I just installed Micro$oft Visual C++ 2008 Experss Edition.

My God... what have I done?? O_O

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I just installed Micro$oft Visual C++ 2008 Experss Edition.
> 
> My God... what have I done?? O_O
> 
If you feel like Dr. Frankenstein you should scream: "It's Alive!" :D

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I just installed Micro$oft Visual C++ 2008 Experss Edition.
> 
> My God... what have I done?? O_O
> 
Definitely no worse than me. I installed XP on a spare box yesterday 
just to play Spore.
<wanders off, gibbering and drooling>

John

-- 
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei

Post a reply to this message

Doctor John wrote:

> Definitely no worse than me. I installed XP on a spare box yesterday 
> just to play Spore.
> <wanders off, gibbering and drooling>

Pffhhaaahahahahhahahaha! PWN3D!!

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I just installed Micro$oft Visual C++ 2008 Experss Edition.

  Even though I use Visual C++ for my payjob, I have never actually
made even a single CLI program with it. Let us know your experiences
in doing that.

  Visual C++ might look cool and fancy, with all of its graphical user
interfaces, configuration dialogs, source file editor, context help and
whatnot, but I bet it will feel very daunting at first. There are so
many options and buttons that you might feel a bit lost. You might even
start missing the simple "g++ program.cc" way of compiling a program. ;)

  Oh, and that just for creating CLI programs. You can probably forget
about creating win32 programs. The learning curve is steep. No, it's not
steep. It's a vertical wall.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 21-Sep-08 11:33, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I just installed Micro$oft Visual C++ 2008 Experss Edition.
> 
> My God... what have I done?? O_O
> 
At first glance, I would say: a spelling mistake.

Post a reply to this message

>> My God... what have I done?? O_O
>>
> At first glance, I would say: a spelling mistake.

NAAAAAAARGH!!! >_<

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   Even though I use Visual C++ for my payjob, I have never actually
> made even a single CLI program with it. Let us know your experiences
> in doing that.
> 
>   Visual C++ might look cool and fancy, with all of its graphical user
> interfaces, configuration dialogs, source file editor, context help and
> whatnot, but I bet it will feel very daunting at first. There are so
> many options and buttons that you might feel a bit lost. You might even
> start missing the simple "g++ program.cc" way of compiling a program. ;)

I'm not saying it's bloated, but... EVEN THE *NAME* IS 45 CHARACTERS LONG!

Heh. Seriously. It was a 100 MB download, it took about 25 minutes to 
install (most of that was just the .NET runtime...), and I now have 
something open on my screen that looks very slick and... I... just want 
to compile some code? o_O

>   Oh, and that just for creating CLI programs. You can probably forget
> about creating win32 programs. The learning curve is steep. No, it's not
> steep. It's a vertical wall.

Warp, that's probably the most amusing thing I've ever heard you say. I 
am actually laughout out loud now! :-D

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   Visual C++ might look cool and fancy, with all of its graphical user
> interfaces, configuration dialogs, source file editor, context help and
> whatnot, but I bet it will feel very daunting at first. There are so
> many options and buttons that you might feel a bit lost. You might even
> start missing the simple "g++ program.cc" way of compiling a program. ;)

...still not found a way to compile things yet...

At this rate, I'm going to have to look in the help file. (!!) o_O

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> ...still not found a way to compile things yet...
> 
> At this rate, I'm going to have to look in the help file. (!!) o_O

Ha. Haha. Ahahaha!

Of course, a mere "help file" would be far too easy. No, we must have an 
interactive tutorial... *sigh*

(I was afraid of this!)

Ohhhohhhh... so *that's* how you make it compile?

Hmm, you really have to do stuff in *exactly* the order it wants, don't 
you? Man this thing's inflexible! Oh well, at least I figured out how to 
work it. Heh. Even if it *is* about as intuitive as... something... not 
very intuitive... (First person to say "Haskell" gets a slap!)

