Ah yes, the dread C++ lock-in to Windows.

The C++ version of Minecraft in question is literally called Windows 10 Edition, and as you might expect it and its derivatives like Minecraft Education Edition are Windows-only based on the announcements so far.

The Windows 10 version is based on the Pocket Edition. MCPE is written in C++, and is already cross-platform - it runs on smartphones, tablets and games consoles.

This doesn't mean the Education Edition will be cross-platform. It does mean that the fact that it's written in C++ doesn't prevent it from being cross-platform.

But considering it's Microsoft, do you trust them to make it cross-platform?

It depends if there's a demand. How many pupils will benefit if it does? (How many schools have access to Linux or Mac OS X and not to Windows 10?)

Against that, how many pupils would benefit from spending that development time -- a finite resource -- on incorporating mods into the C++ code base?

It's not a pseudo-religious issue.

I'm not talking about it not technically able to be cross platform (because it's obviously already in opengl on the mobile platforms), I'm just saying Carmack better hope that Microsoft doesn't want to come out with a competing VR solution, otherwise (going by their track record), they might lock down his "grail" of running Minecraft in VR to running Minecraft in Xbox One VR or Windows 10 VR, or whatever.

MS hasn't, to date, mentioned any VR products. Their focus seems to be on the AR Hololens, which doesn't really compete with Occulus.

Yep, here's hoping it stays that way. Although Occulus has already dropped support for Mac and Linux. They said it's just temporary. I really hope that's the case.

There might as well be if you don't have the source code.

People are already making mods to the C++ versions even without source code, doing the same thing that was done to make mods with the java version.

https://github.com/byteandahalf/MCPE-NativeMods/wiki/1:-Maki...

Disassembling and patching a binary is a completely different thing from porting software to a different OS without access to the source code.

The Java binary can be run on any system for which a JVM exists. If Microsoft ports the entire thing to a native language like C++, we are at their mercy to provide binaries for non-windows systems.

Did they have access to the Java source code? No, I believe they were just decompiling bytecode.

Psst. It is ok to use compiler specific extensions and semantics, as long as it isn't MSVC++.

I didn't think it was acceptable to use MSVC++ at all.

But it is ok to use gcc or clang specific extensions and semantics, then.

I didn't say that either, I honestly couldn't give you an informed opinion on the subject. I just remember about 10-15 years ago when you'd be shot if even suggested using MSVC++, I wasn't aware that opinions had changed regarding it.

That was never the opinion on Windows, except when Borland C++ and C++ Builder were still an option.

Well, if this new one is going to be closed-source... Then yes, we are at the mercy of Microsoft. We're going to have to deal with the C++ version lock-in, because it's going to be release compiled (and hard to de-compile)

But Minecraft is closed-source. Since when did "written in Java" mean open-source?

It doesn't, but disassembling Java is peanuts compared to trying to make sense of disassembled C++.

So the argument is that they're making it harder for users to do something they don't support them doing?

Do you think Microsoft is actively trying to sabotage the modding community? Or is it just that they failed to take it into consideration?

My guess would be that they don't care about mods, and that their main motivation was to have an excuse to lock out other OSes.

Well, this is derived from the Windows 10 edition which is a version of the original C++ pocket edition code, and has cross platform multiplayer I believe, I'd be surprised if they don't come out with a Linux/Max version eventually.