>For what reason do they not want to upgrade? They keep giving me some excuse about type-safety, I'm not sure what that's about considering their OOP stuff still looks very procedural...(no design patterns)
>Does VC++ 97 even compile for Windows 2K or XP? Yes it does, we have Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit, and it compiles just fine. --- In [email protected], "Brett McCoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:56 AM, maskkkk132 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I've been looking around, and I think log4cxx might be a better choice > > as it has a configuration file. The configuration file speeds things > > up considerably when the program is sent to production. > > > > Yep, that's it -- the Apache logging interface. It has built in logrolling > and all that stuff. > >Visual C++ 97 is very old, you should upgrade to Visual C+ 2008. > > I'm well aware of this problem, but my company refuses to upgrade > > (even though they already have the software to do it!) > > > For what reason do they not want to upgrade? At the very least, you can get > the Express versions for free, still comes with the great debugger and IDE. > Does VC++ 97 even compile for Windows 2K or XP? > > -- Brett > ------------------------------------------------------------ > "In the rhythm of music a secret is hidden; > If I were to divulge it, it would overturn the world." > -- Jelaleddin Rumi > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
