https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/archive/msdn-magazine/2017/january/c-introducing-c-winrt https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/archive/msdn-magazine/2017/... Looks

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/archive/msdn-magazine/2017/january/c-introducing-c-winrt https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/archive/msdn-magazine/2017/... Looks like Microsoft freely admits that its previous Technologies like C++/CX are "clunky" to use (which I wager is PR speak for "impractical bullcrap"). Not to mention other technologies which are officially described as "verbose, tedious and complex". Now it seems like C++/WinRT is the next holy grail and they provide instructions how to port your previous code (which is now obsolete - thanks Microsoft!) from any of the previous technologies to the new blessed one. We'll see how that works out. If I understand correctly, C++/WinRT allows you to write mostly standard-conforming C++, which is an incredible feat! </s>. It might make it easier to write code that is portable between platforms. Meanwhile I'll just continue using plain C, instead of pulling out the last hair I still have on my head. Because nobody's still given me a reasonable argument what's wrong with plain functions and a linker. And nobody has been able to give a good argument why we need an obscure technology like COM to achieve a reasonable amount of compile-time and run-time introspection. Why shouldn't we just be able to specify which sets of plain old functions should be used as constructors and destructors, for example? That would allow to write all kinds of OOP languages on top for anyone who is willing to make the associated tradeoffs.