Re: Rumors of reduced support for C++ /CLI
"Brian Muth" <bmuth@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:2F30BEEA-AE7A-41B5-95F6-13B661D5E5B2@microsoft.com...
"Edward Diener" <eddielee_no_spam_here@tropicsoft.com> wrote in message
news:eHnu1d2IKHA.6068@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Brian Muth wrote:
Nonetheless Microsoft's abysmal support for C++/CLI, along with their
almost complete refusal to fix C++/CLI bugs ...
What bugs are you referring to? I've always considered C++/CLI to be
extremely stable.
Here are bug report numbers:
101670
not found
Don't know why Edward didn't provide useful links, but they should look like
this (change the last six digits). Connect's search can't match issue
numbers, apparently.
https://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=101670
101671
not found
101674
not found
101677
workaround provided
101678
not found
192619
not found
199186
not found
205446
not found
216882
not found
249881
not found
275035
not found
295385
not found
344776
not found
362782
not found
431084
not found
any others that I can review?
I looked at about half of them. There were a couple of genuine bugs, and a
bunch of not understanding that C++ template code needs to be put into
header files, not exported from DLL's. For example, Edward claimed that it
wasn't possible to make a reusable function to convert between
System::String and std::string, but clearly the marshal_as class provided in
VS2008 does so.
The other thing I noticed was a pattern of insulting the developers. No
wonder the real bugs didn't get any response. You catch more flies with
honey....
What is most amusing is that you equate C++/CLI stability as an indicator
of good support. I, OTOH, consider good support the ability to implement
features and to fix bugs.
I've been very favourably impressed by Microsoft's commitment to
enhancements, new features, and bug fixes. One only needs to see the new
feature list of Visual Studio 2010 to see this.
Brian
And I for one am glad that Microsoft didn't "embrace and extend" C++ even
more than they have. Sure, C# got anonymous functions first, but I'm really
glad that Visual C++ is going to have them using the standard syntax instead
of coming up with something new for VS2005 that would have conflicted with
C++0x.
A bunch of other stuff like expression trees and LINQ, C++ had first in the
form of template libraries (there are some really good ones out there).
C++0x is going to make such libraries even more powerful (can anyone say
"XAML support via user-defined string literals"?).
http://www.research.att.com/~bs/C++0xFAQ.html#UD-literals