Thread: Re: [GD-Windows] Visual C++ .Net
Brought to you by:
vexxed72
Menu
▾
▴
gamedevlists-windows
|
From: Rich <leg...@xm...> - 2002-01-22 19:16:48
|
[man, why can't this list automatically respond to the list, its such
a pain...]
In article <5.1...@wk...>,
Brian Hook <bri...@py...> writes:
> Is anyone here seriously thinking about upgrading their MSVC to MSVC
> .Net?
Well its really VC7. The ".net" stuff is just marketing hype.
Bug fixes, better generated code, better standard library support,
updated MFC, updated ATL, improved IDE, better automation support in
the IDE, better Wizard support in the IDE, what's not to like?
>Information on the latter is very sparse at Microsoft's Web site,
> and -- here's the killer -- even if it offers incremental improvements,
> apparently it won't support generating code for Win95(!).
That sounds like CLR code. I bet good ole Win32 C++ apps compile to
Win95 just fine. I can believe that CLR-based stuff (.net languages
like C#, VB.NET, "managed C++ code", etc.) won't run on Win95, but I
expect that plain C++ apps will run just fine.
--
Ask me about my upcoming book on Direct3D from Addison-Wesley!
Direct3D Book <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/>
Don't Support Spammers! Boycott Fractal Painter 7!
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/spammers.html>
|
|
From: Nathan R. <Nat...@te...> - 2002-01-22 20:30:23
|
'Supported' also has a double meaning in this case. Even though the code might run, VC7/VS.net probably doesn't 'support' 95 simply because the operating system itself is no longer supported by Microsoft. I couldn't get to the original lifecycle page, but here's Google's cache of it: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:43w9-4bhQ34C:www.microsoft.com/windows/ lifecycle.asp+&hl=en As far as Microsoft is concerned, 95 is dead and buried. 98 and NT4 are just around the corner as well. The upside to the story is that no new bugs will ever show up since no old bugs will ever get fixed. The downside is that we have to wait a while longer before they kill WinME... As far as VS.net goes, what does it have to offer us who don't use ATL/Wizards/Whamadoodles9.5 or whatever else they decided to stick on? Things like partial template specialization, better template support in general, and better conformance to the C++ standard are really what interest me the most. Microsoft's site is pretty barren in this area. I'd be sold if it could compile Blitz++ ;) -Nathan -----Original Message----- From: Rich [mailto:leg...@xm...] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 1:17 PM To: gam...@li... Subject: Re: [GD-Windows] Visual C++ .Net [man, why can't this list automatically respond to the list, its such a pain...] In article <5.1...@wk...>, Brian Hook <bri...@py...> writes: > Is anyone here seriously thinking about upgrading their MSVC to MSVC > .Net? Well its really VC7. The ".net" stuff is just marketing hype. Bug fixes, better generated code, better standard library support, updated MFC, updated ATL, improved IDE, better automation support in the IDE, better Wizard support in the IDE, what's not to like? >Information on the latter is very sparse at Microsoft's Web site, > and -- here's the killer -- even if it offers incremental improvements, > apparently it won't support generating code for Win95(!). That sounds like CLR code. I bet good ole Win32 C++ apps compile to Win95 just fine. I can believe that CLR-based stuff (.net languages like C#, VB.NET, "managed C++ code", etc.) won't run on Win95, but I expect that plain C++ apps will run just fine. -- Ask me about my upcoming book on Direct3D from Addison-Wesley! Direct3D Book <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/> Don't Support Spammers! Boycott Fractal Painter 7! <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/spammers.html> _______________________________________________ Gamedevlists-windows mailing list Gam...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-windows |
|
From: Rich <leg...@xm...> - 2002-01-22 20:52:26
|
In article <E0B4F5A89A36D5118FD700105A120D3904BEF1@EXCHANGE>,
Nathan Rausch <Nat...@te...> writes:
> As far as Microsoft is concerned, 95 is dead and buried. 98 and NT4 are just
> around the corner as well.
