Brett McCoy wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 11:08 AM, maskkkk132 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> What they really mean: "We don't want to spend the money" >> No I don't think that's it, like I said they already have a copy of VS >> 2005. They are really afraid of type-safety. > > Hmmmm... curious to see what they mean by that.. Visual C++ 97 is even > older than VC++ 6.0, which is known to have issues and isn't standards > compliant. I'd think if they were concerned about "type safety" they'd > want a compiler that was more current and compliant. > > -- Brett
Perhaps they are complaining about VC++ 2005's Platform SDK (now apparently called the Windows SDK) where using ANSI Standard functions results in a zillion warnings about using deprecated functions. There are a couple compile-time #define's for that problem. I can't imagine NOT wanting type safety as a reason to NOT upgrade. Someone needs to get with the times. However, they probably target older versions of Windows. VS 2008 is the first time Microsoft has deviated from "infinite backwards compatibility" since the 16-bit days and the DLL versions of the runtimes no longer support building for older versions of 32-bit Windows. -- Thomas Hruska CubicleSoft President Ph: 517-803-4197 *NEW* MyTaskFocus 1.1 Get on task. Stay on task. http://www.CubicleSoft.com/MyTaskFocus/
