quote:Original post by daerid
what''s the other 2%?
Hidden porno.
Visual Studio.net vs. Visual Studio.net 2003
it can''t ''export'' templates.. rest should work, but i''m not sure.. its a longlong time i read the last time about it...
call it very compliant.. and call comeau full compliant.. and call the 2002 quite compliant.. and call vc6.. uhm.. not allowed to post that, i would get too much ***** in my text else:D (not that i don''t use it.. but.. uhm.. its another language:D)
"take a look around" - limp bizkit
www.google.com
call it very compliant.. and call comeau full compliant.. and call the 2002 quite compliant.. and call vc6.. uhm.. not allowed to post that, i would get too much ***** in my text else:D (not that i don''t use it.. but.. uhm.. its another language:D)
"take a look around" - limp bizkit
www.google.com
And...it''s cheap as hell to upgrade before Sept 30th.
As long as you''re not using academic, you can upgrade to an equivalent version for like $29.
Gamedev for learning.
libGDN for putting it all together.
An opensource, cross platform, cross API game development library.
As long as you''re not using academic, you can upgrade to an equivalent version for like $29.
Gamedev for learning.
libGDN for putting it all together.
An opensource, cross platform, cross API game development library.
quote:Original post by davepermen
it can't 'export' templates.. rest should work, but i'm not sure.. its a longlong time i read the last time about it...
call it very compliant.. and call comeau full compliant.. and call the 2002 quite compliant.. and call vc6.. uhm.. not allowed to post that, i would get too much ***** in my text else:D (not that i don't use it.. but.. uhm.. its another language:D)
"take a look around" - limp bizkit
www.google.com
quote:http://gotw.ca/gotw/085.htm
That is Variant's major weakness: Most real-world compilers don't even come close to being able to handle this implementation, and the code should be viewed as important but still experimental. I attempted to build Alexandrescu's Variant code using all of the compilers that I have available: Borland 5.5; Comeau 4.3.0.1; EDG 3.0.1; Intel 7.0; gcc 2.95, 3.1.1, and 3.2; Metrowerks 8.2; and Microsoft VC++ 6.0, 7.0, and 7.1 RC1. As some readers will know, some of the products in that list are very strong and standards-conforming compilers. None of these compilers could successfully compile Alexandrescu's template-heavy source as it was provided.
I tried to massage the code by hand to get it through any of the compilers, but was only successful with Microsoft VC++ 7.1 RC1. Most of the compilers didn't stand a chance, because they did not have nearly strong enough template support to deal with Alexandrescu's code. (Some emitted a truly prodigious quantity of warnings and errors -- Intel 7.0's response to compiling main.cpp was to spew back an impressive 430K's worth -- really, nearly half a megabyte! -- of diagnostic messages.)
So I think .NET 2003 is even more compliant than Comeau C++ in "real world" code (nobody needs export)
[edited by - novum on May 8, 2003 2:04:05 PM]
I''m not particularly fond of the new Visual Studio environment (for one thing it''s very slow compared to VS 6.0, at least on my machine) and I couldn''t care less about the .NET Framework, but the C++ compliance have finally reached a decent level in VS 2003 and that''s what matters to me.
The main benefit of VS 2002 was that a lot of the fatal bugs in 6.0 were fixed. The C++ support in VS 2002, while slightly improved, was hardly "quite compliant" - it was at the level where 6.0 could have been if Microsoft had put some effort into C++ compliance.
Visual Studio .NET 2003, on the other hand, actually allows me to compile most of the template-savvy techniques I''ve previously had to give up on due to limited compiler support. I''ve been experimenting with it for a couple of weeks and only got two Internal Compiler Errors so far, neither of which were show-stoppers - compared to the earlier versions that could almost be described as bug-free.
I agree fully with noVum about
The main benefit of VS 2002 was that a lot of the fatal bugs in 6.0 were fixed. The C++ support in VS 2002, while slightly improved, was hardly "quite compliant" - it was at the level where 6.0 could have been if Microsoft had put some effort into C++ compliance.
Visual Studio .NET 2003, on the other hand, actually allows me to compile most of the template-savvy techniques I''ve previously had to give up on due to limited compiler support. I''ve been experimenting with it for a couple of weeks and only got two Internal Compiler Errors so far, neither of which were show-stoppers - compared to the earlier versions that could almost be described as bug-free.
I agree fully with noVum about
export support.
I want export support. I only know of two (relatively unpleasant) hackarounds that will let me keep my templatized implementation nicely segregated from my templatized interface (ie executable code in my .cpp and all the declarations the user cares about in the .h). The export keyword would allow me to write modules with templatization the way I write every other module, the way Bjarne intended.
The export keyword is hard to implement. Really hard.
If you think compiler writers are lazy because they cannot implement export then I encourage you to research it on usenet. It is easy to find discussion on it.
If you think compiler writers are lazy because they cannot implement export then I encourage you to research it on usenet. It is easy to find discussion on it.
quote:Original post by liquid_ice_programmer
If VS.net 2003 is 98% C++ compliant what persent is VS.net 2002?
I''d say about 80%
quote:Original post by antareus
The export keyword is hard to implement. Really hard.
Impossible to implement true to intent. EDG did the best they could, which is to say a lot of work for nothing.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
