VC++ .net 2003.....
so after reading up a bit more. There is ansolutely no reason why not to use VC++ .net 2003 or use VC++ 6 instead of VC2003.
Am i right?
The reason i am asking is because i know there is still very large amount of developer unwilling to make the switch. Apart from money issue, why aren't they making the changes?? Since VC++ 2003 compiler is actully closest to standard then any previous version.
And SP6 for VS6 is coming out soon. Anybody know what will this SP brings in to VC6??
I finally got VC++ 6. Took a while since it is expencive. But I am liking how easy it is to use so far.
There is absolutly no reason not to use VC++.NET. Its even more compliant and allows you, if you want, to write managed/unmanaged code for the .NET Framework and anything written for it (C#, VB.NET). And you can always write native code like every other C++ compiler out there. I think its great.
I would say that there isn't really a compelling reason to switch. If Windows/intel goes 64 bit people will switch compilers because they have to. for the purposes of 32 bit windows though, VC 6 is a very good environment. That's mostly why I haven't switched. There isn't a good reason to spend that kind of money. Now if .NET became the ONLY way of programming for windows, there would be a compelling reason.
Still, you can get all the compilers and tools for free when downloading the .NET Framework SDK. Only Visual Studio.NET is what costs the big $$.
And anyone who has Visual Studio .NET 2002 can get the upgrade to 2003 for $30 from MS, so it's well worth it.
VS .NET 2003 is probably the best compiler currently out there, insofar as it's standards conformation goes. I have seen many improvements over .NET 2002.
It isn't a C99 compiler, but as I haven't used C since '91 or so, I don't much care.
VC++6 is so standards-noncompliant that you can barely use any third-party libraries at all. I'd never use it. It fails in a number of areas with Boost (albeit admittedly the most useful parts work), and that's a library that should be installed on every serious C++ developer's machine.
I have Visual Studio 6.1 Professional
I plan to get Visual Studio .NET in the future (this year or next year)........
I've bought Visual Studio 6, and I don't see what benefits Visual Studio .net would give me, as I don't write any web applications. Since VS6 does exactly what I want it to do, I can't justify the expense of VS.net either.
Benefits: It's ANSI-C++ compliant, so code is portable. That's the best reason for a C++ programmer to go .NET 2003.
Using older versions, you will have many different problems with templates, and many third party libraries won't work.
Cat, I'm curious what third party libraries you're referring to. I've never had this problem. As far as C/C++ standard compliance, there really isn't an issue with Dynamic Linking. The two don't really relate. Exported functions are given a calling convention which can be specified just fine in VC++ 6.
The template issue is often discussed but rarely comes up in practice. Let's put it this way. I've been using it for quite some time and never needed a template feature that failed to compile correctly.
Well, VC++ 6 can't handle about 20-25% of Boost's capabilities, and Boost is probably the single most widely used library, being as it's likely many of its functions will be absorbed into the Standard Library in the next C++ revision. VC++ 6 fails every single variant test, every tokenizer test, both random tests, many regex tests, many numeric/interval tests, many math tests, every lambda test, the io test, the graph test, many function tests, and the any test, as well as a smattering of others.
Blitz++ won't function, period, under any MS compiler predating Visual C++ .NET 2003, far too many features are broken under older versions. Even Visual C++ .NET 2002 couldn't compile Blitz++ code.
These aren't DLLs, they're template libraries, much like the STL. You don't get binary object files, you get header files. DLLs and the like will of course work, but these also are obviously platform-specific. Many libraries are distributed as source, even before template libraries, so that they can be platform-independant.
And how significant the template issue is really depends on how you program; if you use template libraries (which I tend to heavily use because of the ease of use and the large degree of convenience), broken template implementations can range from a trivial annoyance to a huge pain.
Sorry......... is it my misunderstanding or my writing is too bad??
I said apart from money issue. So in summary even if i give it free to you developers you still won't upgrade it because you can't justify what is the need of upgrading. Am i right??
The issues arise is that why MOST developer still don't upgrade to .Net2003, the argument say VC6 is not so ISO compliant, however hardly any developer ever has issues/problem with it.
And another question that still nobody has answered is will SP6 bring any new featues like updated complier??
Nobody's yet mentioned that Visual C++ .NET won't install on Windows 95, yet Visual C++ 6 will. I think this is a significant point, because even if you don't want to use .NET extensions, you won't be able to make or use "more compliant" code on what is (believe it or not) a Win32 platform.
Or is ISO C/C++ for Windows 98 and above only? :rolleyes:
iwod, money is really the only issue as far as I'm concerned. But I wouldn't be using .NET features. I would continue using Win32 API. So by all means, give me a free copy :D. Smurf, that's a valid point. I forgot about that. isn't it NT only? And Cat, most companies distribute their libraries as binaries. It's a select few who are into this whole open source thing. Out here in the real world they try to make money. There is less room for ideals.
You can still write code for Win95 just that you can't write managed code for it. But anyways, whoever still has Win95 doesn't deserve to live. ;)