From: gelists@gmail.com   
      
   On 2012-07-03 19:11:36, in comp.lang.c++.moderated Le Chaud Lapin wrote:   
      
   > I find it hard to believe that I am the only who sees that Microsoft   
   > has been engaged in a sustained, concerted, deliberate effort to   
   > divert as, many coders as possible from standard C++ to a .NET form   
   > of C++. The supporting evidence in this thread alone should be at   
   > least an indicator.   
      
   That may be, and IMO this is their right. But for me at least, it's   
   pretty obvious that anything that is not "ISO C++" or "C++ conforming to   
   ISO ..." or something like this is not "ISO C++". It's as simple as   
   that.   
      
   Any prospective C++ programmer needs to know this, from before writing   
   the first line of code. You can't just go out there, take some C++   
   example code and expect that it will compile and work on your   
   combination of hardware, OS and compiler -- unless it is specifically   
   "ISO C++" (or something like this), and you have a setup that supports   
   "ISO C++".   
      
   This is nothing new with Microsoft. Many programs and snippets out there   
   claim to be C++ and don't compile or run on many C++ environments -- be   
   it OS or hardware dependencies, be it dependencies on compiler   
   extensions, be it dependencies on libraries that introduce OS, hardware   
   or compiler dependencies. This is just something one needs to know.   
      
   And once one knows that, it is obvious that "C++/CLI" or "C++/CX" is not   
   "ISO C++" until proven (which may also mean "generally recognized by   
   qualified people") to be so.   
      
   Gerhard   
      
      
   --   
         [ 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)