Personally I can't wait for NT4 to die ;-)
> As far as VS.net goes, what does it have to offer us who don't use
> ATL/Wizards/Whamadoodles9.5 or whatever else they decided to stick on?
(As an aside, ATL's smart COM pointer class is quite handy even if you
never use anything else from ATL.)
> Things like partial template specialization, better template support in
> general, and better conformance to the C++ standard are really what interest
> me the most. Microsoft's site is pretty barren in this area. I'd be sold if
> it could compile Blitz++ ;)
Yes, I think Blitz is one of the things specifically they say they are
targetting for support. The template support is much improved. MS
just hired Stanley Lippman (of "C++ Primer" fame, among others) as the
main architect guy for VC++. There is an interview with him on the
Visual C++ home page.
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/visualc/default.asp>
I quote from that interview:
"Microsoft is however working to ensure that Visual C++ will
compile the most popular libraries such as Boost, Blitz, Loki and
a fully compliant version of STL. The emphasis is on a level of
compliance that allows popular libraries to be compiled, not 100%
compliance."
I recommend reading the whole interview for the proper context of that
last statement.
--
Ask me about my upcoming book on Direct3D from Addison-Wesley!
Direct3D Book <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/>
Don't Support Spammers! Boycott Fractal Painter 7!
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/spammers.html>
|
|
From: Matt D. <ma...@co...> - 2002-01-23 11:06:15
|
For the last few years, I've really liked Microsoft - they are simply the best developer supporters in the world for me. However, I have been really frustrated with the lack of information regarding the conformance of the C++ standards for templates (i.e. partial template specialisation etc.) but that quote has rekindled my complete faith in Microsoft as a company that listens. I have been messing around with Boost and Loki for a while now as well as doing my own stuff but have been forced to use Borland C++ to do this. I just hope the VisualC I've been waiting for comes soon. Matt Davies Programmer, Confounding Factor ma...@co... www.confounding-factor.com -----Original Message----- From: gam...@li... [mailto:gam...@li...]On Behalf Of Rich Sent: 22 January 2002 20:52 To: gam...@li... Subject: Re: [GD-Windows] Visual C++ .Net In article <E0B4F5A89A36D5118FD700105A120D3904BEF1@EXCHANGE>, Nathan Rausch <Nat...@te...> writes: > As far as Microsoft is concerned, 95 is dead and buried. 98 and NT4 are just > around the corner as well. Personally I can't wait for NT4 to die ;-) > As far as VS.net goes, what does it have to offer us who don't use > ATL/Wizards/Whamadoodles9.5 or whatever else they decided to stick on? (As an aside, ATL's smart COM pointer class is quite handy even if you never use anything else from ATL.) > Things like partial template specialization, better template support in > general, and better conformance to the C++ standard are really what interest > me the most. Microsoft's site is pretty barren in this area. I'd be sold if > it could compile Blitz++ ;) Yes, I think Blitz is one of the things specifically they say they are targetting for support. The template support is much improved. MS just hired Stanley Lippman (of "C++ Primer" fame, among others) as the main architect guy for VC++. There is an interview with him on the Visual C++ home page. <http://msdn.microsoft.com/visualc/default.asp> I quote from that interview: "Microsoft is however working to ensure that Visual C++ will compile the most popular libraries such as Boost, Blitz, Loki and a fully compliant version of STL. The emphasis is on a level of compliance that allows popular libraries to be compiled, not 100% compliance." I recommend reading the whole interview for the proper context of that last statement. -- Ask me about my upcoming book on Direct3D from Addison-Wesley! Direct3D Book <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/> Don't Support Spammers! Boycott Fractal Painter 7! <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/spammers.html> _______________________________________________ Gamedevlists-windows mailing list Gam...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-windows |
|
From: Kent Q. <ken...@co...> - 2002-01-23 15:26:17
