Correct, but that doesn't change the fact that there is no need for it now, so maintaining it would be a wasted effort.
Agreed, but I was addressing the question "why *was* this needed?". And citing the existence of LLVM as a reason kind of misses the point that this isn't a new project written to compete with LLVM - it's an old one that predates it.
Certainly, it has no value today, which, despite the hostile response the announcement received on the mailing list, is no doubt why the project hasn't had any activity for years.
If it is open source maybe PathScale should pick it up.
Frankly this is one example of a company saying why aren't you doing this for me! People complain about Apple and open source but at least they are piloting several well regarded and heavily used pieces of software. So instead of whining like a stuck pig maybe PathScale should sponsor the continued development of this library.
I'm all for competition..but why was this needed? The project i mean. GCC has a C++ implementation, LLVM has a C++ Implementation, there's probably a c++ implementation out there for embedded. It doesnt seem like it filled any niche except for those who hated both GCC AND LLVM.
I wouldn't call it a wasted effort like some have but this package was last updated in 2008 so it looks like abandon ware to me. The people complaining are the worst example of open source users I can think of, all give me but no offers of help or support.
I look at it this way, if the software is valuable somebody will pick up maintenance. The software doesn't really need to fill a niche as much as it needs to used and supported.
What they say and what they do appear to be two separate things.
There was a post on the forums some time ago which had a link to a page comparing compiler support for C++11, namely GCC, Clang, MSVC, Intel's compiler and a couple other proprietary compilers.
And of all the proprietary compilers in the list, Microsoft's compiler offered the best support for C++11, implementing features that Intel's own compiler still lacked support for. Explain how that equates to Microsoft not taking C++11 seriously.
FYI, VS2013 is shipping with C99 support for variable declarations, _Bool, compound literals, designated initializers, and a rather significant part of the C99 library.
Although it is true that Microsoft puts as little effort into C99 compatibility as they can get away with. It sounds like a driving motivator for C99 support was to be able to compile FFMPEG.
Yes, in 2013. And still not full C99 support. I'm using 2012, since AFAIK 2013 is still kind of beta. Anyway, I just use it to check the software I build is still compatible, is not my main system (I hardly reboot to Windows nowadays).
EDIT: Does anybody notice that current C standard is C11, and that C99 is 14 years old? I mean, even small, independent compilers make a better effort to support C99, see TCC for example, and MSVC is supposed to be some kind of state of the art IDE/compiler.
Microsoft's support for C is not the same as their support for C++. Let's not conflate 2 different issues.
They've long ignored C, but C++ isn't that bad.
If you want to argue people were pissed off about their terrible C support I'd agree 100%, and just note that it will supposedly be much better soon when 2013 is released in a few months.
If you want to argue people are pissed off and leaving because of missing C++11 support, I'm just saying i haven't seen that in the real world.
I do not conflate them. I didn't mention their C++ support because I'm aware theirs is really good, even though I don't use it as much as I use C. As I said, C programmers are pissed off with MSVC's support, because their C support is pretty crappy on the standards support side. Of course, it's likely that they just have more C++ clients and favor them. C++11 is not even completely implemented on most compilers, and C11 probably neither. I just wanted to point out that they are still on C99 when C11 is already there. I appreciate you pointed out it will be better with 2013. For a start, the features you named are the ones I care about the most of C99, since they vastly improve readability of the code and portability. I'm mostly pissed because I had to turn back some changes that made a piece of code far more readable because in 2012 they don't support designated initializers (and actually, use a win32 struct in an undocumented way, since I had to initialize some bytes tagged as reserved; I have to believe some random user that says it's just padding and hope for the best).