I suggest you ...

C99 support

Support missing C99 features in plain C - stdint.h, declaration in the middle of the block, struct initializers with labels. C99 support is 12 years too late already.

1,133 votes
Vote
Sign in
Check!
(thinking…)
Reset
or sign in with
  • facebook
  • google
    Password icon
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Vladislav Vaintroub shared this idea  ·   ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    54 comments

    Sign in
    Check!
    (thinking…)
    Reset
    or sign in with
    • facebook
    • google
      Password icon
      Signed in as (Sign out)
      Submitting...
      • Neil Roy commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        I am a long time C programmer and prefer a compiler which fully supports the latest C (C 2011 at this time). As such, I will never use Visual Studio to create anything. I stick with Code::Blocks for my IDE and the latest version of MinGW-W64 (32 bit version, currently 7.2) which supports C11. When I compile my projects, I expect a C compiler to compile them, not a C++ compiler that barely supports it.

      • Armando A B commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        C99 is great for us working with scientific/tech programming. That is the main reason I buy Intel C and can't use Visual Studio. VisualStudio is a sad exception regarding support for C99.

      • Andrew Pardoe [MSFT] commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Our focus is on full C++ conformance. We made the Clang front-end available in our toolset in a binary-compatible fashion (see http://aka.ms/ClangC2 for more information) and we recommend that you use Clang/C2 if your code requires full C conformance.

      • Joe Marrero commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Looks like we are not using Microsoft tools anymore. I hope after the poor reception of Windows 8, that Microsoft begins to listen to their customers.

      • Vladislav Vaintroub commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Dana, I bet single guy could add C99 features in less than a year. I bet even I, without knowing compilers well, could add C99 features given appropriate access to the source, in 1 year timeframe. But this is a question of principles

      • Dana commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        +1 for C99/11 features, from a big data and bioinformatics developer who would like to better support Windows.

        I find it kind of humorous that C99 is ignored to "focus" on C++, when there appears to be plenty of cash at Microsoft for enormous wastes of resources like Zune and Windows Phone. I'd be willing to bet that C99/11 support could be added to Visual C++ for a fraction of the personnel costs of Enterprisey Tool - Humongous Edition (which will be entirely forgotten in a few years).

        C is a very important language for the sciences and in CS. Not supporting the geeks that drive innovation is a horrible, horrible platform mistake. It's like eating your seed corn.

      • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        WTF? If religion doe**** allow to add support in the compiler - add at least the header files!

      • Vladislav Vaintroub commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        @paerebal - it is not Herb this time who is sharing ideas. The forum exists for user to share their ideas. And what I was trying to do is to make clear that Microsoft does not make many friends in cross-plattform native development, nor in OSS community by declaring their C compiler C89(or even C98)-forever, and also diminishing the value of C as a language. Native low-level, close-to-the-metal development is still very much pure C. I hope the number of upvotes in this thread proves that point, Herbs answer also confirms that at least some people spent some time talking about it, though the overhyped C++ unfortunately for me won. I will raise that same suggestion next time and if that does not work out, again and again, and pretty sure collect more and more user votes.

      • paercebal commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        @Vladislav Vaintroub : Herb is not "sharing ideas". He's trying to explain the reasons C99 won't be fully supported in VC++. I guess it is a more polite and constructive way to answer this thread than simply ignoring it, isn't it. He goes ever as far as offering alternatives, including compilers from the competition.

        As for "Thanks or reminding us that user does not really have a voice", Visual Studio would probably support C99 if there were a majority of C99 users using it. The current situation is more, I guess, something like: "Implementing C99 will please a minority, and will divert the Visual Studio resources from development of C++11, as well as other languages (.NET? WinRT?) that would please a majority or are considered a priority".

      ← Previous 1 3

      Feedback and Knowledge Base