Clearly this thing is designed for programs *way* bigger than "Hello 
World". I can't help thinking that if Hello World is all you're trying 
to write, this is massive overkill. Oh well, it's faster than running 
GCC on a virtual machine! (And it has a real editor, not Nano. And I 
even found out how to make it stop ****ing with my text layout!)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> ....still not found a way to compile things yet...

It's the little icon on the toolbar that looks like a birthday cake, at 
least on the 2005 version. (I don't know why it looks like a birthday cake.

Isn't there a "build" menu when you open the "solution"?

You know, "create new project", then pick the type (like console), then 
type in the "hello world" program where it belongs, then "build" and 
then "run"?

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Hmm, you really have to do stuff in *exactly* the order it wants, don't 
> you? Man this thing's inflexible!

Uh, like what?  But yeah, a lot of Microsoft stuff can be like that. I 
don't really remember that to be the case in VS. Maybe getting something 
set up in the first place the first time is more tedious than I remember.

> Clearly this thing is designed for programs *way* bigger than "Hello 
> World". I can't help thinking that if Hello World is all you're trying 
> to write, this is massive overkill. 

Yep. The full-blown product has stuff like automated unit testing built 
in, and even the cheap $99 version has stuff like automated source 
control built in.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

>> ....still not found a way to compile things yet...
> 
> It's the little icon on the toolbar that looks like a birthday cake, at 
> least on the 2005 version. (I don't know why it looks like a birthday cake.
> 
> Isn't there a "build" menu when you open the "solution"?

Yeah, there was a build button, but disabled.

> You know, "create new project", then pick the type (like console), then 
> type in the "hello world" program where it belongs, then "build" and 
> then "run"?

Yeah, that's just it - I hadn't figured out that you must create a 
"project" before you can compile anything. ;-) It lets you edit source 
code just fine without one, but won't actually compile anything.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Hmm, you really have to do stuff in *exactly* the order it wants, 
>> don't you? Man this thing's inflexible!
> 
> Uh, like what?

Like if you go File > New > File... and then select "CPP File", it 
doesn't add it to the current project. (And opens the file browser in a 
random spot.) You must instead right-click on the "Source Files" node of 
the current project and select "Add item..." and select "CPP File", and 
*then* it automatically puts the file in the correct place, adds it to 
the project, and lets you compile and run it. Sheesh!

> But yeah, a lot of Microsoft stuff can be like that.

Yeah. I remember the self-same thing with Visual J++ Studio, 10 years 
ago! ;-)

>> Clearly this thing is designed for programs *way* bigger than "Hello 
>> World". I can't help thinking that if Hello World is all you're trying 
>> to write, this is massive overkill. 
> 
> Yep. The full-blown product has stuff like automated unit testing built 
> in, and even the cheap $99 version has stuff like automated source 
> control built in.

Ooo, I *so* must buy that!!!1!eleven!

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Like if you go File > New > File... and then select "CPP File", it 
> doesn't add it to the current project. (And opens the file browser in a 
> random spot.) You must instead right-click on the "Source Files" node of 
> the current project and select "Add item..." and select "CPP File", and 
> *then* it automatically puts the file in the correct place, adds it to 
> the project, and lets you compile and run it. Sheesh!

Oh, yeah, OK. But you can also add files that aren't in the project. So 
if you create a CPP file that's outside the "solution", you can then 
choose to add it to the solution later.  Not really an "out of order" 
problem so much as a "too many choices" problem. :-)

> Yeah. I remember the self-same thing with Visual J++ Studio, 10 years 
> ago! ;-)

I was thinking stuff like installing interrelated packages, drivers, etc.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Yeah, that's just it - I hadn't figured out that you must create a 
> "project" before you can compile anything. ;-) It lets you edit source 
> code just fine without one, but won't actually compile anything.

They may have made it more complicated in the 2008 version or something. 
The 2005 version has a big button saying "create new project" and you 
have to go into the menus and such to find the "create a file that I 
don't know how to compile" part. ;-)

But yeah, it's a big and complex tool. It'll take a day or two to learn 
how it works.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

Oh... cool.