|
You'd better read the whole article. They're not including all that stuff in VC7, but in the next release, which is probably more than a year away. Yes, they've got Lippman, so there's at least a hope, but the article is full of wishy-washy statements about how committed they are to supporting a compliant version of the compiler. For example: "There are a couple of features of the ANSI/ISO standard (for=20 instance the =91export=92 keyword as applied to template classes)=20 that won=92t be implemented because they are considered by=20 Microsoft to be obscure and, at this stage, theoretical. " "The emphasis is on a level of compliance that allows popular=20 libraries to be compiled, not 100% compliance." In other words, MS is still of the attitude that THEY get to decide what the standard should be, not standards committees or customers. And then there's this winner: "Microsoft=92s approach to adding new features is whether those=20 features are=20 a) being used in code that other compilers can=20 build, or=20 b) whether those features are compelling enough=20 that it becomes apparent that their customers=20 want them. =20 Microsoft will not simply implement features because they=20 are specified in the standard. They will implement them=20 when people want them because they are beneficial." I'd believe that a whole lot more if it weren't for the fact that the entire Windows C++ community has been screaming for better template support for several YEARS now and MSVC 7 doesn't have it. This article reads to me like a softball interview by a captive journalist who's dying for an excuse to say that MS has finally got religion on C++. Like you, I'm frustrated. I'd really much rather have a compliant compiler from MS so I wouldn't have to trade off that for clean support of the Windows environment. But I'd summarize the Lippman article as: "Please don't leave. We'll get it right* someday*." (*terms defined by Microsoft) Kent Matt Davies wrote: >=20 > For the last few years, I've really liked Microsoft - they are simply t= he > best developer supporters in the world for me. However, I have been re= ally > frustrated with the lack of information regarding the conformance of th= e C++ > standards for templates (i.e. partial template specialisation etc.) but= that > quote has rekindled my complete faith in Microsoft as a company that > listens. I have been messing around with Boost and Loki for a while no= w as > well as doing my own stuff but have been forced to use Borland C++ to d= o > this. I just hope the VisualC I've been waiting for comes soon. >=20 > Matt Davies > Programmer, Confounding Factor > ma...@co... > www.confounding-factor.com >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: gam...@li... > [mailto:gam...@li...]On Behalf Of > Rich > Sent: 22 January 2002 20:52 > To: gam...@li... > Subject: Re: [GD-Windows] Visual C++ .Net >=20 > In article <E0B4F5A89A36D5118FD700105A120D3904BEF1@EXCHANGE>, > Nathan Rausch <Nat...@te...> writes: >=20 > > As far as Microsoft is concerned, 95 is dead and buried. 98 and NT4 a= re > just > > around the corner as well. >=20 > Personally I can't wait for NT4 to die ;-) >=20 > > As far as VS.net goes, what does it have to offer us who don't use > > ATL/Wizards/Whamadoodles9.5 or whatever else they decided to stick on= ? >=20 > (As an aside, ATL's smart COM pointer class is quite handy even if you > never use anything else from ATL.) >=20 > > Things like partial template specialization, better template support = in > > general, and better conformance to the C++ standard are really what > interest > > me the most. Microsoft's site is pretty barren in this area. I'd be s= old > if > > it could compile Blitz++ ;) >=20 > Yes, I think Blitz is one of the things specifically they say they are > targetting for support. The template support is much improved. MS > just hired Stanley Lippman (of "C++ Primer" fame, among others) as the > main architect guy for VC++. There is an interview with him on the > Visual C++ home page. > <http://msdn.microsoft.com/visualc/default.asp> >=20 > I quote from that interview: >=20 > "Microsoft is however working to ensure that Visual C++ will > compile the most popular libraries such as Boost, Blitz, Loki and > a fully compliant version of STL. The emphasis is on a level of > compliance that allows popular libraries to be compiled, not 100% > compliance." >=20 > I recommend reading the whole interview for the proper context of that > last statement. > -- > Ask me about my upcoming book on Direct3D from Addison-Wesley! > Direct3D Book <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/> > Don't Support Spammers! Boycott Fractal Painter 7! > <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/spammers.html> >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Gamedevlists-windows mailing list > Gam...