4 ms·

They should just abandon MSVC and invest into LLVM/Clang, like everyone else does. Will resolve a lot of incompatibility problems, and will bring more tools for

• criddell 4y ago
  They have decent support for LLVM/Clang right now and the trend on that front is good. I think there’s value in competing compilers. I can’t see Microsoft abandoning their C++ compiler. The C++ compiler is a foundational technology for them and it’s something they want to own and control.
• logicchains 4y ago
  That'd be a step backwards. MSVC is actually much faster than Clang at implementing new C++ standards nowadays, not at all like before when it used to lag behind.
  • jcelerier 4y ago
    As someone who compiles c++20 code using the big three daily, MSVC claims conformance faster but in practice it's full of bugs and takes more time to be usable. E.g. when they claimed concept support, it was not possible to use requires-expression outside of a concept declaration e.g. no if constexpr (requires { foo; }) was a syntax error ; clang wasn't claiming concepts support but I couldn't find a thing that didn't work at the time. Same for coroutines, constexpr, my codebase at some point was littered with workarounds just for catering to MSVC's idea of conformance. Even today it's the compiler for which I have the most open bugs I think. And, to put the nail on the coffin, clang generates consistently faster code in my experience and its of many others, see e.g. this recent thread on r/cpp : https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/100vctp/msvc_vs_clang_performance_has_anyone_tested/ https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/100vctp/msvc_vs_clang_...
  • fluoridation 4y ago
    Clang is lagging behind because it's losing support.