Minimal MSVC version support for wx 3.2

[Vadim Zeitlin]

Hello,

I've just (finally!) removed support for MSVC6 from the wxWidgets trunk
(see http://wxwidgets.blogspot.com/2014/05/spring-cleaning.html), so
wxWidgets 3.2 will require at least MSVC7, a.k.a. Visual Studio 2003. But I
wonder if we shouldn't drop support for this one as well, so I'd like to
ask here: is anybody still using it? It's not a huge deal to continue
supporting it, especially compared to VC6, but if we could get rid of it
too, it would simplify the code in a couple of places.

Please let us know if you still use VC7, thanks in advance,
VZ

[Eric Jensen]

Hello Vadim,

Friday, May 16, 2014, 1:33:00 PM, you wrote:

VZ> Hello,

VZ> I've just (finally!) removed support for MSVC6 from the wxWidgets trunk
VZ> (see
VZ> http://wxwidgets.blogspot.com/2014/05/spring-cleaning.html), so
VZ> wxWidgets 3.2 will require at least MSVC7, a.k.a. Visual Studio 2003. But I
VZ> wonder if we shouldn't drop support for this one as well, so I'd like to
VZ> ask here: is anybody still using it? It's not a huge deal to continue
VZ> supporting it, especially compared to VC6, but if we could get rid of it
VZ> too, it would simplify the code in a couple of places.

VZ> Please let us know if you still use VC7, thanks in advance,
VZ> VZ

Currently i'm still using VS2003, but it wouldn't be a big deal for me if
the minimum version would be VS2005.

Eric

[Lauri Nurmi]

Post by Vadim Zeitlin
wxWidgets 3.2 will require at least MSVC7, a.k.a. Visual Studio 2003. But I
wonder if we shouldn't drop support for this one as well, so I'd like to
ask here: is anybody still using it? It's not a huge deal to continue
supporting it, especially compared to VC6, but if we could get rid of it
too, it would simplify the code in a couple of places.

Not many VC7 users have shown up...

I propose dropping support not only for VC7 but also for VC8 (aka VS
2005). By the time 3.2 is out, VC8 will already ten years old, and I
don't suppose it was ever as widely used as VC6 was. For those who are
stuck with VC6..VC8, there still are wx 3.0 and wx 2.8.

I can believe there are valid reasons why people cannot update their
compilers to bleeding edge versions (i.e. something newer than 10 years
old), but I find it hard to imagine why the same people would absolutely
need to use a bleeding edge version of wxWidgets (3.2 rather than 3.0)
with those old compilers. I would be interested to hear about such
scenarios, though.

LN

[Eric Jensen]

Hello Lauri,

Post by Vadim Zeitlin
wxWidgets 3.2 will require at least MSVC7, a.k.a. Visual Studio 2003. But I
wonder if we shouldn't drop support for this one as well, so I'd like to
ask here: is anybody still using it? It's not a huge deal to continue
supporting it, especially compared to VC6, but if we could get rid of it
too, it would simplify the code in a couple of places.

LN> Not many VC7 users have shown up...

LN> I propose dropping support not only for VC7 but also for VC8 (aka VS
LN> 2005). By the time 3.2 is out, VC8 will already ten years old, and I
LN> don't suppose it was ever as widely used as VC6 was. For those who are
LN> stuck with VC6..VC8, there still are wx 3.0 and wx 2.8.

LN> I can believe there are valid reasons why people cannot update their
LN> compilers to bleeding edge versions (i.e. something newer than 10 years
LN> old), but I find it hard to imagine why the same people would absolutely
LN> need to use a bleeding edge version of wxWidgets (3.2 rather than 3.0)
LN> with those old compilers. I would be interested to hear about such
LN> scenarios, though.

I think a compiler sholdn't be dropped just because of its age, but
only if it maintaining it means an unjustified additional amount of
work.

I still use VS2003 for several reasons, using VS2005 would be ok for
me. But i personally don't want to use VS2008 or any later version.
Mainly because they're memory-hungry and turn-around times are worse
than in older versions. But also because even used licenses are still
relatively expensive.

But of course, if the wxWidgets teams decides to drop support for any
compiler, i'll have to adapt somehow.

Eric

[Vadim Zeitlin]

On Sat, 24 May 2014 10:53:30 +0300 Lauri Nurmi wrote:

LN> 16.5.2014 14:33, Vadim Zeitlin kirjoitti:
LN> > wxWidgets 3.2 will require at least MSVC7, a.k.a. Visual Studio 2003. But I
LN> > wonder if we shouldn't drop support for this one as well, so I'd like to
LN> > ask here: is anybody still using it? It's not a huge deal to continue
LN> > supporting it, especially compared to VC6, but if we could get rid of it
LN> > too, it would simplify the code in a couple of places.
LN>
LN> Not many VC7 users have shown up...

