| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
MS targets standards compliance with new Visual C++ | |
|
||
| Time: 11:01 EST/16:01 GMT | News Source: Geek.com | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
In a surprising move, Microsoft has pledged that its next version of Visual Studio .NET will contain an ISO/ANSI-compliant version of Visual C++ .NET. Codenamed Everett and set for release in early 2003, the new Visual Studio .NET version will aim for a score of 90+ compliance with the C++ standard. Microsoft has never been a stickler for standards in the past, instead aiming for speed on the Windows platform rather than sticking to the rules. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 148 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:37:57 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/22/2002 9:53:23 PM |
| I've yet to hear a good argument in favor of Office docs being stored in XML. I refuse to use anything other than Microsoft Office. I don't care if the lame competition - WordPerfect, StarOffice, OpenOffice.org (stupid name!) - can't read Microsoft Office documents. That's their problem, not Microsoft's. Just leave the document format alone. It's been working quite well for years, why change a good thing? |
| #2 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/22/2002 11:27:15 PM |
|
beeyp,
No, I meant I refuse to use anything other than Microsoft Office. I am quite capable of saying exactly what I mean. I use several non Microsoft products. I'm also reasonably well aware of Microsoft's competition even when I use Microsofts products. Shows how much you do your homework. Actually it shows that you haven't done your homework on me. I've used the products I attacked. I know what they can't do. I know they don't run VBA macros. I know they don't have a product like Outlook or Access. I know that they don't offer what I need. |
| #3 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/22/2002 11:32:58 PM |
|
kev, I'm confused still on the XML thing. From a programmers perspective, a grammar is a grammar. If you can parse a Word 97/2000/2002 document grammar, you can parse a Word 2004 (I assume that's what Office 11 will be) XML Word Document grammar. If you have the schema, then you can write a parser. If Microsoft gives out the XML schema for Word 2004 docs, it may as well save itself the XML effort, and just give out the schema for creating Word 97/2000/2002 docs. There is nothing inherently better about storing a .doc as XML than as any other data form. If there is a reason, I'd like to know it.
K, I can think of one, but for a large company, it isn't really a big reason. You could argue, I guess, that with XML, you'd not have to write an XML parser, you'd only have to handle a specific XML schema. At that point, you'd be able to query the docs using XPATH or XQUERY (when it gets standardized). I still don't see that as too compelling of a reason, but maybe I'm missing something. |
| #4 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/22/2002 11:36:20 PM |
| Just got to say this about XML. It is a great thing and surely has it's uses. It is not, however, the answer to life the universe and everything. It is not a programming language (duh, Paul T.). It is not a protocol all by itself (yes, I know what SOAP is). It isn't the best way of communicating between tiers. .NET Remoting internally is better for that. XML isn't even a great high volume datastore (name one of the top three db vendors that has a native XML datastore). K, I'm stepping off the XML soap box. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 148 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:37:57 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
