Talk:Microsoft Visual C++

History
I've done my best to clean up the "history" section, which used improper tenses & had other grammatical mistakes - as well as some very strange, mangled HTML & Wiki code - but someone with better knowledge of the history of Visual C++ could probably help improve that section quite a bit. Keithius 22:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I used Visual C++ 1 and 1.5, and as far as I remember, it had no 32-bit programming capacity. To clarify slightly - it was limited to the WIN16 programming model. It couldn't compile for WIN32. There was an option to use different memory models within WIN16. When Visual C++ 2.0 was released, it included a copy of 1.5 for WIN16 development.

I'm not sure of the details of this, so I haven't updated the article. If I can find a copy of 1.0 or 1.5 I might install it to see what it actually has. JHWW.

Westprog 11:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

My retail-boxed Visual C++ 4.0 AE (Academic Edition) also came bundled with Visual C++ 1.52. And the subscription-edition (4.1) came with the Microsoft Game SDK. At the time, that was a big deal, because the VC++ subscription was the cheapest way to (legally) obtain the Game SDK. (Less than a year later, Microsoft re-released the Game/SDK as 'DirectX 2.0 SDK', free download for all.)

11:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure about VC 1.0 but 1.5 does indeed produce 32-bit (i386) code and includes support for large memory models. It does not include support for the newer Windows32 API and the linker supplied does not support the newer related formats (AFAIK). Another interesting feature is the integration of MASM including a compiler switch (/MA) allowing you to pass parameters. Borland compilers had even cooler features in this regard. s P A z z M a t i C 18:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Minor quibble, but "extremely compatible" seems a bit hyperbolic. Perhaps highly compatible or highly compliant would be better language? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.128.192.31 (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Extern links in article proper
Is it, or is it not appropriate to include an external link in the article where it is mentioned? It seems to me that if the article wants to mention exactly what this external link discribes - something that is not exactly standard - would it not be convenient to the reader to provide the link for more information - right then and there - so he can continue with his quest for knowledge? I just noticed in the history that I have added the link 3 times, and the same user has removed the link 2 times due to the fact it is included in the external links. I appreciate that the link is now included twice if it exists in the article and in the links section, but from the point of view of convenience and usability, why not give the link right at the point in time the reader wishes to see it, rather than making him un-conveniently have to search for it in a links list. Many articles on Wikipedia do this, and I am sure most are ok for this exact reason. 137.186.22.237 12:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * That user who removed them was probably me. Using extern links in the article proper is against Wikipedia standards.  Including it as a cite is permissible, however, as I have done with your link.  The link is right there for the user to click on, but it doesn't look like a wikilink; it is clearly a reference to an extern site.   &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 19:32, August 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was you. I just realized today that we were each re-doing / un-doing each other's work. I understand now, the citation is much more proper, and it achieves the result I was attempting to explain. Thanks. 137.186.22.246 03:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Debugger available as separate download?
Article states that although the "C++ Toolkit 2003" lacks the "Platform SDK" and the debugger, these are "available as separate downloads." From context one would assume these are available for free download. I wasn't able to find a debugger available for free download at the Microsoft Developer Network download site.

If there really is a free debugger available for download, I suggest adding an external link as has been done for the "C++ Toolkit 2003". If not, the article needs to be corrected. Note: The latest version of the "Platform SDK" has debuggers for 64 bit code, but not for 32 bit code.


 * See Debug Tools For Windows.


 * It was available as a separate download when Visual C++ Toolkit 2003 was released. Now it is only included with the SDK.  I'm not sure the best way for Wikipedia to address this; it seems appropriate to be period-correct given the Toolkit is no longer available for download either.  The Windows 11 SDK does include the 32 bit debugger, and the 64 bit debugger can be used to debug 32 bit code. Malx (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

NPOV?
How is syntax hilighting an advanced feature? Or two-macine debugging? This smacks of marketing (or sycophancy) to me. -Ahruman 09:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

"Keep this in mind, however, the problems you are likely to encounter are rare." That seems to me to be a sales pitch by a Microsoft representative... IMacWin95 16:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone complain if I removed "syntax highlighting" from the "boasts such advanced features..." sentence? Would anyone complain if I removed "Keep this in mind..." as well? IMacWin95 22:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and remove the "marketing language," but syntax highlighting is a feature. It used to be advanced back in '93 or '94, but it's not anymore.  So go ahead and remove the text that says the feature is "advanced," but it is still a valid feature. &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 16:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

More Detail
I was just reading the article on [GNU Compiler Collection|GCC] and found it much more detailed than this article. Can this article be brought up to the same level of detail, or does the closed-source nature of MS VC++ prevent that? It seems that it shouldn't. 69.61.169.217 18:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

QuickC
Right now, QuickC redirects to this, but QuickC isn't really covered in this article. Would it be better to split QuickC off into a separate article? --Improv 05:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've created a stub article on QuickC &mdash; wm243 | Talk 20:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Boasts Advanced Features
The Wikipedia entry reads: boasts advanced features such as syntax highlighting.... This expression doesn't sound very encyclopedia-isch to me, rather more like marketing speak. Esp since quite a few users of other fine editors and IDEs might believe that syntax highlighting is quite normal and not very advanced at all...


 * See my response in the NPOV section above. &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 16:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Shorten compile times
"The compile and build system feature, precompiled header files, "minimal rebuild" functionality and incremental link: these features significantly shorten turn-around time to edit, compile and link the program, especially for large software projects."
 * While it is certainly true that these features significantly shorten compile and link times, I'm wondering if Visual C++ now supports distributed builds or multiple processors. Last time I checked, MSVC would only use a single-core processor at a time and was unable to distribute the build to other computers (such as distcc), though this could possibly be added by third-party components.  The end result, of course, was that full builds are often significantly slower on MSVC than with other build environments.  If MSVC does not make use of multicore or multiprocessor computers, we should probably mention this limitation.  I'm not sure if it is worth mentioning the lack of support for distributed builds, though.  Comments?  --Yamla 17:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * VS2005 supports multi-processor builds, as long as you have multiple projects without dependencies between them: e.g. if you have one project producing A.lib, another producing B.lib, and a third linking them together in C.exe, then it can compile A and B in parallel on two separate processors/cores; but it can't compile half of A's .cpp files in parallel with the other half (unlike distcc), and it has to wait until they're both finished before it starts building any of C. 80.177.163.133 20:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In addition, Visual C++ 2008 also supports intra-project multi-processor builds: with the /MP option set to use N processors/cores, when compiling a single project, N source files can be compiled in parallel. --82.250.149.4 (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Article name
See Talk:Microsoft Visual Studio‎. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 03:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Compiler Output is Unclear
It's not clear to me what the C++ compiler does exactly. From personal experience I believe that the earlier versions of C++ up to version VC6 primarily generated native code, such as .EXEs, .DLLs, etc., but with the advent of the later versions bearing the .NET label, from the article, it's not possible to determine if the compiler generates Common Intermediate Language for output or if it's a native code compiler or if it does both.

I agree that this should be clarified as many people, esp. at release, believed you could only target .NET given the name "VS.NET". You can, of course, generate IL or native code. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.41.222.1 (talk) 02:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

(Redirected from Microsoft C)
Well I wanted to do some research on Microsoft C and was redirected here. But there is nothing here about pre "Visual" MS-C/C++!. The history section begins with Visual C++ 1.0.

There is a link called The predecessor to Visual C++ was called Microsoft C/C++. - but that one is red. So where is the information on pre "Visual" MS-C gone - and more importantly: Why was I redirected to a page where the requested information clearly isn't available?

--Krischik T 07:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

RISC Edition
Hey everyone, there is a RISC edition of Visual C++. I believe it can target RISC systems and run on them. Its for the Alpha AXP, MIPS and PowerPC. It runs under any win32 system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelCody89 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It runs on the corresponding RISC system. Those compilers do not run under any win32 system (ie., Visual C++ did not support cross compilation from x86 to Alpha, etc.) Malx (talk) 23:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

this is an abominable article
encyclopedia entries are supposed to be readable and understandable by people not necessarily expert in the field. this sort of gobbledygook is what one would expect to find in a programmers'/developers' forum. whoever adds or edits this article should ask himself "does this explain to a non-versed reader what this is and how it works?" that hardly means it needs to be reduced to kindergarten-sized bites. but it should indicate what this is, to which components/programs it is crucial, etc. etc. etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.95.175 (talk) 23:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Microsoft Visual C++ is a commercial integrated development environment (IDE) product engineered by Microsoft for the C, C++, and C++/CLI programming languages."
 * That's about as simple as we can make it. Anything that differentiates it from similar projects is highly technical.  Can you suggest how we could improve the article?  Would making a more prominant link to Microsoft Visual Studio help? –Gunslinger47 07:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Stating whether this thing is for programmers or is needed by the general public would help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.242.42 (talk) 02:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This should be clear to anyone who reads and understands the first sentence. It's a development environment for work with a programming language, so yes, it's for programmers.  If you don't understand term on Wikipedia, be sure to click it and read its summary before continuing onward.  Following this article's first link, for example, will tell you that IDEs (such as VC++) provide "comprehensive facilities to computer programmers for software development." –Gunslinger47 03:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Visual C++ [b]was[/b] an IDE. Now it comes as part of the visual studio IDE, so technically it is a module giving functionality to an IDE. It includes a compiler and libraries such as MFC. As such, some sources refer to Visual C++ as only the compiler and libraries. Beside C and C++ the compiler (cl.exe) also compiles C++/CLI.

Because of this vc++ is also referred to as a language (e.g. "software written in vc++") though c++/cli should be used to avoid confusing a product with a language.Jayjiggunjer (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Out of the blue a few days ago, my computer malfunctioned and spouted messages about requiring components for Windows SDK. I don't know what that is. The next message: "something in .Net needs updating". When I looked into the installed programs I found one .NET framework 4.8 If it is for developers, why is it in my computer? and there are 15 (FIFTEEN) Visual C++, each with a different size. This article, and the .NET one, are supposed to be helpful. If Visual C++ or .NET is needed to run anything on a person's computer, why not say "Visual C++/.NET runs in the background / is needed to run these (types of) programs . . . it is a tool for developers. If it isn't needed, why have there been so many updates labelled by Microsoft as "important"?184.148.80.239 (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

_MSC_VER information
A table of the values of the _MSC_VER predefined preprocessor value for different versions of the compiler would be most useful. (Actually this would more accurately give an indication of the "compiler" version which for VC++ 10 indicates that it is 16.00. A table of the complete values is a good idea.  This is what I know:

VC6   1200 VC.NET 1300 VC2003 1310 VC2005 1400 VC2008 1500 VC2010 1600

02:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Based on the table here, I think the values for  greater than 1900 are incorrect, but I'm just passing through, so I didn't want to edit it. --FusionDude (talk) 05:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

MSC 1.0 was not K&R
The comment about MSC 1.0 not being K&R sounds unnecessarily negative to me. First, I am not sure there is a strict definition of what K&R C is but the Lattice compiler supported the exact C language as UNIX compilers of the time did with a few extensions (such as allowing the $ character in identifiers). Some of the "normal" UNIX library routines (like strcspn) were not implemented but in many ways the library routines provide were better than those that became part of the defacto standard (ie, K&R) and later C89.

I ported a lot of code from MSC 2.0 to MSC3.0 in 1985. In many ways the new compiler was a backward step, with inferior code generation, optimizations, and library functions. But it was more compatible with UNIX compilers of the time being basically a port of Microsoft's Xenix compiler.