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-windows >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Gamedevlists-windows mailing list > Gam...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-windows --=20 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Kent Quirk | MindRover: "Astonishingly creative." Game Architect | Check it out! ken...@co... | http://www.mindrover.com/ _____________________________|_________________________________________ |
|
From: Stefan B. <sbo...@te...> - 2002-01-23 19:44:57
|
> Microsoft will not simply implement features because they > are specified in the standard. They will implement them > when people want them because they are beneficial." > > I'd believe that a whole lot more if it weren't for the fact that the > entire Windows C++ community has been screaming for better template > support for several YEARS now and MSVC 7 doesn't have it. M$'s reasoning makes perfect business sense. Even though I'd be interested to see PTS supported, I can see where they are coming from. Also, I think most developers using C++ simply don't have a clue what partial template specialisation is and don't really care about it either. Cheers, Stef! :) -- Stefan Boberg - R&D Manager, Team17 Software Ltd. bo...@te... |
|
From: Matt D. <ma...@co...> - 2002-01-24 10:37:04
|
Its probably true that a lot of C++ developers don't have a clue what partial template specialisation but I do and its a very useful feature which is in the standards. It allows my code to be more robust and type-safe by checking type traits etc. and also allows the writing of more efficient code. There are other features of the standard that are not supported in Visual C 6 that I can live without, such as template template parameters (which is implemented in VC 7 BTW) and differentiation of void, const void, volatile void and const volatile void (needed for Boost). But partial template specialisation is extremely important to me and I wish Microsoft would put in the effort to ensure that Visual C uses it. How long did they work on Visual C 7? There are just some things that need partial template specialisation and so I've been using compilers such as Borland C++, Metrowerks and GCC 3.0. BTW, am I the only person who sees similarities of meta-programming to writing Prolog programs? For those developers who don't see the usefulness of partial template specialisation, check out the book Modern C++ Design (http://s1.amazon.co.uk/exec/varzea/ts/exchange-glance/Y02Y6828407Y6383067/q id=1011868065/sr=1-1/ref=sr_aps_z_2_1/202-0065032-5172623) or the website www.moderncppdesign.com and look at the Loki library, which is simpler to understand than Boost. Perhaps more developers will scream out for it and perhaps Microsoft will actually listen to this one. Just a personal rant, I'll shut up now. Matt Davies Programmer, Confounding Factor ma...@co... www.confounding-factor.com -----Original Message----- From: gam...@li... [mailto:gam...@li...]On Behalf Of Stefan Boberg Sent: 23 January 2002 19:45 To: gam...@li... Subject: RE: [GD-Windows] Visual C++ .Net > Microsoft will not simply implement features because they > are specified in the standard. They will implement them > when people want them because they are beneficial." > > I'd believe that a whole lot more if it weren't for the fact that the > entire Windows C++ community has been screaming for better template > support for several YEARS now and MSVC 7 doesn't have it. M$'s reasoning makes perfect business sense. Even though I'd be interested to see PTS supported, I can see where they are coming from. Also, I think most developers using C++ simply don't have a clue what partial template specialisation is and don't really care about it either. Cheers, Stef! :) -- Stefan Boberg - R&D Manager, Team17 Software Ltd. bo...@te... _______________________________________________ Gamedevlists-windows mailing list Gam...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-windows |
