Everyone on the VC team is getting really excited about the upcoming PDC in Los Angeles. This will be our first chance to show you some of our upcoming features and a great way for us to get feedback direct from you on what we have implemented so far and what we have planned. PDCs are always one of our most exciting events to speak at, given the forward looking nature of the program (and, to be truthful, we learn as much about what other teams are planning as attendees do sometimes!) Just wanted to add a small reminder that VC will be presenting two sessions at the PDC and invite any of you who will be there to drop by and meet us. The two sessions are:
· Microsoft Visual C++: 10 Is the New 6, presented by Boris Jabes.
· Microsoft Visual Studio: Building Applications with MFC, presented by myself.
Also attending from VC will be Arjun Bijanki and Raman Sharma; all four of us will be delighted to meet you during the event, at one of the above sessions or look for us in the lounge too. Once we have our lounge sessions booked we will post the times here, if you would like to arrange to meet.
PingBack from http://www.easycoded.com/vc-at-the-pdc/
10 is the new 6? Seriously?!
I know people who are still traumatized by VC6. Is this going to be a compiler that, although reasonable for its time, is chock full of nasty bugs, ships with an out-of-date library, then hangs around for far too long without getting any better?
When they say "10 is the new 6", I really think they're trying to convey the increase in focus on VC++ with the upcoming v10 release of Visual Studio.
VC6 had its problems, sure, but it was also very performant and didn't treat VC++ as an afterthought (with the .NET Framework technology stack getting all the focus and resources).
Since a huge percentage of commercial application developers are using VC++, this renewed focus is most welcome (and really overdue).
A question I'd love to hear answered is: Why are a huge percentage of commercial app developers still using VC++? Is it just a reluctance to invest in conversion to .NET? Not enough gain for the pain? Waiting for the .NET stack to mature?
I'm concerned that Microsoft is spreading itself too thin trying to support the VC++/MFC stack *and* the .NET/WinForms stack *and* the .NET/WPF stack. I've got an aging VC++/MFC app that I'd like to modernize, and the only real option is to keep the non-visual parts in native VC++ and move the UI to WPF, which is clearly superior UI technology to either MFC or WinForms. But that route does not seem to be a focus for Microsoft. Their WPF focus seems to be on pure XAML/C# apps, mostly database front-ends. There seems to be very little focus on putting everything in WPF that would allow VC++/MFC apps to move forward, at least so far. The VC++/C++/CLI/WPF hybrid seems technically doable, but I suspect I'll feel like I'm the only person on Earth doing it.
The "non-visual parts in native VC++ and move the UI to WPF" is exactly what Microsoft is trying to optimize. You're just missing one detail:
non-visual parts in (mixed native and managed) C++ and WPF UI wired in C#
You ask why are people still using C++? Because it's portable portable portable when done right, almost as portable as Java with far lower overhead and better performance.
Yes, "10 Is The New 6" refers to the IDE, not to the compiler and libraries. The compiler and libraries have steadily improved from VC6 to VC7.0 to VC7.1 to VC8 to VC9 (to VC9 SP1, with TR1 and MFC goodies!), and I like to say that "10 Is Greater Than 9".
After PDC, we'll have VCBlog posts explaining the new compiler and library features in great detail.
Stephan T. Lavavej, Visual C++ Libraries Developer
> Why are a huge percentage of commercial app developers still using VC++
Well, maybe because for client (desktop) applications, distributing the .NET Framework (any version of it, really) is a significant burden?
Maybe it's because most WinForms apps take forever to start up, no matter how well they're written (yes, even the stuff written by MS and running on my quad-core machine with 4GB RAM)?
Maybe it's because MS has a severe case of shiny object syndrome, and as soon as we have the time to think about WinForms - they shift the bulk of their focus to WPF and nobody knows *what* the heck to use anymore?
Or maybe it's just because VC++ works incredibly well when done right (avoiding all of the above)?
Nah, it is the millions of page-faults in WinForms and GDI+ per minute..
Than there is the lack of expertise in .NET framework design internally, and lack of language design skills in C# team.
.NET targets masses, C++ targets all the top apps.
Good luck with that WPF for UI and C++ for logic, been there 10 times and back. Not worth it really, WPF is so much overhead it is incredible. All the idioms of WPF and C# are so, so wasteful.
Frankly, it is nothing different to Java days, it will be sluggish and irritating for users. Heaven forbid you try to do something time-critical..
About time MS got some resources in C++ and VC teams.. They shouldn't have invested more in .NET in the first place. It was and still is the root of all problems being overstreched and now having to catch up with Intel on basic std containers performance and more is coming..
Wow... "10 is the new 6" !!!
This type of marketing will definitely get backfired.
Visual C++ 6.0 was horrible from a compiler pointof view. It was not a standard compliant (though it was okay at that time, but it was really really lagging behind). There were many bugs in compiler. The standard library included was really bad..(I still remember we had to use STLPort).
Also Visual C++ 6.0 has released quite a few service packs within a short period of time to address various issues.
Moreover Visual C++ 6.0 (during late 1999 and early 2000) gave us the impression that the future of C++ development in Microsoft environment was a not recommended path. Everyone was talking about upcoming .NET and Microsoft was not updating the compiler/libraries etc.
So IMHO please do not use the term "10 is the new 6" !!!!
I consider it a positive thing that VC6 had multiple service packs. Ideally, it's nice to pretend software doesn't need service packs but this generally leads to quality problems. And, it's a shame that customers need to continually buy the latest product version to get bug fixes... especially when the new versions are larger, slower, more complicated, less reliable, and introduce too many new problems related to a failure to manage complexity.
If anything, I'd like VC10 to focus more on Quality and less on Shiny New Doodads. Also, talk about code bloat: VC6 was a blazingly fast IDE - later IDEs are just blazingly slow. So, I'm in favor of the 10 IDE being the new 6.
>>So, I'm in favor of the 10 IDE being the new 6
I agree, but ONLY on IDE (not on anything else)
I too prefer the Visual C++ 6.0 IDE over the newly created bloat.. But thats it. regarding the standard library implementation, it was really horrible..The compiler too had many bugs.
Whats the point in a good fast IDE, if the compiler and the standard library are bad ?
VC++ 6.0 was released ten years ago (1998)
Microsoft needs to address legacy development and porting non-Visual Studio C++/C code to Visual Studio.
The releases VS .NET and later have been lacking in these tools. I've ported many unix/linux C++ applications to MS Visual Studio/windows and found that Visual Studio .NET tools for this purpose are minimial.
I've have to create an empty project and add the source files up the application 1 source file at a time just to get a clean compile and link. This is not necessarily the fault of Microsoft but a combination of the forgiving nature of linux/unix C++ compilers.
@ Arun Raj:
Stephan T. Lavavej [MSFT] wrote >> Yes, "10 Is The New 6" refers to the IDE, not to the compiler and libraries.
Arun Raj wrote >> I agree, but ONLY on IDE (not on anything else) ... the standard library implementation, it was really horrible..The compiler too had many bugs.
Stephan has already clearly said that it is the IDE that MS is referring to and not libraries or compiler, which have improved over the time. So I just don't get the point on you talking about the libraries and compiler after his reply. Are you just killing time?
What about C++0x (C++09)?
Is there any chance that VC10 support C++09?
>> Is there any chance that VC10 support C++09?
Given that C++0x probably won't be ratified until late '09 at the earliest, it seems unlikely that they'd be able to implement support for it in VC10.