Visual C++ Team Blog

Definite claim of C++0x support in VS2010 is wonderful news; I can't wait to play with the lambdas.

A question, though: will the rest of C++0x be coming in the final version? Specifically, concepts?

also, will we be getting lock-free stack/queue?  I know it's a little tougher to make due to no GC, but it's definitely still doable would be really cool :)

[int19h]

> A question, though: will the rest of C++0x be coming in the final version? Specifically, concepts?

Not all C++0x features will be implemented in VC10. In particular, concepts will definitely NOT be implemented in VC10. (Concepts were JUST finalized and integrated into the Working Paper; also, they're the largest C++0x feature by far.)

VisualStudio 2010 CTP 버전이 릴리즈됐다네용..근데 난 아직 6.0..ㅡㅡ;;;

"Is it true that IDE will be rewritten in WPF? If so, why?"

If so, WTF?! I'd say. Guys, are you completely taken over by the marketing BS managers? How about "Hello, Kitty" theme for cute development? The last decent version of IDE was v.6. Every new version is twice slower, has twice as many bugs - beta quality at best. So some genius decided to make a new version instead of decent service pack? Same goes to Vista, and the whole trend. Looks like a good time to start learning some more fruitful - Apples, Cocoas, etc.

Hi David,

are you comparing both versions running as a VPC or do you compare VS2008 running on your host and VS2010 in your VPC?

But if it is really true that the whole IDE is rewritten with WPF we cannot say anything on how such a fundamental change will influence performance.

If that change really happens this will be a heavy real world test for the performance possibilities of WPF. Please, surprise us positively ;-)

--

SvenC

Please, send more specifics about the abandoned SxS model. Another "implementation and abandon", just like ATL attributes?

What about these?

Can I just say congratulations on removing the SxS requirement on the runtime. It has caused no end of pain for us when dealing with thirdparty libraries and product deployment.

What support will offer for database programming,

web programming using native code?

ChrisLux:

Don't count on that ever happening. You're not the first to argue for this, but it's security!

Never mind that the net effect of this "feature" is to drive a lot of people away from the STL entirely, and back to C-isms like raw arrays and char* for strings thus probably causing *less* robust and secure software to be written, or that the way it's implemented is just *begging* for subtle ODR violations, especially when linking to 3rd party libs, causing fun fun unpredictable crashes.

The important thing is that the VC++ team can *say* that they take security seriously. Look, we've got a bullet-point feature saying we've made a specially secure version of the standard library! Can we have a raise now please? ;)

(Seriously though, couldn't you have found a less intrusive way of enabling this stuff? An extra template argument with a default value, perhaps? Something that could be toggled on and off locally, and didn't break the ODR rule if you link to a library or translation unit that had a different setting)

I think this one is a lost cause. At least if you use property sheets it's fairly easy to define this macro yourself for all your projects. :)

Not an optimal solution, but I doubt we're likely to see the situation improved any time soon.

Ten years ago, "proprietary" was a magic word that, when invoked, could completely freeze Microsoft. Once something was proprietary, *nothing* could be changed, lest competing products might start actually competing.

Today, "security" has taken on that role. Once the magic word has been invoked, it's impossible to get Microsoft to reconsider or backtrack. It doesn't matter whether what they're doing is actually secure, but if they *say* it is, that's the end of the discussion. You can't argue with the magic word.

Apart from that, VS2k10 looks pretty sweet, and I'm having good fun with the new VC++ build engine and the C++0x features. Nice job there. :)

public c++ compiler's interface

for example:

int main( int argc, char * argv[] )

{

   std::string str("int main( int argc, char * argv[] ){ return 0;}");

   std::string strObjectFile("first.exe");

   convert(str.c_str(), strObjectFile._c_str)//this is your public c++ compiler's interface

   return 0;

}

send doc to zyouhua@gmail.com

could anyone from the visual C++ stl team say something regarding the checked iterators in VC10?

thx

unfortunately in the new CTP- Oct Vs 2010, the toolbox in wf or wcf is missing for 4.0 attributes.(like new rules, flow chart etc.)

regards,

prabhjot

I've seen lots of new things added to C++ IDE with VS 2008 and VS 2010.

Is there any chance you will be able to blog about the speed improvement in compiled code?  This is of primary importance to us and much much less important than improvements in the IDE.

Ayman, your post seems to imply that a VC 2010 compiled app searches the system32 folder first before the application local folder when looking for CRT and MFC DLLs.

Is this truly the case? In my tests, it always looks for the application local folder first.

> An extra template argument with a default value, perhaps?

This would be a breaking API change for the purpose of template specialization, and template template arguments. The result would simply not be Standard-compliant.

Don't take me wrong, I do love C# and managed code, but often we need to develop in C++ and for good

Here's the entire dialog of the failed WINRar extract:

Extracting from VisualStudio2010CTP_11PartsTotal.part03.rar

Extracting from VisualStudio2010CTP_11PartsTotal.part04.rar

Extracting from VisualStudio2010CTP_11PartsTotal.part05.rar

Extracting from VisualStudio2010CTP_11PartsTotal.part06.rar

Extracting from VisualStudio2010CTP_11PartsTotal.part07.rar

Extracting from VisualStudio2010CTP_11PartsTotal.part08.rar

Extracting from VisualStudio2010CTP_11PartsTotal.part09.rar

Extracting from VisualStudio2010CTP_11PartsTotal.part10.rar

CRC failed in VisualStudio2010CTP.vhd

Unexpected end of archive

Packed data CRC failed in VisualStudio2010CTP.vhd

Extracting from VisualStudio2010CTP_11PartsTotal.part11.rar

Extracting VisualStudio2010CTP.vhd

Extracting VisualStudio2010CTP.vmc