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.
We are making more frequent releases that include a balance of updates and enhancements based on our priorities, customer needs, and other influences.
Do you believe we have improved?
That would be fair enough, but the way I felt when they said they would "look into" doing interim releases was that we would at least see word about whether or not they're going to be doing interim releases.
The CTP release heavily implied to me that we would see an interim release and sometime within the near future - on a scale of months since years would essentially render an interim release nothing more than a token gesture with vNext on the way (assuming they keep to their roughly 2-year interval, of course).
For me, it's all about expectation management. I would suppose that most that are upset are probably upset because they were expecting to see something - even words - and have seen nothing.
Well, except the closing of this suggestion, of course..
Simon Dan commented
@Joel As i known the C++11 supporting seems being decided internally by them as Not for VS2012 But the next generation of. The compiler's signature is 'v120' but not 'v110'. Techincally i agree with their decision as one of them said that there is many additional works(which also means the additional Time) needed to provide a client-testable compilers rather than just do as the developing progress listed to let the final version being produced as plan and functional as it should be. But still, it seems also a problem that if they insist developing it without wide testing, there are many potential problems exists which will expose only in special(but not have to be rare, or even easy-to-hit) cases. Currently most of the bugs of v110 compiler are code generating errors for x64/floating-points/fast-mode optimization and some for looping and something like(i have even kept a list and demoes personally). Should they release a new toy for testing? Seriously, i don't know. A testing may let us find problems to let them fix as soon as they should but also ruin their works for final version. There are too many falling backs and compromises which may lead the way to unknown.
Joseph Gauterin commented
GCC is feature complete for C++11.
Clang is feature complete for C++11.
VC++ is nowhere near - you have fallen even further behind since this suggestion was made.
So do I believe you have improved? No - I do not.
Stefan Boberg commented
As many others have observed... no I do not believe you have improved and the closing of this ticket is massively premature.
You have talked up your new rapid release schedule (and that does SOUND great) but there has been no concrete manifestation of this apart from the CTP which is essentially useless for production work.
I haven't heard a single thing regarding the C++ support in Visual Studio 2012.
As far as I'm aware, neither Update 1 nor Update 2 had C++ improvements. They had general improvements and fixes (which technically apply to the C++ experience to an extent), but how is that an improvement at all? This suggestion deals specifically with C++11 support and as far as any of us is aware, nothing is happening. There's nothing related on vcblog or any blog I could find.
The November CTP would be great if it was polished and released, there are fantastic features in there, but it's clearly unsuitable for any task in its current form. I think the biggest problem is the lack of engagement with the developer community and setting realistic expectations.
Absolutely no improvement in c++ land. Just promises and empty slogans. You might do a more frequent releases but they bring nothing regarding c++ support. Your c++11 support is a joke. Don't lie to your customers.
Tino Didriksen commented
No, you have not improved. Visual Studio is still sorely behind on C++11 stdlib and language features.
The CTP was an ok preview, but since then nothing has happened. Herb promised updates every 2-3 months, from what I recall, so where are those?
It is a good thing that you make more updates but those updates are far from adding expected support of C++ 11 features. And by the way, some features like lambdas should works both for native and managed compiler.
I fail to understand why this request has been closed based on promises, both by Herb Sutter in his talk last year and by the team mentioning "more frequent releases" in here.
Unless I have missed one, there has been no working update on the C++ front since the release of VS 2012.
There certainly was a CTP, but its features are absolutely unusable: not working inside a template, not working inside a namespace or a class... It is useless outside of simple "Hello world" programs. Besides, it is not considered production-ready (and for good reason).
So as far as I am concerned, the C++ part of VS 2012 still has not received a single usable update; hence my surprise seeing this request being closed when the VS team hasn't followed up on its promises for now.
Marc Noon commented
Yeah good job Microsoft! Update 2 is exactly what the Doc ordered.
No. This isn't complete by a long-shot. Stop ******* around and fix this stuff. If you can't implement standards in a timely fashion (clearly the case) then stop developing your compiler and use/license a better one.
This post being closed is nonsense, the development of VC++ is painfully slow. On top it off all C++14 will be finalised before standard before VC++ even completes it C++11 implementation if that ever happens, the C99 requirement of the standard may never be implemented.
Gary Harper commented
Based on what I see in the VS2012 Updates I don't think you have improved. At least the things I care about have not been improved. I don't think it is appropriate to mark this item as completed when the bug I reported in MFC prior to Update 1 (which was fixed according to your team) has not made it into either Update 1 nor Update 2. I have not checked Update 3 CTP1 but it only mentions a bug fix for EndDialog. I do appreciate having back the 3 votes that I added to this item but like I said, I don't think you can consider this one closed.
I agree 3 very much! 3: stop reinventing the wheel! join the community.
Microsoft's deveop languages are now all mess. .net, mfc, vb. silverlight, wpf, winrt are all not useless!
I have been using wnidows for 20 years!
And the number 1 reason I am moving to Apple today is to be apple to use C++11
The f***s Microsoft don't give to C++ developers IS TOO **** HIGH!
E. B. commented
It's even ironic how we wait 2 years for another compiler and then can't move to it, as a significant deployment base has been phased out of its support list.
Idd, or the team is understaffed, or windows devs are that lazy, even to conspirationally copy some superior techniques of the g++/gcc compiler. Seriously.
Anders Lindqvist commented
I'm a long time visual studio user. I'd be happy if you switched to say CLANG for all compilation/intellisense and then focused on the linker/editor.
For this to work we need to have clang ABI-compatible with different old MSVC-versions (maybe someone is working on that?) and making the Windows SDK CLANG-compatible. (windows.h).
Betting on the Intel Compiler would be a mistake IMHO in todays cross-platform open source world.
Just my opinion!
Back in 1998-2000 we cursed cl.exe every time we had to compile on windows. It took several years to catch up with gcc (around 2001 VC6 got a big patch I think). Seeing this happen again with the new C++11 changes I have given up on CL.exe completely.
We are not a big company but as a chief developer in charge of 50 developers I say here and now that the new C++11 features are just to useful for us to back-peddle to keep using the slow and expensive windows compiler going on Win32 platforms. This time we refuse to implement #ifdefs and clutter our code base just appease the outdated compilers.
The time required to set up a development environment on windows 32 or 64 bit for GCC/Clang we now know is less than maintaining our code base to compile with a modern gcc and an outdated CL.exe in VS2012