.0311110832.5d69ec17@posting.google.com>... > I had a similar problem. I had about 30 breakpoints. Once I got that > number down to about 5 its started working fine again.
Don't see what you're looking for? Try a search.
|
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
| home · blog · groups | Questions? Comments? Contact the dn |