According to "Thinking in C++", you can use the keywords "and", "or" and 
"not" in place of symbols. GCC accepts this. However, Visual C++ doesn't 
seem to like it.

I just took the program source code and handed it, unmodified, to GCC. 
It compiled immediately. Yet Visual C++ complains about "not" being an 
"undeclared identifier". Goodie.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> But yeah, it's a big and complex tool. It'll take a day or two to learn 
> how it works.

Tell me about it! I just discovered that adding a breakpoint doesn't 
actually do anything - you have to add a breakpoint *and* turn it on. o_O

WTF? I ask you...!

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 18:28:44 +0200, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> you can use the keywords "and", "or" and "not" in place of symbols.

Don't. Not all compilers support this, and very few programmers are  
accustomed to it.



> However, Visual C++ doesn't seem to like it.

This one in particular does not by default.

You can make it support it by checking the option "Disable language  
extensions" which you probably should anyway.



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 18:28:44 +0200, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> you can use the keywords "and", "or" and "not" in place of symbols.
> 
> Don't. Not all compilers support this, and very few programmers are 
> accustomed to it.

According to the tutorial, "if your compiler does not support this, it 
is not a standards-compliant C++ compiler". (I'm only saying what the 
tutorial says; I have no idea if that's correct or not.)

I keep trying to sort out in my head which combination of symbols mean 
bitwise operations and which ones mean logical operations. Using names 
makes the difference clear. (To me anyway.) Of course, none of this 
helps with trying to read other people's code.

(Now Haskell also uses symbols for both. However, in Haskell, if you try 
to perform logical operations on numbers, you get a type error, and vice 
versa. Unfortunately C++ inherits C's braindead "hey, if you can 
represent it as an unstructured bit pattern, it's an int, right?" 
mentallity.)

>> However, Visual C++ doesn't seem to like it.
> 
> This one in particular does not by default.
> 
> You can make it support it by checking the option "Disable language 
> extensions" which you probably should anyway.

Uh-huh. Yeah, I'll be doing that. I'd like to write code that will 
compile everywhere. ;-)

Who'd have thought? An M$ product bending the standard slightly... 
</sarcasm>

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 schrieb:
> Darren New wrote:
> 
>> But yeah, it's a big and complex tool. It'll take a day or two to 
>> learn how it works.
> 
> Tell me about it! I just discovered that adding a breakpoint doesn't 
> actually do anything - you have to add a breakpoint *and* turn it on. o_O
> 
> WTF? I ask you...!

Huh? Might depend on how you add the breakpoint, but if you just click 
on the grey bar left of your sourcecode, an (active) breakpoint is added 
to that line. How did you add an incactive breakpoint?

Manuel

Post a reply to this message

>> Tell me about it! I just discovered that adding a breakpoint doesn't 
>> actually do anything - you have to add a breakpoint *and* turn it on. o_O
>>
>> WTF? I ask you...!
> 
> Huh? Might depend on how you add the breakpoint, but if you just click 
> on the grey bar left of your sourcecode, an (active) breakpoint is added 
> to that line. How did you add an incactive breakpoint?

I clicked on the big shiny button that says "toggle breakpoint". It 
looks like a big grey square, and sure enough, when you click it, a big 
grey square appears at that line of the source code. Only by accident 
did I discover that you have to click on this breakpoint to make a big 
red dot appear on it, and *then* it will do something. (It is unclear to 
me what the hell use an inactive breakpoint is, but still...)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 20:02:00 +0200, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> According to the tutorial, "if your compiler does not support this, it  
> is not a standards-compliant C++ compiler".

There is currently as far as I know only one C++ compiler vendor that even  
claims to implement the full standard.


> I keep trying to sort out in my head which combination of symbols mean  
> bitwise operations and which ones mean logical operations.

The bitwise operators are all single character. There are also only four  
of them. You get used to it.


