Microsoft won't support a 14 year old C Standard because it's "really a C++ compiler"? When, exactly, did it from being a "C compiler" too? Since at le

Microsoft won't support a 14 year old C Standard because it's "really a C++ compiler"? When, exactly, did it from being a "C compiler" too? Since at least the last PDC, that's been the official line. Since C++ isn't technically a superset of C, I find that position reasonable, if annoying. Over the last few years, we've seen C# get features first with C++ receiving the same features only if MS gets around to it. This sentence makes no sense. C++ and C# are totally different languages on totally different runtimes. People hate "embrace and extend"; there was even a lot of push-back on the extensions to C++ Microsoft added to make writing WinRT code easier, despite them going to some lengths to show that the syntactic sugar was, indeed, only that, and not some major semantic change to the language. I further think it's clear that Microsoft does care about development tools. What they don't care about is having Visual Studio be the be-all, end-all environment for Windows development. You want C99? MinGW is actually good these days. You want Pascal? Free Pascal is at your disposal. JavaScript? NodeJS runs fine, embedded right in IIS. C++? Visual Studio actually makes one of the best C++ IDEs around, and its compiler is actually pluggable. (That's how you use ICC with it.)