@Charles, and just to make this more interesting, (and to see what's the community's opinion, or you not interested in hearing that either?) let's ask people what they think. Guys, could you please, if you agree with me that mr sutter throughout his postings and explanations he gave in this thread http://channel9.msdn.com/Shows/C9-GoingNative/GoingNative-3-The-CCX-Episode-with-Marian-Luparu demonstrated snake like vagueness and evasiveness could you please post "I agree" and those who don't agree with me could you please post "I disagree".
@Charles, no, you won't. Firstly, just because my post offends you it doesn't mean it offends others, secondly, just because I'm telling truth that is inconvenient for you, it doesn't mean that others may not hear it. Deal with it! Thirdly, wasn't that you who said:
"We really want to hear from you, so please tweet feedback to @C9GoingNative (follow us!)and send your requests, ideas, complaints, praises, hate mail, and love letters to C9GoingNative [at] hotmail [dot] com. We will read and respond to all messages! That's how we roll, brothers and sisters. And if you're a Facebook user, please join our C9::GoingNative Facebook group."
I believe that if you encourage people to communicate with you no matter in what form nor style then you should be prepared that people will do so. So deal with it!
@Charles, you didn't get it again. And frankly speaking I don't think that any of you (MS guys) neither want nor care to get it. The point Tomas made is that everything what's needed in order to cooperate with WinRT is easily achievable just by using pure, standard conforming (ISO C++ standard - that's for mr sutter specially, for it was only he who seems not to understand what standard is important for C++ community) C++. No foreign extensions are neither needed nor necessary. CX is a stupid looking guy on the job who doesn't really needs to be there (nor knows any better how to do this particular job) but his dad has connections so they employed him.
Short story - there is absolutely no need for CX - C++ already provides everything and more in order to allow efficient interacting with WinRT - proved by Tomas.
@Jim, Jim when you were saying in one of your posts that before CX came to live and people where thinking about its desing, someone in the room said, why not to use CLI syntax, and everyone started laughing at him, wasn't that mr sutter who said that?
And last note: Charles, you're wrong again, C doesn't let you go lower than C++, they are allowing you to reach exactly the same level, they just provide different levels of abstraction.
@Glen, that's my point exactly - it is very hard to switch to another compiler if you have large code base and I'm sure MS is aware of that. What I see and what I understand from this and few other threads is that we (C++ community) are with master-slave relationship when comes to Microsoft. And as long as this will continue there are always going be attempts to brake the chains and be free!
@Glen the only thing I'm saying that professional programmers will us VS11. Either they like it or not. What, you're thinking that company you work for will switch to differen compiler because you don't like it? Think again.
And just to be clear: I do not agree with MS politics, behavior and plans for future (lack of C++11 expecially), but this doesn't change the fact that people will still use their product. For the same reason why they use Windows. And for the same reason why they use Office And talk to you few years from now you will see it for yourself.
And perhaps the best example for you will be yourself and your company. Are they leaving Visual Studio? If yes then you're right, if not I'm right.
@Charles please stop. This what you're doing (especially relinking well read by everyone threads) is actually insulting, arogant and makes me think that you're having a great laugh with other lads from MS on our (C++ community) expense. Either behave like a man or stop posting. And if you cannot understand what is asked simply say it and get someone (Jim perhaps) who is capable of doing so.
Oh, and one more thing, could you please do not invite mr sutter anymore, as he proved on this thread that he is also incapable of reading long threads and understand what is asked in them. I think most people will agree with me that what mr sutter showed here was just pathetic and we just do not want to read/listen to what he has/wants to say anymore.
Please give the VC team a break. They too, were misguided for 10 years as we - Microsoft -assumed .NET would be everything and everywhere and everyone would develop in C#. Can they have some time to catch up?
@Charles, you know I really, really would like to believe in that but first:
1. Actions speak louder than any voice - where is C++ at MS? What are the plans for C++ at MS? Do we as devs know anything about it? The only thing we know is that you (MS) don't care about C++ and C++ community (because of the actions MS took, not because what MS says)
2. Would it be fair to say that now MS assumes everyone will develop in C++/CX? Because mr sutter says it's great, so surely it must be, mustn't? O my God...
