On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 10:44:25 +0000 Paulo Pinto via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 17 December 2014 at 10:21:53 UTC, ketmar via > Digitalmars-d wrote: > > On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 18:41:06 +1000 > > Manu via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > > > >> Do we have any vector's into Microsoft to get fixes for D'd > >> debugging > >> experience into their debugger? Are there any sympathetic > >> developers > >> at MS? > > haha. they can't do C99 for decades, so i bet that seeing Hell > > frozen > > is much more realistic scenario. > > Why should they? The product is called Visual C++. so why their c++ compiler still accepts c code? "for compatibility"? oh, eah, it's very "compatible" to accept ancient C89 and to reject C99. > Microsoft already stated that C++ is the way forward and C is > only for backwards compatibility. idiots, that's it. > Since Windows XP most new Windows APIs are COM based, good luck > writing COM code in C. i'm still succesfully using winapi. what am i doing wrong? ah, except resisting to "platform lock-in" with all that COM BS. > If you want to still use a modern C compiler, there are third > party compilers to choose from. and if i want a modern C++ compiler, i will not chose msvc, as my workflow is already built around completely different tools. having in mind that there are alot of C code around, msvc is the worst possible choise. (ah, and visual studio sux too! ;-) > Personally I vote for Microsoft approach, C++ allows for much > safer coding than C and the C subset is still there anyway. this is about consistency again. either stop accepting half-baked C and go with pure C++ or fix the damn thing! but this is ms... a long-time vendor of half-backed solutions for the problems that shouldn't exist in the first place.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature