Support C99

[quote]C99 is almost 10 years old. Many projects are beginning to rely on C99, and dropping Windows support as a result.[/quote]

[quote]Thanks for taking the time to send us your suggestion. Currently, there are no plans to implement C99 support in VS2010. Once we complete this product cycle, we will be reviewing all customer suggestions, including this one, for our future planning.

Thanks,
Mark Roberts
Visual C++ Team[/quote]

http://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/details/485416/support-c99

>>1
It would probably be easier to ask them to implement C11.

>>2,3 are right, C11, but I doubt Microsoft will give a shit.

Also, what's wrong with your quotes >>1 ?

As long as people are shelling out cash to Ballmer & Company, I don't think MS has any reason to improve their compiler unless it has an embarrassing bug. Their __VA_ARGS__ and whatever else of C99 that they did implement are broken, and they still won't fix it.

>>3
[q]NIGGER[/q]
[quote]NIGGER[/quote]

>>5
（╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

>>5
_{（　≖‿≖）}

>>1

If anyone is dropping Windows support because of such a petty restriction, no wonder the company's leader is a moron. There is at least one free alternative which supports C99 (MinGW) and which offers fair support to the whole of the Windows API. Dropping 90% of the desktop market share because of a language choice is utterly ridiculous. On the other hand, Microsoft doesn't give a fuck about old languages such as C anymore. They're simply promoting their crappy proprietary technology, and they're rather wise in this decision.

When it comes to C, people seems to gets stuck at C90 no matter what. Most even recommend C90 over C99 for no apparent better reason than "compiler support". However, when it comes to C++, people goes apeshit with C++11 and "new features", even if most of them aren't properly supported in the compilers yet, and start "porting" their projects to use such features. It's a behavior I can't understand.

>>8
Most even recommend C90 over C99 for no apparent better reason than "compiler support".
The humor here comes from the fact that out of all C compilers still in development, only MSVC lacks C99 support in this day and age. Even TinyCC supports most of C99. Features like compound literals are very nice to have. The other joke comes from how MSVC supports C++, which allows // comments and mixed declarations and code, but doesn't allow these features, which were part of the C standard for 12 years, to be used in C mode.

>>9
GCC doesnt either.

   CCCCCC        //    CCCCCC
  CC    CC      //    CC    CC      +          +
 CC            //    CC             +          +
 CC           //     CC         +++++++++  +++++++++
 CC          //      CC             +          +
  CC    CC  //        CC    CC      +          +
   CCCCCC  //          CCCCCC

retards crew,
I'll work for free on clay/bitc/rust to not touch your ugly code anymore.

>>10
http://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html
The difference here is that GCC is trying to get C99 support done, and actually has much of it implemented (at least much more than MSVC does), while MS is basically "WONTFIX, use C++ instead."

>>11
This.

>>12
How come the most popular compiler has no support for C99 while supporting Java, C++ fortran and etc?

Also has like a 1000 options and shit?

Whatever happened to Clang? I thought that was suppose to be the long-awaited GCC killer?

I bet tcc will have full C99 support before the clusterfuck they call gcc.

>>16
Does tcc support static yet?

>>15
It is. Just wait.

>>17
I think it does.

>>1
VSXXXX
That piece of shit IDE + compiler that only compiles for windows? No thanks.

>>16
>>17
>>19
tcc is a dead project.

Static dubs

I swear I posted this link on /jp/ earlier.

>>21
What about PCC?

>>24
PCC still seems active actually. I don't know how much of C99 it supports so or if it's already fully supported.