3. Would it be fair to say that if you come to someone's country you behave according to this country rules, not the one from your homeland? C++ isn't your world/country yet you treat it as if it was invented/owned by you. How arrogant is that?
Enough is enough. Too many times MS threated C++ community like not even second class citizens. Arrogant, dismissive attitude was the way to go. Even few weeks ago, what was it? C++ renaissance? Why didn't you play straight? Why did you pretend, hiding behind names (C++). What does it says about your attitude towards C++ and C++ community? And as for Diegum expanation for lack of C++11 support in VS2012 - because we didn't know you (developers) want that. How arrogant, insulting is this? Why can't you (MS) get it that people are not sheeple?
Charles, on a personal note, I really have nothing against you. I know that we've had little "incident" in the past but it's a past. I think that you are ok guy. I also have a weak spot for a native americans since childhood (would you believe that my wife's sister is married to a Blackfoot and they live here in Ireland few years now?). But what I'm driving at is that (if you really care about C++) you are in a very unfortunate position that you work for a company which interest you obliged to protect and those interests are nowhere near yours and ours, and you just simply cannot say what the things really look like. We on the contrary can. From the perpective of C++ community MS (with mr sutter as a main C++ architect) betrayed this language and this community - once again. As simple as that. And as long as this won't be fixed no words, no amount of beer, no plastic beads will bring happines and good relationship between our community and the company you work for.
As a sidenote w/r to VS - I personally stopped using it at home shortly after build conference, and judging by how things are going for this once great IDE won't be using it in the near future.
*C++/CX has been deemed the most user-friendly approach to solving this problem. Feel free to prove us wrong.
@Charles didn't we prove you wrong (to MS, mr sutter and you personally) by giving a number of differently approached counter examples written in pure ISO that would achieve exactly the same goal as C++/CX and actually would conform to ISO C++?
Are we having/had the same discussion here?
And as for mr sutter and his attitude:
"hey, this thread has half the word count of exceptional c++! I'm not gonna read it!" - pathetic
You also are saying:
COM is a foreign object model to C++).
Yes, but in order to consume it you use C++ syntax and you have C++ semantics. This is NOT true for C++/Cx - and that's the whole point, I and others were trying to make but apparently this genius mr sutter couldn't neither grasp it nor explain why staying within ISO C++ would be not possible and he and his team had to come up with CX. WOW!
The only person here from MS who has to be given fair play star is Jim Springfield. I and others may disagree with him but at least he didn't try to pull wool over our eyes, on the contrary to mr sutter and Jim at least read this tread and listened to what we want/have to say.
As for over all mr sutter's appearance here - WOW!
@dbu: Unfortunately must disagree with you. People will buy it, people will use it. Just because you, I and some other few people didn't get the "WinRT thing" it doesn't mean anything and MS knows about it. They will push with stubbornity of a donkey every new technology however badly designed. It doesn't matter - they can afford it.
@Glen, I certainly am not going to even touch WinRT. As've been proven here on this thread CX is a total unnecessary, foreing to C++ without legitimate right to exist.
But Glen, this will not bother MS. We are not their target customers - .NET crowd is. They will jump on CX. We (C++ guys) were just an extra - They (MS) speculated along this lines: "if it happens (that C++ guys will want to use it) that's fine, if not we (MS) can live without them quite happily."
They didn't care about us in the past and they will not in neither present nor future.
Why do you think this syntax is so .NET-ish? To accomodate C++ folks? Buhaha! That's so obvious - .NET crowd is what matters for MS not we.
I just wonder if this "syntax" would/could 've been used in order to stay with ISO C++
REFCLASS;//this is a macro, other tool may be needed but other than that nothing changes
continue from the comment above:
if class needs to be WinRT aware it has to have as its first line REFCLASS macro. That's it. Compiler or another tool is aware of that and based on that generates necessary info/metadata. Syntax and everything stays exactly the same as ISO C++.