IssueRaiser

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh409293.aspx 2013 has a lot, and it looks like 2015 almost closes th...

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh409293.aspx 2013 has a lot, and it looks like 2015 almost closes the gap. I'm content with the 2013 additions, but I simply do not understand why c99 wasn't fully supported 10 years ago, much less in the latest VS edition. C++ is better in many ways but when you need to compile C specific code, it is incredibly frustrating.

Posted by albinofrenchy on Jun 20, 2015, 7:04 AM

Tags

Related issues

Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.6,000 issues0 comments

hackernews (Other)

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh409293.aspx 2013 has a lot, and it looks like 2015 almost closes th...

albinofrenchyJun 20, 2015, 7:04 AM

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh409293.aspx 2013 has a lot, and it looks like 2015 almost closes the gap. I'm content with the 2013 additions, but I simply do not understand why c99 wasn't fully supported 10 years ago, much less in the latest VS edition. C++ is better in many ways but when you need to compile C specific code, it is incredibly frustrating.

Comments (0)

No comments yet. Start the discussion.

Comment on this issue