pouët.net

Anyone got any experience with it, tried the beta, etc.? What is different except being able to develop for .NET3.5? We still use unmanaged C++ here...

You'll definitely need new redistrubutables...

Why don't they just release some service packs for 2005, as it still has some errors. VS6 was supported really good, but as of now they throw out new shit nobody needs instead of maintaining older stuff. Same with Vista...

Why don't they just release some service packs for 2005, as it still has some errors. VS6 was supported really good, but as of now they throw out new shit nobody needs instead of maintaining older stuff. Same with Vista...

MONEY + MONEY + MONEY = MICROSOFT...
vs 2008 looks like 2005 (but it is more Vista-like). We have nothing new exept 3.5 framework and some new c#,VB features(I am saying about beta 2 of course).Bill sux dick ;(

There'd better be people who are used to it now, because in five years companies will be looking for people with 10 years experience in VS 2008

check this out: http://blogs.msdn.com/somasegar/archive/2007/08/08/visual-c-futures.aspx
they openly admit that all the features the unmanaged C++ crowd wants are not going to be in vs2008, but the earliest in the following version... sure, they keep telling "c++ is not dead", but everytime you look at the new features list of a new VS release, 99% is only for managed code..

In my country employers give programmers 1 month to learn new tools(oh fuck, my damn bad english) ;( And it does not matter how long have you used it before...You simply have no choise,you need to learn it very quickly.Damn it!

you better get back to work then :)

So far I know it not changes much from 2005, only on my XP version it crashed a lot ( vista never :D ) . Could 2008 "just" be a Visual Studio 2005 with SP1 and Framework 3.5 build in it ?:D

i've tested vs2008 at home and it works perfectly. seems they finally managed to create a working/stable intellisense aswell.
however most of the "new" features ar managed features but i haven't seen any feature that was in 2005 being removed in 2008 for vanilla c++.

seems like i won't need/miss it...

@bartman: For what it's worth, at least they realized the recent neglect of native code and promise to put more emphasis on it from now on:

http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=281987

Quite interesting interview actually, although a bit long.

Well stupid me, just saw that the video is linked from the blog entry you posted.

well, let's just say that ms realized in the last few years that a major shift from native code to managed code just isn't going to happen for performance-critical applications.

Vista's gui was written in c#...Not a good idea.It worcks slow and they had to write it with c++,but NO!!!! Their managers are dumasses,they care only about money...Microsoft will kill c++ on their platform in a next 5-10 years...Tell me please, why c++ indentation is mutch worser that c# one?(reflection???)

I'm not surprised that they neglect C++, they did the same with the C support. There lack of support for the C99 standard is a pain in the ass for people who develop portable code.

There=Their

sparcus: word!

that's just BS, i don't see how they're neglecting c++. standards compliance has been getting better with every release and is pretty much optimal right now (template export isn't exactly an important language feature to me, exception specifications are broken by design and I don't know anything else that VC++ doesn't do right now). also, vc++ is WAY faster to compile than g++ or intel c++, which is the main reason i prefer the compiler actually. and TR1 support would've been nice, but if you really want it right now, why not just use the boost TR1 library?

the main complaint about recent VS releases is that the IDE turned into a complete memory and CPU hog with VS 2002. but they're clearly working on it - 2005 has the new build engine which is definitely way better than anything they ever had in any previous VS version (and finally supports adding new tools to use during build based on the file extension - of course that's been possible in makefiles for years, but yay anyway).

#535: "vista's gui was written in c#" - not true. aero is c++ code, as is the whole 3d/driver layer. nearly nothing of the shipping version of vista actually uses managed code. of course it's still slow, but that has nothing to do with the language :). WPF is yet another new gui framework, but seeing as winforms, the atl windowing framework (+wtl) and mfc (ugh) are all still being maintained and actively used, i just take that to mean that they still don't know what they want. "Microsoft will kill c++ on their platform in a next 5-10 years..." - no, i'm pretty sure they're not going to kill the language all of their platform's lowlevel APIs and all of their cashcow products (windows, office) are written in any time soon. especially since all their other compilers and the CLR implementation/JIT are written in c++ too.

ryg, you did not understand me. I dont know how it goes in Germany, but in Ukraine (and Russia too) it is very hard to get a c++ job (fucking english!).All companies are using c#\VB.And it is not their falt.Developing in c++ is mutch more expensive (and it is Microsoft's falt).I can argument this, but only in russian language... sorry ;(

if they didn't add the damn inline assembly for 64bit platforms, I prefer to stay with VC2005 and VC6.0...

The thing is, #535, most companies have built their workforce on the basis that they can hire a bunch of programming illiterates with no method. If they have a degree, they mostly haven't been paying attention to any of their courses. The sad result is that making them program in c++ is like giving a flame thrower to an arsonist.

And why are they doing that? Because they're cheaper and deliver something half decent and sellable. Under contract at least.

c++ is a systems programming language, c#/vb/java are most certainly not. also, c++ is a MUCH more complicated language (and thus way harder to learn) than the others. programming in a garbage collected, sandboxed environment is inherently easier and less bug-prone than working with manual memory management and close to the hardware (with the cost of greatly decreased performance and increased memory usage, of course). so of course developing using these languages is cheaper - that's the whole point: the coders don't need to be as qualified (and thus get paid less) and the development cycles are shorter.

c++'s system-level-ness is by design (indeed, one of bjarne stroustrups main design goals) and has nothing at all to do with ms. the main applications for c++ code are systems programming, game programming or work on embedded/realtime systems - so look there if you want a job as c++ programmer.

That is it!!!!I wanted to say something like that ;)Maybe thay cant kill c++,but i
hate m$ for the monopolization.VS is a good prod(i use it),but i hate Vista and C#.And i think that M$ is now associating c++ more with Linux.

I assume you are talking about C++, and I'll take your word on it that that is ok. But at work I'm still coding in C most of the time and can assure you that their C99 standard compliance sucks. Our code is full of preprocessor crap just to make it compile on MSVC.

this still has nothing to do with ms. in the unix world, the people that'd use c#/vb on windows use java/python/perl/ruby/shell scripts etc. it's the same pattern as on windows - frontend/one-shot code gets written with whatever language is easiest to use for the job, and only the backend and high performance applications/libs get written in c/c++. this has nothing at all to do with monopolization, but is simply about cutting development costs and most importantly developer time (OSS developers don't have infinite time either). of course MS is developing their own versions of everything and pushing them as hard as they can - but that's because a market exists for it (and they want a slice of it, as big as possible). c#/.net was their answer to delphi/java and came way after the two had taken hold. they certainly didn't force anyone to use it.

sparcus, the ms compiler is really a c++ compiler, not a c compiler. the c support they have is the c subset of iso c++ (i.e. basically C89), nothing more, nothing less.