C99 has always been requested by people trying to write portable code, and you nice folks just haven't been listening. It's not an individual library--it's hac

C99 has always been requested by people trying to write portable code, and you nice folks just haven't been listening. It's not an individual library--it's hack on hack on typedef on #define on hack to ensure compatibility, scattered across many projects. If Microsoft is going to want to start winning over 'Nix developers, they need to get their shit together before somebody pairs a Windows port of Clang with a half-decent IDE. EDIT: A few things better than just a "aaaargh implement the standard" rant: The threading and atomics in C11 would be really nice to have. The features listed here ( http://blogs.msdn.com/b/vcblog/archive/2013/07/19/c99-library-support-in-visual-studio-2013.aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/b/vcblog/archive/2013/07/19/c99-librar... ) especially the snprintf support. Last I checked, vsnprintf returns -1 instead of a useful character count when given a buffer too small, thus requiring use of _vsnprintf_s in a loop to try to figure out how much space is needed. I'm not sure, but I think the most recent MSVC still doesn't support the "restrict" qualifier. I'm sure there's other things as well. EDIT2: Part of the reason we want proper C99 support is that certain behaviors for implicit casting and whatnot change when done in a C++ compiler.