3 ms·

Isn't this a little weird, given that MSFT wants people to use "managed code", the CLI, and all the attendant software? Or is it telling us that people who get

by bediger 15y ago

Isn't this a little weird, given that MSFT wants people to use "managed code", the CLI, and all the attendant software? Or is it telling us that people who get to choose (free software) aren't going to be using C++11? I can't tell.

astrodust 15y ago
What's wrong with the new standard? GNU g++ will be supporting it, right?
- apaprocki 15y ago
  The compiler with probably the most existing support right now is gcc 4.7. I've been hearing that C++11 may become the standard mode as of 4.8. http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.7/cxx0x_status.html http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.7/cxx0x_status.html
andersh 15y ago
>Isn't this a little weird, given that MSFT wants people to use "managed code" What's really weird is MS sell a C++ compiler they don't want people to use! >Or is it telling us that people who get to choose (free software) aren't going to be using C++11? That'd be a real shame, for people to miss out on C++11 goodness just because they're MS-phobic.
btn 15y ago
I think Herb Sutter talked a fair bit about this at the Build and C++ and Beyond conferences last year. The gist of it (IIRC) is that while managed code may be better for developer productivity, C++ continues to win when it comes to performance/size. Microsoft's trying to take a "best of both worlds" approach: promoting C++11 as a first-class language on Windows (WinRT), and making interop between managed and C++ code easier (C++/CX, formerly C++/CLI, formerly Managed C++).
jed_s 15y ago
Windows 8 WinRT is unmanaged/native; this has caused a conspiracy theory blaming infighting between Microsoft teams: Why is WinRT unmanaged? http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7457371/why-is-winrt-unmanaged/7524710#7524710 http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7457371/why-is-winrt-unma...
- iso8859-1 15y ago
  Which of those answers do you prefer? Accepted one seems a bit far fetched and simplistic. As Tatiana notes: "SharePoint is .NET, and it's half of Office.". Also see Larry's comment.
  - jed_s 15y ago
    I'll warn in advance that this is the jazz hands answer, because it's really impossible to tell. I doubt any one person decreed WinRT should be native; most likely it was the best of many compromises. Anyone willing to name names while documenting the internal politics that went along with the decision(s) could write quite the page-turner! * I could see decisions being influenced by long-term career prospects, but believe that people would be smart enough to hide most of this by working harder to find evidence supporting the direction they needed the tech to go. * According to my limited understanding, Microsoft long ago threw out a bunch of OS-level managed development pre-Vista (WinFS-type stuff) in part because of performance related issues. * ASP.NET (SharePoint) / managed code server-side is not going away any time soon, if ever... it's just too easy (and server hardware can typically handle any overhead). * .NET client-side could go either way; I think this is what the accepted answer is saying (eg. Silverlight as this decade's VB6 - convenient LOB tool killed with no direct transition to new tech) * Mono/Unity 3d/etc. are wildcards here, particularly as they support C# for non-Microsoft platforms (especially iPhone/Android). * Microsoft, or at least powerful people within Microsoft, love COM (one of my least favorites, but I don't deal with cross-language runtime/binary compatibility). I found this StackOverflow link on a huge discussion of the death of Silverlight, saying it was the first casualty of a "death to managed code" campaign: http://forums.silverlight.net/post/612643.aspx http://forums.silverlight.net/post/612643.aspx
  - andersh 15y ago
    The highest voted answer is clearly the sensible interpretation, but people do like to indulge in gossip and the 'politics' answer pushes those buttons.
- nhebb 15y ago
  Tangent: Ever notice how some of the most interesting threads on SO are [closed]? Especially the ones linked to from HN. Edit: BTW, I didn't mean to imply that this was necessarily a bad thing. It's in keeping with the facts, not opinion, guidelines of SO, but an [opinion] tag might be a nice addition to SO. In this case, the question wasn't bad, and although some of the answers are mere speculation, comments like the one made by Larry Osterman help put to rest some of the BS that gets spread around in this industry.

by bediger 15y ago

astrodust 15y ago

What's wrong with the new standard? GNU g++ will be supporting it, right?

apaprocki 15y ago
The compiler with probably the most existing support right now is gcc 4.7. I've been hearing that C++11 may become the standard mode as of 4.8. http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.7/cxx0x_status.html http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.7/cxx0x_status.html

andersh 15y ago

>Isn't this a little weird, given that MSFT wants people to use "managed code" What's really weird is MS sell a C++ compiler they don't want people to use! >Or is it telling us that people who get to choose (free software) aren't going to be using C++11? That'd be a real shame, for people to miss out on C++11 goodness just because they're MS-phobic.

btn 15y ago

I think Herb Sutter talked a fair bit about this at the Build and C++ and Beyond conferences last year. The gist of it (IIRC) is that while managed code may be better for developer productivity, C++ continues to win when it comes to performance/size. Microsoft's trying to take a "best of both worlds" approach: promoting C++11 as a first-class language on Windows (WinRT), and making interop between managed and C++ code easier (C++/CX, formerly C++/CLI, formerly Managed C++).

jed_s 15y ago

Windows 8 WinRT is unmanaged/native; this has caused a conspiracy theory blaming infighting between Microsoft teams: Why is WinRT unmanaged? http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7457371/why-is-winrt-unmanaged/7524710#7524710 http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7457371/why-is-winrt-unma...

iso8859-1 15y ago
Which of those answers do you prefer? Accepted one seems a bit far fetched and simplistic. As Tatiana notes: "SharePoint is .NET, and it's half of Office.". Also see Larry's comment.
- jed_s 15y ago
  I'll warn in advance that this is the jazz hands answer, because it's really impossible to tell. I doubt any one person decreed WinRT should be native; most likely it was the best of many compromises. Anyone willing to name names while documenting the internal politics that went along with the decision(s) could write quite the page-turner! * I could see decisions being influenced by long-term career prospects, but believe that people would be smart enough to hide most of this by working harder to find evidence supporting the direction they needed the tech to go. * According to my limited understanding, Microsoft long ago threw out a bunch of OS-level managed development pre-Vista (WinFS-type stuff) in part because of performance related issues. * ASP.NET (SharePoint) / managed code server-side is not going away any time soon, if ever... it's just too easy (and server hardware can typically handle any overhead). * .NET client-side could go either way; I think this is what the accepted answer is saying (eg. Silverlight as this decade's VB6 - convenient LOB tool killed with no direct transition to new tech) * Mono/Unity 3d/etc. are wildcards here, particularly as they support C# for non-Microsoft platforms (especially iPhone/Android). * Microsoft, or at least powerful people within Microsoft, love COM (one of my least favorites, but I don't deal with cross-language runtime/binary compatibility). I found this StackOverflow link on a huge discussion of the death of Silverlight, saying it was the first casualty of a "death to managed code" campaign: http://forums.silverlight.net/post/612643.aspx http://forums.silverlight.net/post/612643.aspx
- andersh 15y ago
  The highest voted answer is clearly the sensible interpretation, but people do like to indulge in gossip and the 'politics' answer pushes those buttons.
nhebb 15y ago
Tangent: Ever notice how some of the most interesting threads on SO are [closed]? Especially the ones linked to from HN. Edit: BTW, I didn't mean to imply that this was necessarily a bad thing. It's in keeping with the facts, not opinion, guidelines of SO, but an [opinion] tag might be a nice addition to SO. In this case, the question wasn't bad, and although some of the answers are mere speculation, comments like the one made by Larry Osterman help put to rest some of the BS that gets spread around in this industry.