my thoughts exactly (well.. part of my thoughts. i have lots of positive ones regarding the compiler itself for this version). just compare that to what the managed crowd will get (or already has got). i know native c++ is an entirely different and more
difficult playing field. but right now the sort of hype that's generated does not really involve native c++ but the managed world mostly. and iso language features arent visual studio features either. implementing iso standards (and not even fully implementing
them..... and im not thinking of export template) is not a feature or anything noteworthy for me. its a requirement. comeau does it for 50 bucks (well.. no lambda support yet, but just wait a few weeks/months), gcc does it for free (soon-ish... i grant you
that). so i need innovation in the IDE space. and as "Cache" put it, zoom isnt the holy grail there.
this did sound a bit negative i know and of course its not meant as a personal attack or anything like that. im just a bit frustrated that essentially i could take a better notepad and have the same c++ support as in vs (well... not quite.. but you get my
drift i guess). and implementing iso standards isnt a plus either. its a requirement like IE being standards compliant. its nothing to base your hype on (dont like the word hype myself.. but i dont know of anything better... but i mean "evangelism" i guess.
which i dont like either )
cheers there and thanks for your vs 2010 coverage! martin
i just hope that people who have actually invested in getting to grips with the new ribbon additions to the MFC won't have to throw their code out the window again when the windows 7 ribbon arrives..... i can smell the turmoil already
*if* this windows 7 ribbon cant be integrated seamlessly into MFC or there will be a co-existance of the mfc ribbon and the windows 7 ribbon, then i would have prefered that microsoft told developers that story before they bought and advertised the mfc ribbon.
wouldnt make much sense to develop the mfc ribbon to the same flexibility and design that the windows 7 ribbon offers. we'll see.
Thanks for your reply, Rick! This all sounds very nice. im just trying to compare your system with what others came up with. i just like it when COM isn't involved because sometimes on compilers other than msvc this isnt the most of joy.
also things like supporting allocators (e.g. 16 byte aligned allocators) wouldnt be the worst thing to have these days. but, i dont want to annoy you with that any further. it's just the things i 'd be looking for when choosing between the ms falvor and competitors'.
cheers, martin btw. bleed is really great stuff.
Nice! another c++ video! always appreciated! There's one question that i think has not been asked yet (well.. there are more i guess): what form does that new c++ concurrency runtime take? i mean.. this all could be done as a pure header-only c++ library thats mainly driven by policy classes. is it "just"
that (which i would always prefer) or is there some COM underneath? things like IAgent? (hope not ! )
anyways! i think this is a very good approach, i just hope that the underlying machinery is not too heavy (something i've to install on a client machine via msi/msm for instance?).
i hope you can understand what im trying to get at i just have the fear that there's people out there who would do this sort of thing as a header-only library thats included into every module.. and there might be a really heavy-weight approach with COM,
libraries, dlls, versioning and whatnot.
hm this is a little bit of fanboy-ism that im exhibiting here.. but i must say that the hike around the ms campus with bill hill is still my favorite video on channel9. im actually thinking about the topic of this interview once in a while.... it has been
a joy to watch it. havent seen this current video yet because of time constraints. but i sure will do so soon
just wanted to say thanks for another bill hill video! ... and thanks for this wave of videos these days.. still have my hopes up that we'll see a herb sutter interview about concur ;)
thanks charles, bill and team!
thanks for this video! iÄm always happy to see that the vc++ team gets some channel9 love.
the move from "oh we're going to make extensions to c++ here and there and lets push people to our managed environment" to the current mindset is really good for vc++ and the c++ language in general.
i'd even go so far and say that the managed push with managed c++ (back in the "__gc" times) and to some extent c++/cli hurt the c++ community.
i 'd always prefer library solutions over compiler based solutions such as c++/cli. i know it's too late for that.. but what i mean is:
the most pure solution would be to offer a static library or even a header-only library that i can call if i want to talk to managed code.
let the library do all the tricks to talk to CLI code. id would add a layer but from a c++ language standpoint this would be much more pure a solution.
there's also one aspect i always would like to add to the answer to "why do you like c++?" :
i really like the way you can bend c++. the syntax is complicated / flexible enough to either write in a style that is really close to C89 if that's what you want. you can write in a java-like style and have hierarchies over hierarchies.. you can be purely procedural.. or you can create complicated compile-time intensive yet incredible efficient code with template magic.
that flexibility to choose your style within one language is really extraordinary.. C++ gives you the colors but the way you paint is really up to you.
after watching this video i have to post again and say thanks. i think getting mfc up to shape again in order to enable c++ developers produce applications that users actually enjoy using is extremely important.
more important to me is that i get this functionality out of the box when using mfc. using mfc together with third party mfc extensions in order to make mfc look good is not the way it should be. congratuations on solving that issue in such a magnificent way.
when i saw this video i immediately enjoyed looking at some plain c++ mfc code after years of dealing with the qt way of creating windows, toolbars etc.
if we got nice SOAP compliant client / server functionality in mfc i'm completely happy for a while ...
Thanks for your reply, damien! Just reading the abstract for this talk you mentioned assures me that it's ok for me to stay with native c++ for quite a while its so great that we might be getting a usable and current framework for windows development
from microsoft again. i don't really enjoy using third party UI frameworks...
yes, yes! another interview with the vc++ team! i just can't wait to see the thing i've read on herb sutter's blog recently: "The thing we can't talk about but that has something to do with MFC". I suppose it's more than MFC 9.. i hope..
anyway, thanks a lot, Charles, for these going deep videos - especially the ones from c++ land.
ilmar, you need to keep in mind that provable systems for the military and other safety critical applications (especially subsystems on airplanes) are written in a subset of the ADA language called SPARK. they got rid of possibly dangerous or hard to proof
constructs and added annotations for static verifiers (a bit like SAL in the microsoft sdks but more elaborate) which resulted in a language that facilitates proofs.
you might want to read up a bit on ada and spark: it's a fascinating world for die-hard c++ programmers especially.