BTW I have never had any relation to Lattice apart from using their compiler under MSDOS and AmigaDOS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewWPhillips (talk • contribs) 03:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The definition K&R conformation comes usually from the C style that was used in the first revision of the Book "The C Programming Language" from Brian W. Kernighan and Dennis M. Richtie. This book was the de-facto standard before the ANSI C standard was formed. At that time, usually all C Compiler developers tried to follow that book, until ANSI C was there. The second revision of that Book is ANSI C conform. --IT-Compiler (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Target platforms
Shouldn't this article cite the target platform MSVC supports? In the whole article there isn't a single reference to "ARM". 188.218.163.90 (talk) 12:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm. x86, x86, Itanium... no, ARM's not mentioned. Aren't there versions for PowerPC too? I'll fix this when I can actually write properly (a.k.a. not midnight). --EM64T (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Issues for whom?
The first 2 issues paragraphs cam be simplified as "No ABI compatiblity". Why make it an issue when the C++ standard says otherwise? Does a common programming mistake qualify as an issue for each and every C++ compiler?--Skyfiler (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

C99
Visual C++'s c99 support is being further developed (seemingly due to customer pressure to support libraries like ffmpeg) - http://herbsutter.com/2013/09/09/visual-studio-2013-rc-is-now-available/, http://blogs.msdn.com/b/somasegar/archive/2013/06/28/cpp-conformance-roadmap.aspx.

86.147.250.157 (talk) 09:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Programming Language
It is true that including C# in the list of languages that Visual C++ is implemented in would constitute WP:SYNTH, synthesis of that the Visual C++ IDE mostly or completely overlaps the Visual Studio IDE and that Visual Studio is partially implemented in C#. However, it is misleading to list only C++ based on lextrait.com, the personal website of someone in another country. I suggest either deleting "Written in" completely from the Infobox or adding a "Better source" template to the existing lextrait.com reference (along with explanatory text in that template that C# is also likely another implementation language, which it almost certainly is). Michaelmalak (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Objection to source by User:Michaelmalak
Hi.

I am writing this as a follow up to my reversion of an edit by in accordance to WP:BRD. (I am hoping you are seeing this, Michael.) Michael has requested one of the sources (in the infobox) to be changed, having provided the following reasons: "Source is a personal web page from a country different than the publisher; [...]" Actually, this good, not bad. This kind of source is called secondary sources. Wikipedia loves secondary sources. They are generally better than primary sources, though primaries are not evil either.