> Using names makes the difference clear. (To me anyway.)
> Of course, none of this helps with trying to read other people's code.

Which is why it would be better in the long run to simply get used to the  
symbols.


> (Now Haskell also uses symbols for both. However, in Haskell, if you try  
> to perform logical operations on numbers, you get a type error, and vice  
> versa. Unfortunately C++ inherits C's braindead "hey, if you can  
> represent it as an unstructured bit pattern, it's an int, right?"  
> mentallity.)

The bitwise operators in C & C++ only work on integers. However, there are  
a few silent conversions to 'int' to be aware of.


> Uh-huh. Yeah, I'll be doing that. I'd like to write code that will  
> compile everywhere. ;-)
>
> Who'd have thought? An M$ product bending the standard slightly...  
> </sarcasm>

I hope you do not think GCC is standards-compliant by default either.



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

Fredrik Eriksson wrote:

>> I keep trying to sort out in my head which combination of symbols mean 
>> bitwise operations and which ones mean logical operations.
> 
> The bitwise operators are all single character. There are also only four 
> of them. You get used to it.

Yeah, I guess so.

>> Using names makes the difference clear. (To me anyway.)
>> Of course, none of this helps with trying to read other people's code.
> 
> Which is why it would be better in the long run to simply get used to 
> the symbols.

It has a flavour.

>> (Now Haskell also uses symbols for both. However, in Haskell, if you 
>> try to perform logical operations on numbers, you get a type error, 
>> and vice versa. Unfortunately C++ inherits C's braindead "hey, if you 
>> can represent it as an unstructured bit pattern, it's an int, right?" 
>> mentallity.)
> 
> The bitwise operators in C & C++ only work on integers. However, there 
> are a few silent conversions to 'int' to be aware of.

Indeed.

(The other thing is that in Haskell, the logical ops are always there, 
while the bitwise ones are hidden away in some library and you have to 
explicitly ask for them.)

>> Who'd have thought? An M$ product bending the standard slightly... 
>> </sarcasm>
> 
> I hope you do not think GCC is standards-compliant by default either.

I gather that GCC provides various extensions of its own too, yes. ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

> According to "Thinking in C++", you can use the keywords "and", "or" and 
> "not" in place of symbols. GCC accepts this. However, Visual C++ doesn't 
> seem to like it.

Ewww, someone got Visual Basic in my C++.

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

Post a reply to this message

> I clicked on the big shiny button that says "toggle breakpoint". It looks 
> like a big grey square, and sure enough, when you click it, a big grey 
> square appears at that line of the source code. Only by accident did I 
> discover that you have to click on this breakpoint to make a big red dot 
> appear on it, and *then* it will do something. (It is unclear to me what 
> the hell use an inactive breakpoint is, but still...)

Odd. You can also just press F9 to make a breakpoint.

Inactive breakpoints are usually useful when you've added a complicated 
condition to a breakpoint and you want to turn it off but get it back later.

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

Post a reply to this message

> Like if you go File > New > File... and then select "CPP File", it doesn't 
> add it to the current project. (And opens the file browser in a random 
> spot.) You must instead right-click on the "Source Files" node of the 
> current project and select "Add item..." and select "CPP File", and *then* 
> it automatically puts the file in the correct place, adds it to the 
> project, and lets you compile and run it. Sheesh!

I haven't used the Express edition, but what I normally do is go to 
Project -> Add New Item, which creates a file *and* adds it to the current 
project.

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

Post a reply to this message

>I just installed Micro$oft Visual C++ 2008 Experss Edition.
>
> My God... what have I done?? O_O

You'll figure it out. =) It's handy once you do. Learn the keyboard 
shortcuts and you'll be able to iterate on your code very quickly.

