Recently Mohsen & Craig talked about a Renaissance within C++ development and Tony talked rebuilding our developer communication around C++, both of these videos touched on the subject of providing a more real world pragmatic discussion around why we do things and what we’re planning. This post is the first in a series of posts we’re planning on making over the coming months where we’re asking for your thoughts about what you need in a C++ development tool and about our proposals for the next version of Visual C++. To set the stage for those discussions we’ll be providing some insight into how and why we made some particular decisions regarding product features. In the case of something new we’ll share how we saw the problem space and how we’re thinking of addressing it.
We’re looking forward to hearing your thoughts regarding these features and how best we can use the developer resources we have to give you the most value in the upcoming product (ideally we’d want to deliver on 100% of your needs but, as you know, sometimes you have to make trade-offs so we’re looking for your help to make the right ones).
The first feature area we’d like to hear from you about is C++/CLI IntelliSense. Let’s provide some background explanation and then discuss what we’re doing.
As we are close to the final release of Visual Studio 2010 SP1, one of the top issues that came back is the absence of IntelliSense in C++/CLI projects. When we released the SP1 Beta last December, this issue topped the list of complaints as it was announced that it would not to be part of SP1. In this post we’ll explain a bit about the evolution of C++ IntelliSense support and one of the two questions everybody asks: why it’s not supported for C++/CLI projects in Visual Studio 2010?
Those developers who have been using Visual Studio since its earliest editions know that IntelliSense has been featured for both native and managed C++. So why is it today only available for native? IntelliSense is a powerful feature that has to meet certain goals:
Our first implementation of C++ IntelliSense appeared in Visual C++ 6.0 and we did this through the creation of a supporting file, the infamous .NCB, that contained consolidated references and definitions generated by the compiler. IntelliSense was pretty limited but still considered an outstanding feature as no other IDE at the time offered anything similar. The .NCB file contained a rich set of information including class members, global variables, etc. but we didn’t have complete information for such constructs as namespaces and exceptions. This deficiency and the fact that these files grew so large, complex and occasionally corrupted (who doesn’t remember fixing an IntelliSense problem by deleting the .NCB file and having it rebuild), that we needed to change the underlying implementation.
With projects becoming more complex, additional issues emerged such as the one known as the “multi-mod” problem. This problem occurs when a header file is included into multiple translation units with different contexts (such as difference macros). With the NCB approach, we only remembered one context for a header file and you would see incorrect results for IntelliSense when in a different context. There was also the issue where we needed to recompile many files when a shared header was changed. This could cause the IDE to freeze in some cases (this also happened if a compile option was changed, like switching from DEBUG to RELEASE). To address this we needed to not only better understand the information contained in the source code but also store that data more efficiently and reliably. We also wanted to ensure that the IDE was as responsive as possible. Initially, we used techniques such as background compilation threads, idle time detection and priority queues to achieve this but eventually we realized that a complete IntelliSense re-architecture was required. For Visual Studio 2010 we started that work and decided to use a live model for IntelliSense, while changing the store (which is still used for “browsing” features) from an .NCB file to SQL Server Compact Edition. This helped increase the performance while also decreasing memory consumption. We also wanted to address the problem of differences between how we interpreted the code for IntelliSense and how we did it for the final compilation product. This problem manifested itself in things like the language features appearing in the IntelliSense engine but not in the compiler and vice versa.
Prior to VS 2010, we used a modified version of our command-line compiler to implement IntelliSense. As we added new features to the language it was minimal work to enable them for IntelliSense. As part of our IntelliSense/IDE re-architecture in VS 2010 we decided to use a new compiler codebase for IntelliSense. This decision provided many benefits, but we simply underestimated the amount of work it would take to implement C++/CLI in this codebase, and we couldn’t change our plans by the time we realized it.
In addition to this unexpected amount of work, there were lots of new features that customers’ were asking for, such as:
Even with this constraint we really wanted to deliver IntelliSense for C++/CLI in VS 2010. We looked at several alternatives and mitigations, but nothing would fit our schedule and provide real value to our users. We considered trying to enable the old IntelliSense mechanism (i.e. NCB) for C++/CLI projects, but that would have been a huge amount of work as well. We also considered trying to hack something in, but we rejected that as well after investigation. We wouldn’t have been able to provide IntelliSense on any imported metadata, which would have made IntelliSense pretty useless for most people.
In the end it was one of those hard cuts you have to make when dealing with the real world resource and schedule constraints. It turned out that the work was also too much work to fit into SP1. As soon as we wrapped up VS 2010, we started work on C++/CLI IntelliSense, but it wasn’t ready in time for SP1. We realize this wasn’t what you wanted to happen and an explanation doesn’t help you get your work done if you are affected by this, but we want you to know the truth.
The good news, though, is that all these architectural changes made in Visual Studio 2010 have enabled us to deliver a better IntelliSense experience overall and will set us up to deliver a number of other features in the future.
Hopefully this gives you some insight into why we made the decisions we did.
The good news is that C++/CLI IntelliSense will be in the next version of Visual Studio. We’ve done a lot of work to get this in and, barring major unforeseen complications, you should expect to see it in the final product. As always, there is some risk, but we wanted to get this information out in front of you for your comments.
In our next post on this subject we’ll delve into more detail on our plans and ask you to comment on our thoughts. Stay tuned.
so we have to skip vs 2010. what is the release date of v.Next ? ;-)
To be brutally honest, the rework of Intellisense in Visual Studio 2010 only made it worse. Every time I right-click to "go to definition" I literally feel like I am rolling dice. Most of the time, I lose. Nine times of out ten intellisense takes over 5 seconds to go to the definition. One time out of ten Visual Studio 2010 hangs. Now, whenever I have to actually navigate code I use SlickEdit.
