Speed up work on VC++
It is obvious, from looking at the amount of unfixed bugs, and the woeful C++11 feature support, that the VC++ team is understaffed. For a company bragging about its "C++ renaissance", that's just absurd. For the sake of all your C++ customers, you really need to speed things up. I won't dictate *how* it should be done, but I can think of three obvious suggestions:
1: allocate more resources. Whoever is in charge clearly doesn't think C++ is important. Not when the VC++ team consistently refers to their "compiler guy" (singular), and we get comments like "I am the only one on the team working on the STL implementation". If Microsoft is serious about C++, put some money into it. Hire more people.
2: Open-source it. If the VC++ team can't keep up, perhaps the community can. If Microsoft isn't willing to give the VC++ team the resources needed to do its job properly, allow the community to step in.
3: stop reinventing the wheel. There are several good C++ compilers available already. License EDG's compiler, or use Clang, and put those few developer hours you have into patching it to work better with Windows. if you don't have the resources to maintain your own compiler, don't waste your time trying.
Again, I don't want to tell you *how* to solve the problem, just that the problem exists, and it is very noticeable to your customers.
jalf
shared this idea
14 comments
-
Alexander Stoyan
commented
Totally agree with the author. Microsoft seems invests more in IDE re-development with each new VS release, instead of improving things that really matter. Just imagine: 2 competely new IDEs in just two years, and just a couple of new C++11 features built-in into the compiler and absolutely not solved terribly slow IntelliSense problem - that's no good.
-
Chris Roberts
commented
It's great you're passionate enough (and disgusted enough like me) to start this thread, but it's obvious that VS 11 is all about Microsoft courting the phone and tablet app developers. Hopefully in the next version they'll say something like "you spoke, and we listened...you told us you wanted X, here it is...". Basically they'll take a slap on the wrist for VS 11 to get the tablet/phone herd happy, then maybe come back to us.
-
HarrC
commented
'Find definition' and 'Find declaration' can be PAINFULLY slow...
-
Anonymous
commented
Totally agreed!
-
David Ikeda commented
+3 and, to Steve, it should be obvious from the number of votes that more than 6-8 people plan to use these features. They're already being used in other compilers to great effect and the ISO committee spent a great deal of time and effort on standardizing a feature set that will make idiomatic C++ that much easier.
Without meaning to offend, if you can't appreciate features like variadic templates, r-value references, range-based for, initializer lists, etc. then perhaps your usage of C++ is actually very different from the majority of the world. The language is evolving a lot and the way people use it now is very different from how it was used decades ago and for good reason as the experts made a lot of important discoveries like the importance of RAII for exception-safety, the power of templates for implementing generic algorithms and aggregates which also lead to an idiomatic way of implementing the iterator pattern without the typical abstraction cost, etc.
-
jalf
commented
@dbu: because this suggestion is about delivering improvements to the C++ compiler faster, and not about which platforms are supported.
Anyone can create new suggestions on this site, so if you want to bring attention to the XP thing, file a new feedback item with it.
And to answer your comment directly, yes, if MS speeds up work on VC++, it gives those of us who don't need XP support something. I agree that dropping XP support is problematic, I'm just saying that it is a different problem than "work on VC++ is proceeding at a snail's pace", which is what *this* suggestion is about.
-
Anonymous
commented
@Steve What you think about C++ being upgraded has nothing to do with MS, it has to do with the C++ standards committee. There is really no valid argument against MSVC being totally standard compliant with the latest C++ standard for every major release.
-
dbu
commented
@jalf: why is my post out of topic? The topic is mostly about the c++ compiler and the STL. Dropping XP runtime-support is mostly because of changes in the c++ compiler and the librarys. So eben if MS is going to speed up working on VC++ that gives us nothing, because a lot of devs can't use it anyway.
-
jalf
commented
@dbu, @HaierLuo: could we stick to the topic please? The purpose of this suggestion is what it says on the box: that VC++ needs to move faster.
There are plenty of other areas where VS could improve, and you've mentioned two of them. But they don't belong in this suggestion. That's why there is an entire UserVoice site.
-
Stone Free
commented
I'm surprised so few people have taken up your suggestion!
Anyway I totally agree with you, when you compare the features VC11 has completed of C++11 with Clang - then its a joke.
Please put some proper effort into bring us the ratified standard.
-
HaierLuo
commented
I hope next VC++ will support next windows phone (maybe windows phone 8?) !
-
dbu
commented
who cares about VC11 when VC11 will not support WinXP as a runtime plattform?
-
jalf
commented
@Steve: you realize that Microsoft does not control C++, yes? We're not asking Microsoft to come up with new features, just implement the ones that are already part of C++. I don't know about the "VAST majority" of anything, but there are a lot of people who want Microsoft's C++ compiler to actually understand the C++ language. Not just the parts of the language that you find important. What I want is a compiler that can compile C++ code. If I take an open-source C++ project written for another compiler, I want to be able to compile it with MSVC as well.
Is that "being part of the problem"? Perhaps. But if all you want is the compiler Microsoft had in 1998, why did you ever upgrade?
I find it interesting, though, that I am doing something that would benefit from complete C++ support, and you, apparently aren't. And yet you're the one telling me that what I'm doing isn't well suited for C++.
If you don't need what C++ has to offer, I have to wonder why *you* don't pick another language. ;)
-
Steve
commented
Don't you realise you are part of the problem and not the solution? The language is too big already. Sure, add all the libraries you want - but there is no reason for a language as old as C and C++ to continually be upgraded. Stop trying to make the language the "be all end all" and use it for what it is good for. People like you want every bell and whistle and for the VAST majority or us working folks, we don't give a rip! We want a stable platform that doesn't crash because of some feature that 6-8 people in the entire world will use. If what you are doing is not well suited to C++ then pick a different language.
