no, I mean HTML5 application development tooling support in Visual Studio.
OK, IE9 is the user's story about HTML5, now you should deliver the HTML5 story to the developers !
Nokia, and now Microsoft, are committed to making sure that your contributions to and investments in the Nokia ecosystem will be worthwhile. In the coming weeks we will provide more information about programs that will help you access the Symbian and Qt opportunities more effectively.
So how many weeks the 'coming weeks' are ??
and, there is something only the vc team could talk about, since VC2010 comes with no 'smart device' support, WEC7 uses VS2008 as the development tool, on the other hand Windows itself is going ARM, so here is a questin: will VC11 support ARM ? if no, then we can forget Qt for WP7, if yes, thats something to begin with, and then, the next question goes to the WP team.
my personal guessing would be: Native for WP7 ? possibly(1). Qt for WP7 ? very unlikely.
but as long as you can compile C++ to WP7, you can always leverage those non-ui part of Qt as your libraries.
(1) as Diegum said: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/vcblog/archive/2011/02/24/10133517.aspx
A few days ago I compiled all these claims for native support in WP7 and send that for the wp7 team. Not sure if, as your advocate, I'm to win the case but I keep my bets high. I'm confident that the same will start happening with other techs as well (xna, etc)
Mar 04, 2011 at 12:02PM
any tools to find out which program is still 'using' these files.
Process Explorer -> Find Handle
@new2STL: well, as a user I do love Window 7 and never looked back after upgrading from XP. but as a developer its another story, I need to deploy my software to the existing infrastructure of those large and sturborn orgnaziations, I cant tell them to upgrading all their machines so I can sell my product to them, heck, I even need to support Windows 2000 in some special scenarios, and in VC2010 this need some nasty hack:
fortunately its not a show stopper. but abandoning XP definetly is, oh, guess I have to stick with VS2010/NET4 for a while. but I guess Silverlight 5+ will support XP at least, with P/Invoke support there is hope for me to switch to Silverlight OOB or desktop app model, wooho.
oh, MFC is way too old and not really worth put more resources on it, given how 'resource constrained' your teams are. you should really design your architecture in a modern and standard way, WTL looks better but it operate on those GDI/HWND directly, so its not suitable for a modern rendering stack using D2D/DWrite and support for touch/NUI stuff. Hopefully the native and managed GUI framework (WPF) can share the same underlying rendering stack, and a similiar markup language (XAML). actually the XAML support already exist in the Windows Ribbon Framework, with UICC.
well, but my concern is, if you build the stack using D2D, it means no XP support, which is not acceptable, and become totally useless to me, unless you designed it in a pluggable way so we can fallback to other things on XP. just like what WPF4 did with text rendering.
it is called Silverlight for Windows Embedded.
no we are not going to stop calling it so, for the sole purpose of irritating those people who doesnt like it, any problem with that ?
OK its a good confession post, but, not so encouraging because, well, I myself is a half-c#-half-native-C++ coder and C++/CLI is my glue, now I am frustrated.
and, I am also worrying in another way, cause I dont think C++/CLI is part of the grand new plan for native 'reinanssance', its just some dirty work that have to be done, and if its the case, then it is occupying too much resources of the team, potentially affecting the real exciting new stuff, I can feel the pressure, bad for the health.
actually this is NOT so cool ...... we used to have it in previous versions.
and C++/CLI is NOT about native coding ...... ok sort of but not primarily.
and that post is actually an apology:
We realize this wasn’t what you wanted to happen and an explanation doesn’t help you get your work done if you are affected by this, but we want you to know the truth.
@felix9 Thank you for doing some research but I think you will find the only piece of literature worth quoting about C++ is the standard itself. I did acknowledge the origins of the name "STL" in my second post and queried if we were talking about the same dead implementation and it seems we are.
if read carefully you can see that all of my quotes are talking about the part of the actual standard library, the 'dead implementation' is only mentioned when people want to explain 'why' they are using this term this way.
I dont think the standard itself is 'the only piece of literature worth quoting', surely you are getting way too formal here. this term is so widely used in the industry and academia, everybody understand it and take it naturally, if you want to talk that way then good for you, but we are living people and we dont need to always speak the 'iso standard' language.