5 ms·

Congratulations! Clang is almost there too (http://clang.llvm.org/cxx_status.html http://clang.llvm.org/cxx_status.html). I love seeing free compilers get adva

Congratulations! Clang is almost there too (http://clang.llvm.org/cxx_status.html http://clang.llvm.org/cxx_status.html). I love seeing free compilers get advanced features years ahead of proprietary compilers like MSVC and Intel Studio.

jjoonathan 10y ago
N4086: the future is now!
Salgat 10y ago
The folks working on the Microsoft compiler have done a fantastic job lately keeping up with features, so I wouldn't call them years behind. https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/vcblog/2016/01/22/vs-2015-update-2s-stl-is-c17-so-far-feature-complete/ https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/vcblog/2016/01/22/vs-2015-u...
- webaholic 10y ago
  Please see the history behind 'SFINAE' for what I am talking about.
  - __float 10y ago
    Is it fair to dismiss them for something that old? This is a thread about C++17, and Microsoft has shown themselves to be a great participant in pushing modern C++ forward and encouraging adoption; see: GoingNative, cppcon.
    - webaholic 10y ago
      The point being discussed is the availability of modern c++ features in MSVC, not their participation.
- astrodust 10y ago
  The level of coordination here in the C++ space is astonishing and commendable. This stuff used to take over a decade to trickle in and now it's all falling into place right on schedule.
  - zanchey 10y ago
    It's quite amazing to see the degree of change; unfortunately, as C++ compilers are so integral to the system, shipping newer code for older platforms is proving quite difficult. We recently went to C++11 and have to drop binary builds (through OBS and PPA) for a number of still-maintained but older platforms, sadly.
    - lallysingh 10y ago
      Shame there isn't a 'C' target for modern C++ compilers.
      - makapuf 10y ago
        Sure, I like many of the new features of C++ that could be compatible with or adapted to C (constexpr, auto, typed enums, or even (gasp).. templates for generic programming) and I'm jealous of the level of innovation in C++ (which would't be that difficult to backport to C since the features already are on C++), especially for embedded.
        vopi181 10y ago
        Why wouldn't you just use c++ then? Almost all c++ is valid C, no?
        astrodust 10y ago
        A lot of people write C in C++ mode just for convenience, you get things like const, but it's not the same as writing actual standards compliant C code. If you need portable C code, forget about all that stuff. Forget about a lot of things since some compilers are truly atrocious.
pjmlp 10y ago
I would be nice if people realized how actually MSVC and Intel Studio are in regards to other commercial vendors. http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/compiler_support http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/compiler_support And the embedded ones like TI are even behind those.
- naavis 10y ago
  I would also guess that it might not be good business to publish experimental features from a standard that doesn't exist yet. I think Microsoft is already implementing these features, they are just not out yet.
  - jahnu 10y ago
    https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/vcblog/2016/11/16/permissive-switch/ https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/vcblog/2016/11/16/permissiv... > The Visual C++ Team is excited to announce that the compiler in Visual Studio 2017 RC will feature a mode much closer to ISO C++ standards conformance than any time in its history. This represents a major milestone in our journey to full ISO C++ conformance. The mode is available now as an opt-in via the /permissive- switch but will one day become the default mode for the Visual C++ compiler. I'm really excited about having MS right up at the front of the pack with GCC and Clang.
    - HelloNurse 10y ago
      "much closer"? I look forward to their new compiler bugs.
      - jahnu 10y ago
        Really? They make progress and all you we any to do is trash talk their efforts?
        HelloNurse 10y ago
        The strange vagueness in stating they are "close" means the Microsoft C++ compiler team know they still miss shamefully important pieces, with the necessary consequence that optimistic users expecting C++17 will be bitten by unexpected significant compiler bugs. They should be more open. I respect the progress Microsoft is making, both in the long term (since the dark ages in which they didn't care about standards) and in the short term (a genuine C++17 implementation effort), but their progress is still slower than the competition.

jjoonathan 10y ago

N4086: the future is now!

Salgat 10y ago

The folks working on the Microsoft compiler have done a fantastic job lately keeping up with features, so I wouldn't call them years behind. https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/vcblog/2016/01/22/vs-2015-update-2s-stl-is-c17-so-far-feature-complete/ https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/vcblog/2016/01/22/vs-2015-u...

webaholic 10y ago
Please see the history behind 'SFINAE' for what I am talking about.
- __float 10y ago
  Is it fair to dismiss them for something that old? This is a thread about C++17, and Microsoft has shown themselves to be a great participant in pushing modern C++ forward and encouraging adoption; see: GoingNative, cppcon.
  - webaholic 10y ago
    The point being discussed is the availability of modern c++ features in MSVC, not their participation.
astrodust 10y ago
The level of coordination here in the C++ space is astonishing and commendable. This stuff used to take over a decade to trickle in and now it's all falling into place right on schedule.
- zanchey 10y ago
  It's quite amazing to see the degree of change; unfortunately, as C++ compilers are so integral to the system, shipping newer code for older platforms is proving quite difficult. We recently went to C++11 and have to drop binary builds (through OBS and PPA) for a number of still-maintained but older platforms, sadly.
  - lallysingh 10y ago
    Shame there isn't a 'C' target for modern C++ compilers.
    - makapuf 10y ago
      Sure, I like many of the new features of C++ that could be compatible with or adapted to C (constexpr, auto, typed enums, or even (gasp).. templates for generic programming) and I'm jealous of the level of innovation in C++ (which would't be that difficult to backport to C since the features already are on C++), especially for embedded.
      - vopi181 10y ago
        Why wouldn't you just use c++ then? Almost all c++ is valid C, no?
        astrodust 10y ago
        A lot of people write C in C++ mode just for convenience, you get things like const, but it's not the same as writing actual standards compliant C code. If you need portable C code, forget about all that stuff. Forget about a lot of things since some compilers are truly atrocious.

pjmlp 10y ago

I would be nice if people realized how actually MSVC and Intel Studio are in regards to other commercial vendors. http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/compiler_support http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/compiler_support And the embedded ones like TI are even behind those.

naavis 10y ago
I would also guess that it might not be good business to publish experimental features from a standard that doesn't exist yet. I think Microsoft is already implementing these features, they are just not out yet.
- jahnu 10y ago
  https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/vcblog/2016/11/16/permissive-switch/ https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/vcblog/2016/11/16/permissiv... > The Visual C++ Team is excited to announce that the compiler in Visual Studio 2017 RC will feature a mode much closer to ISO C++ standards conformance than any time in its history. This represents a major milestone in our journey to full ISO C++ conformance. The mode is available now as an opt-in via the /permissive- switch but will one day become the default mode for the Visual C++ compiler. I'm really excited about having MS right up at the front of the pack with GCC and Clang.
  - HelloNurse 10y ago
    "much closer"? I look forward to their new compiler bugs.
    - jahnu 10y ago
      Really? They make progress and all you we any to do is trash talk their efforts?
      - HelloNurse 10y ago
        The strange vagueness in stating they are "close" means the Microsoft C++ compiler team know they still miss shamefully important pieces, with the necessary consequence that optimistic users expecting C++17 will be bitten by unexpected significant compiler bugs. They should be more open. I respect the progress Microsoft is making, both in the long term (since the dark ages in which they didn't care about standards) and in the short term (a genuine C++17 implementation effort), but their progress is still slower than the competition.