And it will give you compile errors when you don't return something from a 
function with a return type. =)

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

Post a reply to this message

Slime wrote:
>> I clicked on the big shiny button that says "toggle breakpoint". It looks 
>> like a big grey square, and sure enough, when you click it, a big grey 
>> square appears at that line of the source code. Only by accident did I 
>> discover that you have to click on this breakpoint to make a big red dot 
>> appear on it, and *then* it will do something. (It is unclear to me what 
>> the hell use an inactive breakpoint is, but still...)
> 
> Odd. You can also just press F9 to make a breakpoint.

Yeah, well, once you *know* that it's easy enough. ;-)

> Inactive breakpoints are usually useful when you've added a complicated 
> condition to a breakpoint and you want to turn it off but get it back later.

Wait - you can have conditional breakpoints?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> My God... what have I done?? O_O
> 
> You'll figure it out. =) It's handy once you do. Learn the keyboard 
> shortcuts and you'll be able to iterate on your code very quickly.

It'll never be quite as easy as in interpretted compiled language, but 
what can you do? This is what people use, apparently...

> And it will give you compile errors when you don't return something from a 
> function with a return type. =)

Heh. Pity it won't warn me when I do any of the 50,000 other dubious 
things that are legal in C++. :-S

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

> Yeah, well, once you *know* that it's easy enough. ;-)

That's what we're here for =)

It's also worth looking through the menus for shortcuts to common operations 
like compiling and executing.

> Wait - you can have conditional breakpoints?

Yeah. In the version I use at work, you just right click on the breakpoint 
and select "condition". In previous versions it was in a submenu of the 
right click menu. I wouldn't be surprised if this is one of the removed 
features from the express edition. (If it's free, they had to take 
*something* out.)

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

Post a reply to this message

"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message 
news:48d6aa2d$1@news.povray.org...

> Wait - you can have conditional breakpoints?
>

Yup. Have had for a couple versions of visual studio. Very handy for when 
you want to break on the 99th iteration of a 1..100 loop, or for when you're 
sure a variable should have a value within a certain range at a certain 
point, but very occasionally doesn't.

Post a reply to this message

"Slime" <fak### [at] emailaddress> wrote in message 
news:48d6a77b@news.povray.org...
>> According to "Thinking in C++", you can use the keywords "and", "or" and 
>> "not" in place of symbols. GCC accepts this. However, Visual C++ doesn't 
>> seem to like it.
>
> Ewww, someone got Visual Basic in my C++.

RotFL

Post a reply to this message

Slime <fak### [at] emailaddress> wrote:
> I haven't used the Express edition, but what I normally do is go to 
> Project -> Add New Item, which creates a file *and* adds it to the current 
> project.

  I usually create a new source file with emacs and then select
Project -> Add existing item.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Fredrik Eriksson <fe79}--at--{yahoo}--dot--{com> wrote:
> The bitwise operators are all single character. There are also only four  
> of them. You get used to it.

  << and >> are bitwise operators, and are longer than a single character.

  Not to talk about ^=, |=, &=, <<= and >>=.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Fredrik Eriksson <fe79}--at--{yahoo}--dot--{com> wrote:
> There is currently as far as I know only one C++ compiler vendor that even  
> claims to implement the full standard.

  Does the count change if we disregard export templates?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 00:16:19 +0200, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   << and >> are bitwise operators, and are longer than a single  
> character.

True, though they have no logical counterparts.


>   Not to talk about ^=, |=, &=, <<= and >>=.

Also true, but I would consider those a kind of compound operators.



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 00:19:04 +0200, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Fredrik Eriksson <fe79}--at--{yahoo}--dot--{com> wrote:
>> There is currently as far as I know only one C++ compiler vendor that  
>> even claims to implement the full standard.
>
>   Does the count change if we disregard export templates?

I think it might, but "claims to implement the full standard" is not the  
same as "claims to be fully standards-compliant" which of course is not  
the same as "is fully standards-compliant".

Strictly speaking, it is impossible to be fully compliant to ISO  
14882-1998 since the standard itself contains self-contradictions. I think  
most (hopefully all) of those have been dealt with for the upcoming  
revision of the standard though.


