home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   comp.lang.c++.moderated      Moderated discussion of C++ superhackery      33,346 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 32,443 of 33,346   
   Francis Glassborow to Le Chaud Lapin   
   Re: Standard Versus Non-Standard C++   
   02 Jul 12 11:06:18   
   
   From: francis.glassborow@btinternet.com   
      
   On 02/07/2012 14:43, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:   
   > On Sunday, July 1, 2012 7:33:18 AM UTC-5, Martin B. wrote:   
   >> On 01.07.2012 09:12, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:   
   >>> Microsoft has been, for years, attempting to mislead C++   
   >>> programmers into thinking that their "variants" of C++ is   
   >>> essentially C++ with a bit of flavoring. ...   
   >>   
   >> IMHO this is just hair splitting. It's C++ with extensions, what   
   >> else would you call it?   
   >   
   > The UK representation of ISO C++ offered the following   
   > suggestions for names to Microsoft:   
   >   
   > *** In a spirit of helpful cooperation we even offer a few suggestions   
   > on possible new names: CLIpp or CliPP, CLI++ (the emphasis is on   
   > powerful access to CLI and more, since it supports unmanaged code   
   > too), or ++CLI (ditto, and also note that it contains "C++" spelled   
   > backwards), Ceeli (though this may conflict with an old ICL language   
   > for its mainframes), or even eCma++ (an obvious sister language to   
   > Ecmascript). ***   
   >   
      
   However you need to get the context correct. The UK was objecting to   
   C++/CLI becoming and ISO Standard. I think we would have objected to   
   Borland's C++ Builder becoming a Standard as well. The later was, IME,   
   much harder to use without all its extensions. Over the last decade I   
   cannot recall any time where I had a problem getting my C++ code to   
   compile with Visual C++. The last time I had a problem was when they had   
   failed to implement the alternative operator keywords (and, xor etc.).   
   Even that was immediately visible when using colour coded syntax so it   
   was no more than an irritation and was quickly corrected when I had   
   cornered one of their implementers at a conference to draw attention to   
   the failing.   
      
   On the positive side, over the last decade MS have made considerable   
   efforts to track the development of C++0x. They contributed a great deal   
   of helpful insights and expertise (but that was the implementation side   
   of MS not its marketing department)   
      
      
   Francis   
      
      
   --   
         [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]   
         [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca