4 ms·
I kind of disagree here. Compilers reached commodity status a long time ago. Nobody makes money off them compared to how it was in the 90s and the list of ex-co
by spiralpolitik 11y ago
I kind of disagree here. Compilers reached commodity status a long time ago. Nobody makes money off them compared to how it was in the 90s and the list of ex-compiler makers is as long as your arm (Watcom, Metrowerks etc).
'clang' is probably approaching the point that its good enough so the question for Microsoft is do they still see any value in continuing the develop their own compiler or should they just switch to 'clang' ?
I think this is the big shift we are seeing in MS this year. Instead trying to owning everything, they seem to be shifting their focus to owning the parts that have value and commoditizing the rest. The strategy was successful for Apple so its unsurprising that Microsoft is looking to a similar strategy as part of their salvation.
- coliveira 11y agoI think they want compatibility with other compilers, but unless they move alway from Windows, there is a lot of their APIs that require close compiler/library support: COM, DCOM+, .NET, etc. They will probably need at least to maintain VC++ for a long time.
- intrepidsoldier 11y agoAdd WinRT to that list and you have a set that is somehow reason enough for Visual C++ compiler front-end to stay relevant.
- gbersac 11y agoI agree with you. What I am going to say might be foolish, but if you push this philosophy further, Windows might end up with a linux kernel. There is no value to make in the development of a kernel, they should stop it ! And since linux is better than wondows_NT, they should switch to linux. I know, I know, that's foolish, but it would be so great if that could be true ^^