-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

Slime wrote:
>> I clicked on the big shiny button that says "toggle breakpoint". It looks
>> like a big grey square, and sure enough, when you click it, a big grey
>> square appears at that line of the source code. Only by accident did I
>> discover that you have to click on this breakpoint to make a big red dot
>> appear on it, and *then* it will do something. (It is unclear to me what
>> the hell use an inactive breakpoint is, but still...)
> 
> Odd. You can also just press F9 to make a breakpoint.
> 
> Inactive breakpoints are usually useful when you've added a complicated
> condition to a breakpoint and you want to turn it off but get it back
> later.

But it's also "useful" to make the default an ACTIVE breakpoint!

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Inactive breakpoints are usually useful when you've added a complicated
>> condition to a breakpoint and you want to turn it off but get it back
>> later.
> 
> Wait - you can have conditional breakpoints?

Or you can enable/disable them by hand while debugging.

Post a reply to this message

Slime wrote:

> Ewww, someone got Visual Basic in my C++.

Hey, when somebody starts writing "DIM" statements, *then* you can 
worry! ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I just installed Micro$oft Visual C++ 2008 Experss Edition.
> 
> My God... what have I done?? O_O

"You cannot hide forever, Orchid.  Give yourself to the dark side..."

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle wrote:

> "You cannot hide forever, Orchid.  Give yourself to the dark side..."

NEVER!!! >_<

Post a reply to this message

Fredrik Eriksson <fe79}--at--{yahoo}--dot--{com> wrote:
> I think it might, but "claims to implement the full standard" is not the  
> same as "claims to be fully standards-compliant" which of course is not  
> the same as "is fully standards-compliant".

  I think a lenient way of interpreting "fully standards-compliant" is
that the features of the C++ standard that the compiler implements are
implemented *exactly* like the standard specifies, and there are no
non-standard extensions (or, at the very least, there's a compiler option
to make it consider using them an error).

  Many of the most modern C++ compilers implement almost all the C++98
standard features except export templates.

> Strictly speaking, it is impossible to be fully compliant to ISO  
> 14882-1998 since the standard itself contains self-contradictions.

  Care to give a concrete example?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I just installed Micro$oft Visual C++ 2008 Experss Edition.
> 
> My God... what have I done?? O_O
> 

Welcome to the dark side. Mwhahaah hahaha... hahha uhhh...

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Doctor John wrote:

> Definitely no worse than me. I installed XP on a spare box yesterday 
> just to play Spore.

Spore. heh. Opinions about the game are pretty polarized. Either people 
love it or hate it. I'm in the "Love It" camp. Eats away countless 
hours. So many paths to take ...

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   Oh, and that just for creating CLI programs. You can probably forget
> about creating win32 programs. The learning curve is steep. No, it's not
> steep. It's a vertical wall.

Yeah, what Warp said. Especially for Windows programming. MFC makes the 
wall a little less vertical, but still pretty steep. Of course, Express 
doesn't have MFC, so you're stuck with the Platform SDK.


-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:

> Spore. heh. Opinions about the game are pretty polarized. Either people 
> love it or hate it. I'm in the "Love It" camp. Eats away countless 
> hours. So many paths to take ...

...paths like *this*?

http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20080627

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> 
>>   Oh, and that just for creating CLI programs. You can probably forget
>> about creating win32 programs. The learning curve is steep. No, it's not
>> steep. It's a vertical wall.
> 
> Yeah, what Warp said. Especially for Windows programming.

That's what .NET is for. :-)

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

>>>   Oh, and that just for creating CLI programs. You can probably forget
>>> about creating win32 programs. The learning curve is steep. No, it's not
>>> steep. It's a vertical wall.
>>
>> Yeah, what Warp said. Especially for Windows programming.
> 
> That's what .NET is for. :-)

...or you could just use Java, which is a touch more portable. (And also 
*doesn't* take 25 minutes to install.)

Post a reply to this message