|
From: Wesley H. <Wes...@ir...> - 2002-01-28 07:13:01
|
> There are other features of the standard that are not supported in Visual C > 6 that I can live without, such as template template parameters (which is > implemented in VC 7 BTW) and differentiation of void, const void, volatile > void and const volatile void (needed for Boost). But partial template > specialisation is extremely important to me and I wish Microsoft would put > in the effort to ensure that Visual C uses it. How long did they work on > Visual C 7? There are just some things that need partial template > specialisation and so I've been using compilers such as Borland C++, > Metrowerks and GCC 3.0. BTW, am I the only person who sees similarities of > meta-programming to writing Prolog programs? > > For those developers who don't see the usefulness of partial template > specialisation, check out the book Modern C++ Design > (http://s1.amazon.co.uk/exec/varzea/ts/exchange-glance/Y02Y6828407Y6383067/q > id=1011868065/sr=1-1/ref=sr_aps_z_2_1/202-0065032-5172623) or the website > www.moderncppdesign.com and look at the Loki library, which is simpler to > understand than Boost. Perhaps more developers will scream out for it and > perhaps Microsoft will actually listen to this one. > Doesn't the Stan Lipmann interview mention MS's commitment to making popular libaries like blitz, boost, loki, etc. compile in VC7? Partial template specialization and template template parameters are essential to loki, as a quick perusing of Modern C++ Design will show. Does that mean I can't compile loki with the first release of VC7, and will have to wait for the first service pack? -Wes |
|
From: Matt D. <ma...@co...> - 2002-01-28 11:07:29
|
I think VC7 supports template template parameters. But partial template specialisation is not implemented yet. However, I have successfully rewritten parts of Loki to work without PTS, although a couple of my typelist structures do not work 100% (its a bugger debugging them!!) but I basically did it through nested structs and major use of the Loki Select structure, which I also had to convert. Matt Davies Programmer, Confounding Factor ma...@co... www.confounding-factor.com -----Original Message----- From: gam...@li... [mailto:gam...@li...]On Behalf Of Wesley Hunt Sent: 28 January 2002 07:13 To: gam...@li... Subject: Re: [GD-Windows] Visual C++ .Net > There are other features of the standard that are not supported in Visual C > 6 that I can live without, such as template template parameters (which is > implemented in VC 7 BTW) and differentiation of void, const void, volatile > void and const volatile void (needed for Boost). But partial template > specialisation is extremely important to me and I wish Microsoft would put > in the effort to ensure that Visual C uses it. How long did they work on > Visual C 7? There are just some things that need partial template > specialisation and so I've been using compilers such as Borland C++, > Metrowerks and GCC 3.0. BTW, am I the only person who sees similarities of > meta-programming to writing Prolog programs? > > For those developers who don't see the usefulness of partial template > specialisation, check out the book Modern C++ Design > (http://s1.amazon.co.uk/exec/varzea/ts/exchange-glance/Y02Y6828407Y6383067/q > id=1011868065/sr=1-1/ref=sr_aps_z_2_1/202-0065032-5172623) or the website > www.moderncppdesign.com and look at the Loki library, which is simpler to > understand than Boost. Perhaps more developers will scream out for it and > perhaps Microsoft will actually listen to this one. > Doesn't the Stan Lipmann interview mention MS's commitment to making popular libaries like blitz, boost, loki, etc. compile in VC7? Partial template specialization and template template parameters are essential to loki, as a quick perusing of Modern C++ Design will show. Does that mean I can't compile loki with the first release of VC7, and will have to wait for the first service pack? -Wes _______________________________________________ Gamedevlists-windows mailing list Gam...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-windows |
|
From: Tom H. <to...@3d...> - 2002-01-22 20:57:12
|
