4 ms·
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh409293.aspx https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh409293.aspx 2013 has a lot, and it looks like 2015 almost clo
by albinofrenchy 11y ago
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh409293.aspx https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh409293.aspx
2013 has a lot, and it looks like 2015 almost closes the gap. I'm content with the 2013 additions, but I simply do not understand why c99 wasn't fully supported 10 years ago, much less in the latest VS edition. C++ is better in many ways but when you need to compile C specific code, it is incredibly frustrating.
- jlarocco 11y agoMicrosoft have said a few times that they make a C++ compiler and that some C99 features will never be implemented unless they have to do it for C++. It's frustrating, but not likely to change.
- justin66 11y ago> I simply do not understand why c99 wasn't fully supported 10 years ago, much less in the latest VS edition MSFT doesn't need it and 99% of the compiler's users do not need it. I'm not happy about it but I can understand why it's not a priority for them.