HomerSimpian

fair enough. My gripe was that as much as I want to use this stuff, I cannot in a work setting as we have to target XP.  But, don't let that stop the progress in the compiler.  One day I'll be using it....just not soon enough  

I really do enjoy these topics and am happy that MS is tackling them.  How does AutoP work with C++Amp?  Does AutoV/P work C++11 iterations?  Does the compiler recognize only the 'for' keyword, or does it recognize other loop constructs such as 'while' or std::for_each()?

 

This is very interesting. And while I would like to see how my existing code would benefit from this, the fact that VS11 will not target Win XP will prevent me from using this in production code. It's really a shame. Maybe in a few years I'll finally be able to start using a lot of the new features VS11 C++ compiler is offering. I agree that talking with the compiler guys is very informative!

As for the price of $112, does it have anything to do with the first 3 non zero digits of the Fibonacci sequence?

@STL: In regards to your comments around 12:56-13:10, will you be paying my company to do the upgrades and the necessary (and expensive) 3rd party library upgrades that would need to occur? Will you say something similar about Vs2010 when VsNext is issued? Just wondering. It's easy to say everybody should upgrade to the latest, just not easy to do. If you can convince my boss to pay for that, you're better than me. I'm sure he'll gladly accept free copies though if you or Charles or any other MS employee are willing to donate to my company. You should have seen the fight we had to undertake to move from VC6 to VS2008! So, in about another 7 years we may upgrade if current trends continue.

1. I use C++ in the MFC context. We have many MFC based apps that are being maintained, and at times added to. We do have .NET apps, but most times they are segregated. If there were a separated VC++ we could live with that. 2. as for data access, it would be great if there were a standard XML library. Since there isn't, it would be nice if MFC would have XML functionality similar to .NET. While there is XMLlite functions via WinAPI, a C++ based portable solution would be better. We have to target Win2000 which isn't supported with XmlLite. A MFC based XML serialization would be nice instead of using CArchive and its 'magic' to output a proprietary binary file. 3. +1 for a modern UI library. While MFC is doing some advancement on that front, will there be a native replacement or supplement to MFC? Or as previous poster mentioned, a path to use WPF from MFC? Thanks, and appreciate the video.

Great interview. Regarding the MS C++ coding standards - I can see that generating a new formatting war in various circles. But, I would still read it! Regarding the time frame for the standardization, the result is nice, but such lengths have caused a perception of a dying or obsolete language. That perception, along with MS emphasis on .NET has lead to many 'leaving' c++ or feeling the need to migrate their code at great expense to .NET/WPF with very little to gain except that new hires are more able to come aboard because they see us 'keeping up' with the latest technology. Too bad this 'c++ renaissance' has to take place. Ideally no renaissance should have to be necessary if the language and framework updating and focus is timely.

Congrats on making it this far. Now, if the next 100 episodes could be on a more consistent schedule, that would be appreciated. The bloopers make me miss Max even more!

just don't go to the site without the 'i' in it Period!

It is good to hear that C++ isn't dead at MS yet.  The impression one tends to get just by viewing C9 is that if you aren't developing in WPF/Silverlight/XNA or other .Net technology, you might as well develop for other OSs.  Enjoying this series.  It has been a way to get my coworkers to learn about and use STL where appropriate.  Many of them are old-school C programmers who picked up C++/MFC as needed, but never really carried through with it as it has progressed.  Thanks again.