Because it doesn't have to be that way. You're just arguing from the "we've always done it that way" perspective. Years ago, I took the extra time to compile a Qt application so that it would run on Windows and Linux with the same code base. Why not? Why not compile for Windows and Mac, and let people choose what works for them? You may have no use for it, but I do. Is it worth the effort? Depends on the application? Is it worth Microsoft's time to support? Obviously not. But at this point, the ability to compile for multiple platforms at the same time shouldn't have to be rocket science for the situations where it makes sense.

That's not my argument at all, but whatever, look at yours. You initially mention MFC, a Windows only technology, and follow that up with a QT example. Well yes; QT is meant to be cross platform! The MFC example made no sense whatsoever.

> Isn't the answer obvious? How many MFC devs are there working primarily in OSX or linux?

None, because you can't, the same reason you don't see many iOS developers using windows. I don't know if there are many people that want to work that way or if it's worth supporting, but your current argument is circular reasoning at it's finest.

My argument was that it makes absolutely no sense to develop an MFC app on OSX. I asumeyou'll want to, you know, run the thing, right? well get out your Windows VM!

C'mon, how is this not completely obvious...

Yet Microsoft supports, and was investing heavily in, iOS development in Visual Studio on Windows...

As long as you have a Mac and an iOS device to connect to.

I know, total PITA. Why can't I run my iOS app on Windows?! Screw you M$!

...

I guess one value proposition is the devs that refuse to work for your company because you're 100% Windows might re-consider if both your company and Microsoft opened this up slightly?

But you still can't run any of the code you write on OSX, so what's the point?

This has already been addressed elsewhere in the thread.