At 12:52 PM 1/22/2002, Rich wrote: >In article <E0B4F5A89A36D5118FD700105A120D3904BEF1@EXCHANGE>, > Nathan Rausch <Nat...@te...> writes: > > > As far as Microsoft is concerned, 95 is dead and buried. 98 and NT4 are > just > > around the corner as well. > >Personally I can't wait for NT4 to die ;-) Define die? We still have a large number of customers purchasing our games and running them on Win95 and NT. Regardless of what MS does, we're still going to continue having people buy our games for those systems. Tom |
|
From: Nathan R. <Nat...@te...> - 2002-01-22 21:35:58
|
'Die' simply seems to be that magical point where the revenue generated by supporting a particular platform or product is overwhelmed by the cost of supporting that platform or product. It's just a cold and heartless business decision and nothing more. Just so we don't go too far OT here, Tony Cox just posted this in gd-algorithms: "The upgraded debugger has more functionality, remote debugging including into DLLs now 'just works'. The debugger includes multiple memory windows, and better support for STL debugging." I'm sold based on that fact alone (if it works as promised.) -----Original Message----- From: Tom Hubina [mailto:to...@3d...] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 2:58 PM To: gam...@li... Subject: Re: [GD-Windows] Visual C++ .Net At 12:52 PM 1/22/2002, Rich wrote: >In article <E0B4F5A89A36D5118FD700105A120D3904BEF1@EXCHANGE>, > Nathan Rausch <Nat...@te...> writes: > > > As far as Microsoft is concerned, 95 is dead and buried. 98 and NT4 are > just > > around the corner as well. > >Personally I can't wait for NT4 to die ;-) Define die? We still have a large number of customers purchasing our games and running them on Win95 and NT. Regardless of what MS does, we're still going to continue having people buy our games for those systems. Tom _______________________________________________ Gamedevlists-windows mailing list Gam...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-windows |
|
From: Brian S. <bs...@mi...> - 2002-01-23 00:50:09
|
I wish I'd known this trick in time for it to do me any good:
#define for if (0) else for
is your friend :)
--brian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Hubina [mailto:to...@3d...]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 2:53 PM
> To: gam...@li...
> Subject: RE: [GD-Windows] Visual C++ .Net
>=20
> At 01:42 PM 1/22/2002, Stefan Boberg wrote:
> > - The v7 compiler is much more standards-compliant, but still
lacks
> >a few things such as Koenig lookup (I *think*), partial template
> >specialisation and some other rarely-used gunk. This is apparently
> >scheduled for the next VC release.
>=20
> OK. Is the scope of a variable declared in a for loop correct now?
>=20
> That is
>=20
> for(int i =3D 0; i < 5; i++)
> {
> }
> i =3D 1; // i is out of scope on all compilers except VC 6
>=20
> Also .. do the Perforce and/or SourseSafe plug-ins still work
correctly?
>=20
> Tom
>=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> Gamedevlists-windows mailing list
> Gam...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-windows
|
|
From: Gareth L. <GL...@cl...> - 2002-01-23 10:42:07
|
But in vc7 from my experience ( Using the beta on the xbox ) even with the
extensions on "i" will be out of scope.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Watte [mailto:hp...@mi...]
> Sent: 22 January 2002 23:07
> To: Tom Hubina; gam...@li...
> Subject: RE: [GD-Windows] Visual C++ .Net
>
>
>
> If you turn off compiler extensions, "i" will be out of scope in
> VC6, too. The problem with that is that Windows headers certainly
> don't compile with language extensions turned off :-(
>
> Cheers,
>
> / h+
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gam...@li...
> > [mailto:gam...@li...]On
> Behalf Of
> > Tom Hubina
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 2:53 PM
> > To: gam...@li...
> > Subject: RE: [GD-Windows] Visual C++ .Net
> >
> >
> > At 01:42 PM 1/22/2002, Stefan Boberg wrote:
> > > - The v7 compiler is much more standards-compliant,
> but still lacks
> > >a few things such as Koenig lookup (I *think*), partial template
> > >specialisation and some other rarely-used gunk. This is apparently
> > >scheduled for the next VC release.
> >
> > OK. Is the scope of a variable declared in a for loop correct now?
> >
> > That is
> >
> > for(int i = 0; i < 5; i++)
> > {
> > }
> > i = 1; // i is out of scope on all compilers except VC 6
> >
> > Also .. do the Perforce and/or SourseSafe plug-ins still
> work correctly?