The trouble is that the probability of using an old compiler is inversely
correlated with the probability of being subscribed to this list.

LN> I propose dropping support not only for VC7 but also for VC8

Currently I don't think supporting VC8 is a problem for us, i.e. we don't
have to do anything special for it. The only check for its version is in
wx/typeinfo.h and I am not even sure what is it going there.

Regards,
VZ

[Marian 'VooDooMan' Meravy]

Greetings,

Post by Lauri Nurmi

Post by Vadim Zeitlin
wxWidgets 3.2 will require at least MSVC7, a.k.a. Visual Studio 2003. But I
wonder if we shouldn't drop support for this one as well, so I'd like to
ask here: is anybody still using it? It's not a huge deal to continue
supporting it, especially compared to VC6, but if we could get rid of it
too, it would simplify the code in a couple of places.

Not many VC7 users have shown up...
I propose dropping support not only for VC7 but also for VC8 (aka VS
2005). By the time 3.2 is out, VC8 will already ten years old, and I
don't suppose it was ever as widely used as VC6 was. For those who are
stuck with VC6..VC8, there still are wx 3.0 and wx 2.8.

IMO true.

Post by Lauri Nurmi
I can believe there are valid reasons why people cannot update their
compilers to bleeding edge versions (i.e. something newer than 10 years
old), but I find it hard to imagine why the same people would absolutely
need to use a bleeding edge version of wxWidgets (3.2 rather than 3.0)
with those old compilers. I would be interested to hear about such
scenarios, though.

Yes, sure there are some reasons. But as it's above said, they can use
older branches.

IMHO, the valid reason to drop support for wx 3.2+ is either huge
maintaining effort, or unmaintainable code (many #ifdef's) due to
implementing new functionality, or new code's performance or other-like
impact compared to MSVC 10..12.

best,
vdm
.

[Alec Teal]

Post by Lauri Nurmi

Post by Vadim Zeitlin
wxWidgets 3.2 will require at least MSVC7, a.k.a. Visual Studio 2003. But I
wonder if we shouldn't drop support for this one as well, so I'd like to
ask here: is anybody still using it? It's not a huge deal to continue
supporting it, especially compared to VC6, but if we could get rid of it
too, it would simplify the code in a couple of places.

Not many VC7 users have shown up...
I propose dropping support not only for VC7 but also for VC8 (aka VS
2005). By the time 3.2 is out, VC8 will already ten years old, and I
don't suppose it was ever as widely used as VC6 was. For those who are
stuck with VC6..VC8, there still are wx 3.0 and wx 2.8.
I can believe there are valid reasons why people cannot update their
compilers to bleeding edge versions (i.e. something newer than 10
years old), but I find it hard to imagine why the same people would
absolutely need to use a bleeding edge version of wxWidgets (3.2
rather than 3.0) with those old compilers. I would be interested to
hear about such scenarios, though.
LN

What I'd like is to be assured switching is the right thing, like I have
yet to switch to wx 3.0 because I'm simply not sure what to do,
everything works (well) right now. Or at least pointed to some road
where I'd come out covered in blood and implicitly know these things.

I'd also love it if snapshots were better, like I'd search for stuff
using a search engine and suddenly it wasn't applicable documentation
any more. Please make "switching back" easier, then by all means drop
support.

Hope this is well received,

Alec

[Vadim Zeitlin]

On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 17:45:50 +0100 Alec Teal wrote:

AT> What I'd like is to be assured switching is the right thing,

The most pragmatic argument for switching is that if you find any bug in
2.8, you will have to deal with it yourself at this point as it's not
supported any more.

Another thing is that you have to switch if you target OS X (Cocoa port
was not really usable in 2.8) or GTK+ 3.

So while you can, of course, remain with 2.8 if everything works perfectly
for you and if you only target Windows (and if you never want to take any
advantages of later Windows versions features nor of any of several
thousands of bug fixes in 3.0 or of hundreds of new features in it), it
simply isn't a good strategy in general.


AT> like I have yet to switch to wx 3.0 because I'm simply not sure what to
AT> do, everything works (well) right now. Or at least pointed to some road
AT> where I'd come out covered in blood and implicitly know these things.

Sorry, I have no idea what do you mean by this.

AT> I'd also love it if snapshots were better, like I'd search for stuff
AT> using a search engine and suddenly it wasn't applicable documentation
AT> any more. Please make "switching back" easier, then by all means drop
AT> support.
AT>
AT> Hope this is well received,

I just don't understand at all what do you mean. Switching back is
trivial, after all you still have your old sources which worked with 2.8.
You can also compile the same code with 2.8 and 3.0, usually with very
minor effort, but IMO it's not worth it. As for snapshots and documentation
part I must be just completely missing your meaning as it doesn't make any
sense to me, sorry.

Regards,
VZ