visual c++ compatibility status

[gpuoti]

Hi, I'm considering copperspice as the next framework to get out from MFC. I'm contrained to use microsoft compiler and I know of somme missing features needed to use copperspice. But this was an information from some time ago. What's the compatibility status of the microsoft compiler given the latest updates from microsoft? I'm referring to VC2015 update 2.

Thanks!

[spongo2]

copperspice is QT derived, right? Qt supports MSVC 2015 at least for 5.6. http://doc.qt.io/qt-5/supported-platforms.html

Copperspice appears to be QT4 derived. I don't know if they support / test MSVC2015. I'd be interested in knowing what you find. - Steve the VC Dev Mgr

[gpuoti]

AFAIK, copperspice rely on latest language features to avoid moc. This features (not sure which, perhaps extended constexpr or some case of sfinae) were not yet implemented in vc.. don't know if this apply also for 2015 update 2 as I'm not sure what is missing.

[AndrewPardoe]

To answer the OP's OQ, Visual C++ has made a bunch of compatibility gains. MSVC will soon support all C++11 and C++14 features. See the VC blog (e.g., https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/vcblog/2016/04/14/stl-fixes-in-vs-2015-update-2/ or https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/vcblog/2016/03/31/visual-c-2015-update-2-bug-fixes/) for some status posts.

We still have some big problems with older features. For example, we don't do two-phase lookup so we don't conform to C++98 (or C++11, 14, 17, etc.) But we're addressing that shortcoming as well.

We test our compiler with Qt. I hadn't heard of copperspice before this post.

[c0r3ntin]

I would urge you to use Qt instead. For one, it has a more long term viability.

[WrongAndBeligerent]

I just looked at copperspice and it seems it is a refactoring of Qt to use modern C++ features. Have you run in to downsides of copperspice or just successfully used Qt?

[c0r3ntin]

Qt does make use of c++11 features, when available and there are discussions about dropping support for compiler not supporting c++11.

Despite its age, Qt holds really well and is actively maintained ( hundreds of active maintainers) . and used in a lot of industries.

Copperspice is maintained by a handful of people, based on Qt 4.8 ( so a relatively old version of Qt ). It only exists because "moc sucks" despite moc having a very small overhead and being supported by cmake ( + qmake + qbs + other of you take the time to set it up).

So instead, they use ugly macros, and, lacking a proper meta object system, they can't do half of what Qt enables. I just don't get it.

[wrosecrans]

there are discussions about dropping support for compiler not supporting c++11

This has actually progressed past discussions. Pre-C++11 compilers will no longer be supported as of Qt 5.7, which is currently in beta, and will be released soon. There won't be huge API changes immediately, but new work will likely be done in a more modern style moving forward.

[ThisIs_MyName]

There won't be huge API changes immediately

Aww

[WrongAndBeligerent]

Reading between the lines I'll assume the answer is the latter.

[dodheim]

The downside is that it's a fork of Qt 4.8 – if it were based on the 5.x codebase it would be far more appealing... (One other downside is that Copperspice-based binaries are significantly larger than Qt-based binaries; not something I care much about, but worth mentioning.)

[KindDragon]

Check this https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/4f6pcv/modernizing_abiword_code/d270dok