> >
> > Tom
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gamedevlists-windows mailing list
> > Gam...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-windows
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gamedevlists-windows mailing list
> Gam...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-windows
>
|
|
From: Paul B. <pa...@mi...> - 2002-01-23 16:11:30
|
> -----Original Message----- > From: Kent Quirk [mailto:ken...@co...]=20 > Subject: Re: [GD-Windows] Visual C++ .Net >=20 >=20 > "There are a couple of features of the ANSI/ISO standard (for=20 > instance the 'export' keyword as applied to template classes)=20 > that won't be implemented because they are considered by=20 > Microsoft to be obscure and, at this stage, theoretical. " Is there a compiler available that actually supports 'export' for templates? I don't believe GCC does last I checked (which would probably be the other most widely used compiler I would guess.) disclaimer: I work for ms, I don't work on VC. I also have never=20 felt compelled to use export. =20 Paul |
|
From: Kent Q. <ken...@co...> - 2002-01-23 16:31:34
|
You're obscuring the point. What I'm concerned about is that MS is deciding for the rest of the industry what features the standards SHOULD have included. The feature was added to the standard. Given that many features people wanted *weren't* added to the standard, I have a presumption that if it's in the standard, it's a target that compiler vendors should strive for. I don't mind a vendor saying "we couldn't get that one in this time around, but we're working on it." I do mind them saying "you don't need that." Kent Paul Bleisch wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Kent Quirk [mailto:ken...@co...] > > Subject: Re: [GD-Windows] Visual C++ .Net > > > > > > "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. " > > Is there a compiler available that actually supports 'export' for > templates? I don't believe GCC does last I checked (which would > probably be the other most widely used compiler I would guess.) > > disclaimer: I work for ms, I don't work on VC. I also have never > felt compelled to use export. > > Paul > > _______________________________________________ > Gamedevlists-windows mailing list > Gam...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-windows -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Kent Quirk | MindRover: "Astonishingly creative." Game Architect | Check it out! ken...@co... | http://www.mindrover.com/ _____________________________|_________________________________________ |
|
From: Wayne C. <wc...@re...> - 2002-01-23 19:56:00
|
> M$'s reasoning makes perfect business sense. Even though I'd be > interested to see PTS supported, I can see where they are coming from. > Also, I think most developers using C++ simply don't have a clue what > partial template specialisation is and don't really care about it > either. Ahh but is that because they don't know what it is they're missing, or what's it's useful for. Or is it simply because PTS is an esoteric addition to the language even to people who keep asking for it? Although it'd be *nice* I've managed okies without it so far :) FWIW I've used VS.NET beta2 at home since I bought WinXP (yeh, sorry, but I kinda like MS... lots ;). I find it very nice, although generally it feels *heavier* to use it's an improvement over VS6 in all areas. By only gripe is that the document tabs don't work as well as wndtabs for VS6 but that's a minor one. :) Wayne -Virus scanned and cleared ok |
|
From: Rich <leg...@xm...> - 2002-01-23 20:19:31
|
In article <000b01c1a445$cce2aa30$8600a8c0@sboberg6>,
"Stefan Boberg" <sbo...@te...> writes:
> SS definitely works [...]
Depends on your definition of "works". After we had multiple
developers editing a single file and lost many hours of work due to
SS's brain-dead "merge", we switched to CVS. I can live without
context menus inside visual studio if the underlying source code
control system isn't going to lose my changes.
I would never recommend SS to anyone based on my experience with it.
--
Ask me about my upcoming book on Direct3D from Addison-Wesley!
Direct3D Book <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/>
Don't Support Spammers! Boycott Fractal Painter 7!
