Prev: Compound += operator overriding with derived classes
Next: Are lock free algorithms possible in C++?
From: Andy Champ on 11 Jul 2010 17:39
Andrew wrote:
>
> Based on my experience waiting for compilers that are compatible with
> the Sept 1998 standard, I reckon we've all got a very long wait. I am
> working with Visual Studio 2005 at the moment (not out of choice) and
> it isn't even 1998-compliant (e.g exception specifications). Hopefully
> Studio 2010 will be closer but I'm not holding my breath.
>
<snip>

VS 2010 was released in April. What it is or is not is no longer a
matter for guesswork.

Andy

--
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]

From: Martin B. on 11 Jul 2010 22:11
Andrew wrote:
> On 11 July, 15:46, "joe" <jc1...(a)att.net> wrote:
>> Hello. Is it done yet? What's the delay?
>
> Based on my experience waiting for compilers that are compatible with
> the Sept 1998 standard, I reckon we've all got a very long wait. I am
> working with Visual Studio 2005 at the moment (not out of choice) and
> it isn't even 1998-compliant (e.g exception specifications). Hopefully
> Studio 2010 will be closer but I'm not holding my breath.
> [...]
> The boost filesystem stuff [...]
> still has problems with UNCs on Windoze. [...]
>

I would like to note here that I think Visual Studio 2005 and 2010 are
both excellent products to do C++ development. (Obviously targeted at
the Windows world.)

It would be interesting to hear what environment for C++ development
you'd choose if you "had a choice".

cheers,
Martin

--
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]

From: Jeffrey Schwab on 12 Jul 2010 07:25
On 7/12/10 9:11 AM, Martin B. wrote:
> Andrew wrote:
>> On 11 July, 15:46, "joe" <jc1...(a)att.net> wrote:
>>> Hello. Is it done yet? What's the delay?
>>
>> Based on my experience waiting for compilers that are compatible with
>> the Sept 1998 standard, I reckon we've all got a very long wait. I am
>> working with Visual Studio 2005 at the moment (not out of choice) and
>> it isn't even 1998-compliant (e.g exception specifications). Hopefully
>> Studio 2010 will be closer but I'm not holding my breath.
>> [...]
>> The boost filesystem stuff [...]
>> still has problems with UNCs on Windoze. [...]
>>
>
> I would like to note here that I think Visual Studio 2005 and 2010 are
> both excellent products to do C++ development.

> (Obviously targeted at the Windows world.)

That's one heck of a restriction.

> It would be interesting to hear what environment for C++ development
> you'd choose if you "had a choice".

Just my $0.02: Vim. Or anything else that's fast, portable,
programmable, non-language-specific, and easy to integrate with
arbitrary toolchains (where the tools typically come from a variety of
different sources).

--
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]

From: TheGunslinger on 15 Jul 2010 00:52
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:25:23 CST, Jeffrey Schwab
<jeff(a)schwabcenter.com> wrote:

>On 7/12/10 9:11 AM, Martin B. wrote:
>> Andrew wrote:
>>> On 11 July, 15:46, "joe" <jc1...(a)att.net> wrote:
>>>> Hello. Is it done yet? What's the delay?
>>>
>>> Based on my experience waiting for compilers that are compatible with
>>> the Sept 1998 standard, I reckon we've all got a very long wait. I am
>>> working with Visual Studio 2005 at the moment (not out of choice) and
>>> it isn't even 1998-compliant (e.g exception specifications). Hopefully
>>> Studio 2010 will be closer but I'm not holding my breath.
>>> [...]
>>> The boost filesystem stuff [...]
>>> still has problems with UNCs on Windoze. [...]
>>>
>>
>> I would like to note here that I think Visual Studio 2005 and 2010 are
>> both excellent products to do C++ development.
>
>> (Obviously targeted at the Windows world.)
>
>That's one heck of a restriction.
>
>> It would be interesting to hear what environment for C++ development
>> you'd choose if you "had a choice".
>
>Just my $0.02: Vim. Or anything else that's fast, portable,
>programmable, non-language-specific, and easy to integrate with
>arbitrary toolchains (where the tools typically come from a variety of
>different sources).

That pretty much leaves MS out in the cold, doesn't.

MSVC++ is pretty much a closed system outside of Windows.

IMHO....

MJR

--
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]

From: terminator on 15 Jul 2010 00:52
On Jul 12, 12:39 pm, Andy Champ <no....(a)nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Andrew wrote:
>
> > Based on my experience waiting for compilers that are compatible with
> > the Sept 1998 standard, I reckon we've all got a very long wait. I am
> > working with Visual Studio 2005 at the moment (not out of choice) and
> > it isn't even 1998-compliant (e.g exception specifications). Hopefully
> > Studio 2010 will be closer but I'm not holding my breath.
>
> <snip>
>
> VS 2010 was released in April. What it is or is not is no longer a
> matter for guesswork.
>

i am not sure but i can rememeber that 2009 did much of the syntax
evolution.
however there will be a long delay.

regards,
FM.


--
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Compound += operator overriding with derived classes
Next: Are lock free algorithms possible in C++?