"[...] moreover, source indicates Visual Studio is written in C++ and C# but Visual C++ only in C++, even though both products share the same IDE" Now this one is not accurate. The source lists Visual Studio under development environments and says it is written in C++ and C#. But the list under which C++, C#, Visual Basic and GCC are placed is titled "Compilers/Interpreters" meaning that the list has nothing to do with anything else that is C++-related.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Then perhaps instead of the "better source" template I used, what is needed is just a plain old "citation needed" template for the C# assertion, since it seems we have no source directly indicating the Visual C++ IDE is partially written in C# (and to clarify, according to the introduction of this Wikipedia article, it is about the IDE product and not just the compiler), and since we seem to agree that inferring it from that the Visual Studio IDE is partially written in C# would be WP:SYNTH. As I asserted in the above Talk:Visual C++ section on Programming Language, stating Visual C++ is written only in C++ is probably wrong and thus misleading. An alternative solution is to eliminate the "Programming Language" line altogether from the Infobox.
 * Michaelmalak (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. There is no need to resort to such measures at all. You can simply not assert C# in the article because:
 * First, this article is about C++ only, there is the freedom of simply not bothering with Visual Studio.
 * Second, to my knowledge there is no such thing as Visual C++ IDE. Microsoft has only one IDE for C++: Visual Studio. It serves as a front-end to a command line compiler that is also included with Windows SDK. (Now that I think, a rather long time ago, I had a discussion with someone who wanted to remove the article logo, but somehow, back then, there was evidence about the existence of distinct a VC++ IDE or so I was lead to believe. Still, if situation has changed, it is only logical that we change with it.) Of course, the burden of providing source is with the person who says there is a distinct Visual C++ IDE.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, Googling just now it looks like Visual C++ has not been offered separately from Visual Studio since the 2010 version (the last version I personally used a lot of). So this whole article needs to be rephrased to indicate that. I'll do that at some point in the future. (And of course that means Visual C++ being written in only C++ is correct, for the current 2013 version :-) Michaelmalak (talk) 03:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi. Visual C++ is still being offered as part of Windows SDK; it has been so since 2001. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Which runtimes are shipped with each version of Windows?
Does anyone know which version of Visual C++ runtime is shipped with each version of Windows? If any are shipped and installed by default, then please create a section similar to .NET_Framework. Thanks! • Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 05:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There was usually no runtime in the first releases of Visual C++. The C++ compiler produced native machine code and didn't use a .NET runtime. The latter came years later. --IT-Compiler (talk) 22:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've done some ad-hoc and not systemic documentation for this in a blog post at http://www.malsmith.net/blog/visual-c-visual-history/ . In the early days it wasn't at all systemic.  It's actually very hard to catalog exhaustively due to minor differences (not all versions of Windows 95 included the same set), and some runtimes were added by optional components, notably Internet Explorer, so the same base version of Windows with different components or versions of IE had different CRTs.  Also, note that it's not guaranteed that a CRT in an earlier release is still included in a later release. Malx (talk) 23:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

No New Features in VS 2012
No new features are listed under VS 2012 and 2013 in history. Just the version numbers are listed.No new C++11 features are listed. But in the 2005 and 2006 section the exact ISO C++ features are listed. Go To Case 1 (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The great gimmick of "support" for C standards later than C90
There is no Burger King (fast food) restaurant in my country 'A'. Burger King has a restaurant in a neighboring country 'B'. The 'B' country is on good terms with mine and thus I can visit the Burger King restaurant over there easily.

Can Burger King now claim, since they're feeding some people from country 'A', that they are supporting/established in Country 'A'? No.

Similar situation is seen with Microsoft's C standard support. C99/11 is country 'A', C++11 is country 'B' and microsoft is Burger King.

Since there is a some overlap in the standards of C++11 and C99/11 and that C++11 compilers(that Microsoft has) can compile C too, they want you to write your C code on a C++11 compiler, pretend you're really coding in C and let them tell you that they worked hard on supporting the latest C standards.

They have recommended C developers to rename their file to .cpp to use the latest compilers. references: http://herbsutter.com/2012/05/03/reader-qa-what-about-vc-and-c99/

Microsoft just hates C and they have totally ignored it since C90. But admitting that upfront will be damaging to their sales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.43.186.25 (talk) 07:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Controversy
I edited the "controversy" section to include a more direct link to the VC++ dev manager's comments, and also to note that the offensive CRT function was removed. The latter doesn't have an online attribution--it makes news when Microsoft does something to raise suspicions and drive conspiracy theories, but not so much when Microsoft fixes it :)

Full disclosure: I am the PM in charge of most of the VC++ command-line tools (though not the libraries). I try to be extra fair and balanced slightly away from favoring Microsoft when editing Wikipedia but I understand if people would question my motivations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apardoe (talk • contribs) 00:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but are there any webpages on microsoft.com that states this was fixed? Please add it to the article or drop the URL here, then I'll take care of it.  Thanks.  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 04:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Microsoft Visual C++. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120530/http://www.lextrait.com/Vincent/implementations.html to http://www.lextrait.com/Vincent/implementations.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050814234847/http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifeobsoleteproducts to http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifeobsoleteproducts

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Microsoft Visual C++. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130211131045/http://examples.oreilly.de/english_examples/9780735618848/cd_contents/Readme.txt to http://examples.oreilly.de/english_examples/9780735618848/cd_contents/Readme.txt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

32-bit and 64-bit versions section: Microsoft Visual C++ 2015 Update 1 release notes.
Microsoft Visual C++ 2015 Update 1 redistributable package miss changelog and the content of this update. --Starscreams6667 (talk) 05:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Binary compatibility since VC++ 2015
Hi there, it looks like the status of binary compatibility has changed since VC++2015.