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/spammers.html>
|
|
From: Matt D. <ma...@co...> - 2002-01-24 10:43:49
|
Can't you get a plug-in for Visual Studio that provides an interface to CVS? Hang on... (frantic searching of web) Here we are: http://www.geocities.com/kaczoroj/CvsIn/ Matt Davies Programmer, Confounding Factor ma...@co... www.confounding-factor.com -----Original Message----- From: gam...@li... [mailto:gam...@li...]On Behalf Of Rich Sent: 23 January 2002 20:19 To: gam...@li... Subject: Re: [GD-Windows] Visual C++ .Net In article <000b01c1a445$cce2aa30$8600a8c0@sboberg6>, "Stefan Boberg" <sbo...@te...> writes: > SS definitely works [...] Depends on your definition of "works". After we had multiple developers editing a single file and lost many hours of work due to SS's brain-dead "merge", we switched to CVS. I can live without context menus inside visual studio if the underlying source code control system isn't going to lose my changes. I would never recommend SS to anyone based on my experience with it. -- Ask me about my upcoming book on Direct3D from Addison-Wesley! Direct3D Book <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/> Don't Support Spammers! Boycott Fractal Painter 7! <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/spammers.html> _______________________________________________ Gamedevlists-windows mailing list Gam...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-windows |
|
From: Rich <leg...@xm...> - 2002-01-23 22:26:13
|
[stupid list, always redirecting my public response to a private email]
In article <3C4...@co...>,
Kent Quirk <ken...@co...> writes:
> You're obscuring the point. What I'm concerned about is that MS is
> deciding for the rest of the industry what features the standards SHOULD
> have included. The feature was added to the standard. Given that many
> features people wanted *weren't* added to the standard, I have a
> presumption that if it's in the standard, it's a target that compiler
> vendors should strive for.
Have you ever been involved in any standards process? The assumption
inherint in the above paragraph is that somehow the "most important"
or "best" features were picked for inclusion in the standard.
Standards bodies are more like legislatures with political factions
arguing to get their favorite pork included (or their most hated pork
removed). This varies from standard to standard based on the
politically motivations of the participants. Why, I've seen people
argue for weeks about whether tab stops should be 4 or 8 characters in
source code! To think that just because its a standards body that its
going to be immune from such things is naive, IMO.
> I don't mind a vendor saying "we couldn't get that one in this time
> around, but we're working on it." I do mind them saying "you don't need
> that."
The obvious answer is to keep telling MS that you "need that".
Personally, I think you're reading -way- too much into the interview.
What I read out of the interview is that they are pursuing the
low-hanging fruit first before calling in the Hook and Ladder Truck to
get that one piece of fruit at the very top of the tree. MS is
responding to requests for improvements/enhancements to the compiler.
The request I've heard most often is for improvements to the standard
library and the template support. That is what they've stated that
they are working on providing in VC7. That interview also mentions
that some things aren't going to be done in time for the product
launch, so there will be a service pack release later in the year to
address those items.
AFAIK, there aren't any compilers, free or otherwise, that implement
the export keyword.
--
Ask me about my upcoming book on Direct3D from Addison-Wesley!
Direct3D Book <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/>
Don't Support Spammers! Boycott Fractal Painter 7!
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/spammers.html>
|
|
From: Rich <leg...@xm...> - 2002-01-24 18:41:38
|
In article <CFE...@co...>,
"Matt Davies" <ma...@co...> writes:
> Can't you get a plug-in for Visual Studio that provides an interface to CVS?
>
> Hang on... (frantic searching of web)
>
> Here we are:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/kaczoroj/CvsIn/
Well that's new since the last time I looked. Frankly, I'm not
bothered by going to the WinCVS GUI to do CVS operations. I'm not
even bothered by going to the command line to do CVS operations. Like
I said, its not the UI of the version control tool that is important
to me, it is the correctness. VSS loses on correctnes and there is no
amount of GUI integration that can make up for that.
--
Ask me about my upcoming book on Direct3D from Addison-Wesley!
Direct3D Book <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/>
Don't Support Spammers! Boycott Fractal Painter 7!
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/spammers.html>
|
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X