3 ms·
It took Microsoft a long time to get a C++ compiler out that was worthy of the name. Templates were so unusable that they were the laughingstock of comp.lang.c+
by prodigal_erik 16y ago
It took Microsoft a long time to get a C++ compiler out that was worthy of the name. Templates were so unusable that they were the laughingstock of comp.lang.c++ for much of the 90s. J++ was merely a trap for the unwary, lacking several important interoperability features (JNI and RMI come to mind) and promptly abandoned when a judge prevented them from poisoning the Java ecosystem. Think twice before you rely on them to faithfully implement a standard.
- marksmen 16y agoerr they created few best languages out there C# and F# and Python / Java run like kinfe through butter. Ruby Programmers are incompetent apple fanboi's.
- earl 16y agoI seem to remember Visual Studio having a better C++ compiler than gcc for quite a while -- at least through the whole egcs fork. Some of the templating stuff didn't work in VS6, but I think that was pretty universally true for all compilers through 2003 or so. Or am I misremembering?
- prodigal_erik 16y agoThe way I remember it, Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0 in 1998 was their first compiler that handled just about everything I could do with Borland C++ 3.0 back in 1991. Each of these was disappointing, but Microsoft's earlier releases were just about useless. I didn't do much with GCC until later.