This page seems to suggest that binary compatibility is now (As of October 2019) being maintained between VC++2015 and future versions of the compiler.

Therefore, I think the section on binary compatibility needs review.Russetrob (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The Microsoft_Visual_C article duplicates this one
The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Visual_C page contains mostly the same information as the "Microsoft Visual C++" one, and it may be worthwile to merge both these articles together, and transform the Microsoft_Visual_C one into a redirect to "Microsoft Visual C++" instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.199.22 (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

VC/VC++/QC/MSC/MSC++
The MS Visual C++ page mentions the whole history of the Microsoft Visual C++ product, **including** its predecessor Microsoft C (versions 1.0 to 6.0) and Microsoft C/C++ version 7.

In order to improve the accuracy of the following article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_Windows_Library that says (section "History", 2nd paragraph): > In 1992, Microsoft introduced MFC as part of Microsoft Visual C++ 7.0. [...] where here, the phrasing "Microsoft Visual C++ 7.0" should be changed to "Microsoft C/C++ 7.0" (and making link to the visual C++ page mentioned previously).

By the way, it should be mentioned that the existing page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Visual_C is mostly a duplicate of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Visual_C++ ...

1. Reasons for Microsoft C/C++ 7.0 historically related to MS Visual C++: - see the already-existing history on the Visual C++ page; - https://winworldpc.com/product/microsoft-c-c/7x that mentions: "Later versions were rebranded and renumbered as Microsoft Visual C++ and were bundled with Visual Studio or the SDKs."

2. The fact that in 1992 there was no Visual C++, but only MS C/C++: - Steven Sinofski's book's chapter https://hardcoresoftware.learningbyshipping.com/p/012-i-shipped-therefore-i-am

188.252.199.22 (talk) 5:17 am, 13 March 2021, last Saturday (7 days ago) (UTC+8)


 * MS C/C++ should probably be severed from the MSVC++ article, as MS also created Quick C, which was also succeeded by MSVC. -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 7:25 am, 13 March 2021, last Saturday (7 days ago) (UTC+8)
 * Moving this discussion from Articles for creation/Redirects and categories (permalink). ~  Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 12:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Microsoft C/C++ should e a separate article from Visual C/C++, as VC was a successor to both MSC and Quick C -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 02:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Microsoft C is not the same as Microsoft Visual C++
These are different products. Microsoft C was usually developed for DOS and run in DOS and usually was there to compile C code for DOS. Only the last two versions also supported C++ code. Visual C++, that also supports C, was developed for Windows. In my opinion, we should create for Microsoft C its own article and separate that from Visual C++. It will also remove some clutter from that article. --IT-Compiler (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Strictly 64 bit
I don't think it's consistent to label Visual C++ 2022 as "strictly 64 bit."

Visual C++ 2005 is a 32 bit IDE that can execute either a 64 bit or 32 bit compiler engine, each of which can generate 32 or 64 bit code.

Visual C++ 2022 is a 64 bit IDE that can execute either a 64 bit or 32 bit compiler engine, each of which can generate 32 or 64 bit code. (I don't know why there's a 32 bit hosted compiler in this package, but it's there.)

It looks like Visual C++ 2005 is considered "32-bit and 64-bit" based on the compiler and target platforms, but Visual C++ 2022 is considered "strictly 64 bit" based on its IDE. Malx (talk) 00:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)