Slashdot Mirror
Visual C++ and C++ Standard
Screaming Lunatic writes: "There is an interview over at codeproject about the future of C++ and .NET. Since I don't really care about .NET, the interesting part of the article is about the quest to standarize Visual C++. If you're going to code for Windows, Visual C++ is one of your few choices for a IDE/compiler combo. (Even though, if I'm not mistaken, you can hook gcc up to the IDE.) M$ seems somewhat in favor of conforming to the C++ standard, which is surprising. They talk about pushing forward with template compliance. I'm still waiting for them to get the variable declarations in for-loops right. They also claim to beat several popular compilers in compliance tests."
Microsoft's goal is to have a 'competitively compliant' compiler - meaning it won't be 100% compliant. There are a couple of features of the ANSI/ISO standard (for instance the 'export' keyword as applied to template classes) that won't be implemented because they are considered by Microsoft to be obscure and, at this stage, theoretical.
.cpp files as header files), and that IMHO is just plain stupid.
Somebody please explain to me why would somebody consider export templates to be 'obscure' and 'theoretical'? If export templates aren't available, you have to put most of your code in header files (or at least use your
On the other hand, aiming for STL, Boost, Blitz and Loki compliance is a Really Good Thing.
This is the place where you write something that will make you seem like a complete idiot.
I'm still waiting for them to get the variable declarations in for-loops right.
/Za, then they already do.
If you compile with the 'disable extensions' flag,
Even with extensions enabled, VC++ 7 will warn when there's a conflict between extended and correct behaviours:
forvar.cpp(4) : warning C4288: nonstandard extension used : 'i' : loop control variable declared in the for-loop is used outside the for-loop scope; it conflicts with the declaration in the outer scope
I've dug through MSDN a while back and found this to work..
//Work around for broken for-scoping in VC++ 6
#pragma warning(disable:4127)
IMHO, the C++ compiler part of Visual C++ is one of the few things that Microsoft didn't totally screw up. Unfortunately it is all the other junk, like MFC and the crummy code that the IDE's wizards produce, that ruin the development environment.
Yet Another Web Site
Microsoft is definitely full of shit when they consider 'export' to be "theoretical" only. But implementing export is hard; witness the number of compilers that have managed to do it so far. I don't blame MS for putting it off; I blame MS for lying about their reasons for doing so. (If they'd just said, "Implementing this is a freakload of work and we'd rather point our engineers in a more revenue-profitable direction," then I could accept that, too.)
The for-loop scoping bug has a command-line switch to toggle correct behavior. Unfortunately, with it on, large chunks of their own MFC code will no longer compile.
Dinkumware was contracted to provide the library for VC++. They have released their own patches (freely downloadable) to the library headers. With those patches applied, your library is as ISO-compliant as it can be given the (immense) deficiencies of the compiler itself.
For me the big killer is templates -- lots of failures in things like partial specialization.
My recommendation to others who have to work under Wintel: there are plenty of good compilers out there, and they're ALL better than VC++. Comeau, IBM, EDG, KAI, you name it...
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
That wasn't an interview. That was Stanley's pet sycophant putting words into his mouth. ("Yessss, my preciousssss... The Stroustrapses is wanting to take away our language, preciousss...")
I would really have liked to get a real straight answer as to VC++'s role in Microsplat's future. As it is, I'm just as confused as ever. Vague promises that it will be the power language of choice for .NET? But what is it now?
I'll tell you what it is: it's the arcane black magic that the entire .NET system is built on! .NET is all about protecting the programmers from C++. Duh.
I really would like to see a real interview with this guy--when he gets a grip on his task. For now, Stanley appears as confused as the rest of us.
S.
Call me a heathan(sp?), but I actually _like_ the VC++ IDE
hooking gcc up to it seems like a good idea, cuz the compiler it self sucks ass
It's interesting that in all of this no one mentions Borland's C++ Builder or their *free* Borland C++ command-line compiler. Why - or rather why not?
I'd recommend Delphi 6. Its a very nice IDE and anything you develop can be easily ported to LINUX using KYLIX..
GO BORLAND.
PS. I don't develop for windows anymore but I used to. I've now moved on the much lusher pastures of OS X.
You can set Visual C++ to compile files using any external compiler that has command line compiling ability.
Right now I'm not using Microsoft Visual C++. I can't afford it. I do, however, want it. I really, really want it. Right now I'm using Dev C++ 4 from Bloodshed. It's open-source and free, but it can't do code completion like Microsoft can. It doesn't have those cool drop-down menus that offer you a list of all the functions in the class you just selected.
Does anyone know of any free software that does code-completion and other time-saving features? I'd really appreciate a link, or even just a name. But I have looked, and I haven't been able to find an IDE that matched the apparent ease of MSVC. For now, I look upon my friends in envy.
Too busy staying alive... ~ R.A.
You know, this is a really stupid article. slashdot's really starting to go downhill posting crap like this. And as for this screaming lunatic fellow, what kind of drugs are you on man?
Isn't C++ for people who want to have total control of memory management? If you want something "managed," won't you just use C#?