C++ and VC++ Differences

Michael

unread,

Dec 24, 2009, 1:01:01 PM12/24/09

to

I was just wondering before I got started on any projects, what are the
differences between C++ that is taught in some text books, like the For
Dummies books, and the C++ that Visual Studio uses?

Thanks

Scott McPhillips [MVP]

unread,

Dec 24, 2009, 1:36:29 PM12/24/09

to

"Michael" <Mic...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E3EA035F-27A1-483D...@microsoft.com...

The C++ that Visual Studio uses is very conformant to C++ standards. If you
create console based applications your text book examples should work.

Visual Studio adds numerous tools and libraries for programming GUIs.

--
Scott McPhillips [VC++ MVP]

David Wilkinson

unread,

Dec 24, 2009, 6:23:43 PM12/24/09

to

Just to addd to Scott's response. Visual C++ is actually three separate compilers

A C compiler
A standard C++ compiler
A C++/CLI compiler

The first two have excellent standards compliance, and you should have no
trouble using source code form Visual C++ on other platforms.

C++/CLI is for managed (.NET) code. Its main purpose is writing managed wrappers
for legacy standard C++ code. The wrapped code can be used from other .NET
languages like C# or VB.NET.

--
David Wilkinson
Visual C++ MVP

Tim Roberts

unread,

Dec 26, 2009, 7:20:50 PM12/26/09

to

David Wilkinson <no-r...@effisols.com> wrote:

>Michael wrote:
>> I was just wondering before I got started on any projects, what are the
>> differences between C++ that is taught in some text books, like the For
>> Dummies books, and the C++ that Visual Studio uses?
>
>Just to addd to Scott's response. Visual C++ is actually three separate compilers
>
>A C compiler
>A standard C++ compiler
>A C++/CLI compiler
>
>The first two have excellent standards compliance, and you should have no
>trouble using source code form Visual C++ on other platforms.

...with the one major caveat that the "C compiler" is compliant with the
1989 C standard, not the 1999 C standard. In my mind, that is growing into
an embarrassment for Microsoft. Would the world have taken Microsoft
seriously if it had ignored the 1989 standard well into the 20th Century?
--
Tim Roberts, ti...@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.

Bo Persson

unread,

Dec 27, 2009, 6:14:53 AM12/27/09

to

It seems like C99 support is seriously ignored in most places.

http://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html

Bo Persson

Tim Roberts

unread,

Dec 29, 2009, 12:29:04 AM12/29/09

to

"Bo Persson" <b...@gmb.dk> wrote:

>
>Tim Roberts wrote:
>
>> ...with the one major caveat that the "C compiler" is compliant
>> with the 1989 C standard, not the 1999 C standard. In my mind,
>> that is growing into an embarrassment for Microsoft. Would the
>> world have taken Microsoft seriously if it had ignored the 1989
>> standard well into the 20th Century?
>
>It seems like C99 support is seriously ignored in most places.
>
>http://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html

I'm not clear on why you think this supports your statement. Gcc has had
C99 support for almost a decade, as this chart attests. Not 100% support,
but it's hardly what I would call "seriously ignored".

Bo Persson

unread,

Dec 29, 2009, 1:43:44 PM12/29/09

to

The list shows another compiler that has 10+ features missing or
broken 10 years after the C99 standard.

On the other hand, both gcc 4.4/4.5 and VC10 implement a lot of
features of C++0x even BEFORE that standard comes out.

To me that shows that there just isn't a great interest in C99.

Bo Persson