I read till the first factual error and stopped reading. That happened very early in the article, and I suspect rest of it contains errors, too.
VS6 did not use .NCB files. Browse info was in the .BCS files, was 100% precise, and did not drain any resources when user edited the files.
I agree with one of the previous posters -- if you want to navigate through the code quickly and reliably, use SlickEdit.
@Eugene, it's true that I'm not using VC6 for years now, so hopefully my memory does not fail me, but VC6 is using NCB files. Here is some additional reading blogs.msdn.com/.../intellisense-history-part-1.aspx.
So we'll expect a cheque in the post for a refund of our Visual Assist X licence until the next version of Visual Studio comes along then?
Apologies for the negative tone, but it is a little annoying that this is not going to be in a service pack. We might have avoided VS2010 if it wasn't for the fact that we needed some features from .net/WPF 4.
Thank you for this detailed explanation! The new concept of pragmatic discussion is very good idee and i hope it will not end as a short shot.
And I have a question that has remained hidden until now: What is about EnableLaunchButton in the CMFCRibbonPanel class? Will it ever return?
Too late, already moved all my C++/CLI code to (C++ && C# && DllImport) and recomended everyone in my company to do the same.
Its so too late. But, I believe that this decision gives a new possibilities to C++/CLI.
I'm glad to read the news.
You guys probably get a lot of negative feedback because of this (I know I was disappointed when I learned that VS2010 didn't have C++/CLI intellisense), but I want give you some positive feedback. Thank you for being clear with your reasoning and plan for this feature (and lack thereof). All but the most sheltered developer understands real-world constraints and the unforeseen circumstances that prevent features from being implemented.
The only people that get affected by this feature are probably the only people who comment about how disappointed they are with not having it. From what I understand, C++/CLI is an interop language and I have only used it as such. Sure, everyone has pre-existing code bases that you have to reuse and maintain, but you shouldn't use that as an excuse to continue developing poorly implemented software. Keep your C++/CLI wrappers/interop functionality small and well documented/designed and missing this feature should have little impact. If your business screeches to a halt because VS2010 has no C++/CLI intellisense, then you should rethink your business model or invest the little extra money for an add-in that has it.
so you wrote this big post just to say that you guys failed again to "allocate resources" and there will be on intellisense in sp1 ?
C++ need more "resourse allocation" from microsoft, looks like everyone is in managed world without resource allocation.
There are some subtle points here. NCB files and BSC were based on the same underlying file format, but the way the information was generated was different. NCB files were automatically updated as users edited their code. BSC files were generated by actually doing a build. BSC files could be used for “browsing” by using the Object Browser features in the IDE. The NCB was used for Intellisense and for some “browsing features”, although it wasn’t used by the object browser itself. The NCB was used for ClassView, NavBar, and CodeModel. Finally, there were a few cases where the IDE might use the BSC to resolve something that it couldn’t find in the NCB (or if the NCB had been turned off). This included some things like gotodef and find all references.
BTW - The information contained in BSC files is awesome. It provides a mostly complete and detailed view of a program as it is compiled. The downside to BSC is that it requires an actual build to generate the info and often you want live information as well as information about a program that may not actually compile yet.
@sam (who is not me) I'm actually not affected at all most days by this, since I do most of my work in C#, but I do have a significant pile of old C/C++ code that I use C++/CLI to interop with using mixed-mode projects. Although it doesn't hurt me day-to-day, whenever I do have to deal with it, it amazes me how much it regresses the experience, and it doesn't seem like something that belongs on this Earth in this time period, and the juxtaposition with the rest of the IDE, which is extremely polished, is astonishing. Maybe I'm just hypersensitive, but that's why you find me all over *.msdn.com banging on about this issue.
That said, I do appreciate the Visual C++ team giving us this relatively complete account of the events that led to this state, and at least an idea of when they expect to resurrect this feature. I infer that the "vNext" timeline means it won't be VS2010 SP2 (if there is an SP2), which hurts, but at least it's honest. I may even shut up about the issue until the next release now (but if it's still missing at that point ...).
I have to chuckle at Sam's comment that if we rely heavily on C++/CLI, our software must be "poorly implemented". We may be an outlier, but we develop a primarily native C++ application that is portable between Windows and Mac. We don't have the freedom to completely refactor our (20-year-old, million+ line) application so that it fits Microsoft's incredibly narrow view of C++/CLI. C++/CLI was the only way we could ever include managed code in our application for the Windows host, and it was not going to happen via interop wrappers. C++/CLI is, IMHO, the greatest language invention in the history of programming languages, precisely because it allows the migration of legacy native C++ code bases to (partially) managed code. Microsoft just doesn't seem to want to see it that way.
It is great to see in print Microsoft's commitment to bring Intellisense back to C++/CLI. I do have to echo "G"'s statement about "Go To Declaration/Definition", however - it is absolutely awful, taking eons and often choosing the forward declaration of a class in some random header file rather than finding the actual class definition. I'd love to see an annoucement that Microsoft recognizes this and will fix it either in VS 2010 SP1/2/3/4 or VS.next.
You should really plan to do an SP2. There are enough bugs on Connect for it to be valueable, moreover It would also motivate people to reproduce bugs and file it on Connect, and sooth the people bitten by VS2010 RTM.
I think VS2010 with SP1 Beta is looking good, but help us help you with an SP2.