In replying to P.J. Plauger ( http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&...252B.moderated
) who responded my post in comp.long.c++ moderated neww group
regarding "C++ standard and C++/CLI" topic, I worte the following post
which was sensor by comp.lang.c++.moderated:
----------------------------------------------------------------- It is time to wake up for C++
community and say no to Microsoft's effect to pollute C++.
Perhaps. But you might be interested to learn that Andy Koenig
woke up a few years ago and gave a talk proposing changes to
Standard C++ that are remarkably close to what Microsoft had
already begun and has now become C++/CLI.
Really? CLI mainly has three parts that C++ is lack of: VM, garbage
collection, and middleware platform. For the VM and garbage
collection, it is not in the spirit of C++. Would Andy Koenig prefer
those?
However, if C++ is evolving toward CLI or likes, i.e. interface first
following by implementation without changing C++ language, I have no
object to this process. The C++/CLI stuff is coming from
implementation first following by changing C++ in order to fit the
interface. It is not revolutionary but revolting (thanks for teaching
me some English).
Conservation and conservatism evolved from the same root word,
as did revolutionary and revolting. A lot depends upon your
point of view.
OH,yea! You are the one who vigorously promote C++/CLI. It is
certain that you can sell more C++/CLI libraries to Microsoft. For
C++ programmers, we get more ugly syntax and confusion, and less
spirit of C++. I think you have created a perfect shoe for yourself
to wear.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The reason for rejection was flame. But why they never reject P.J.
Plauger's flame posting? Certainly, I just tell the truth: P.J.
Plauger and his company sell C++/CLI libraries to Microsoft and that's
why he supports Microsoft to pollute C++.
We all see C++ is declining. However, if someone criticizes C++
standard committee, they either censor different opinions or shut up
criticism by saying "no participate and no voice". As one poster
stated, it was waste time to participate C++ standard process since
the C++ standard committee never achieved anything after C++ was
standardized in 1999. I concur! The reason of C++ declining, IMO, is
C++ is lack of libraries in a standard way for common programming
tasks into applications, such as thread library. The committee
responded to this criticism was they didn't have time or no one
participated. But there are plenty good open source libraries, for
example, ACE has a nice thread implementation. If they are
incompetent to create one, why do they just accept one from open
source? If you put open source technology QT/KDE for desktop, ACE for
run-time environment, TAO for CORBA middleware implementation, Apache
C++ implementation for XML and Web Services together under C++ roof,
IMO, it is far superior to J2EE and .NET. Why they have to tie C++ to
..NET instead of standardizing the above technologies so that C++ can
compete with Java and .NET?
The reason I am againt C++/CLI is very simple. If C++ binds to CLI,
C++ shouldn't be changed. The binding should be through library
instead of changing C++ syntax. CLI is just like CORBA. The binding
between C++ and CORBA never requires C++ change. Why does the binding
between C++ and CLI require C++ change? Certainly, it is Microsoft,
the bigot. People praise CLI, calling it platform independent.
Please hold your breath. Since Windows is a proprietary OS, there is
always one single vendor. Even if CLI becomes standard, no one can
implement it in Windows. If Microsoft doesn't like some features in
CLI, she could have no implementation in Windows so that the features
would be useless. Also, if CLI standard committee is full of
Microsoft and her sycophants, how could you make CLI vendor and
platform independent? Tying C++ to .NET by changing C++ syntax would
lead to the ultimate death of C++, IMO. The reason for some C++
standard committee to help Microsoft to pollute C++, as I can see, is
about money. You have the chairman of the committee Herb Sutter who
works for Microsoft, and member P.J. Plauger who sell libraries to
Microsoft.
That leads to my conclusion. We should dissolve C++ standard
committee and form a C++ Foundation as an open source. Under C++
Foundation, merge some C++ technologies in a standard way consisting
of C++ language, C++ run-time environment and C++ middleware platform.
If we can do it, I see a bright future for C++. 29  2343 
David Eng wrote: In replying to P.J. Plauger (
http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&...252B.moderated
) who responded my post in comp.long.c++ moderated neww group
regarding "C++ standard and C++/CLI" topic, I worte the following post
which was sensor by comp.lang.c++.moderated:
[...]
You've got waaaay too much time on your hands! I strongly believe
that if you have plenty of energy to spare, try not to start a rebellion
but instead participate in governing structures and make changes to the
system from inside. And if you can't find any other ways but flaming
somebody in a newsgroup (moderated or otherwise) and calling for a current
[working] committee's dissolution, then it's just all hot air.
Think of forming your alternative "foundation" on your own and then see
how it fares (and how many followers you get) and whether it will lead to
the committee's eventual decline. Only that will prove that your way is
better.
Just my $0.02...
V
P.S. BTW, the subject of your posting is misleading. Your posting was
censored by a moderator of the moderated newsgroup, and not by the C++
Standard Committee. Such deceit tactics are not welcome here.
David Eng wrote:
In replying to P.J. Plauger (
http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&...252B.moderated
) who responded my post in comp.long.c++ moderated neww group
regarding "C++ standard and C++/CLI" topic, I worte the following post
which was sensor by comp.lang.c++.moderated:
I have set a similar thread here in clc++, under the title C++/CLI
standard. Please reply there so as to be able to talk in one thread!
What do you mean it was censored. My messages take about 12+ hours to
appear in clc++m.
I will answer you for the rest of your message in the C++/CLI thread.
Regards,
Ioannis Vranos
"David Eng" <da**********@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6b**************************@posting.google.c om...
Uh, where did the Subject line come from? The C++ committee
doesn't have the power to censor opinions, even if it had
the desire to do so. And AFAIK, it has always welcomed
open discussion of many different topics. In replying to P.J. Plauger (
http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&...252B.moderated ) who responded my post in comp.long.c++ moderated neww group
regarding "C++ standard and C++/CLI" topic, I worte the following post
which was sensor by comp.lang.c++.moderated:
----------------------------------------------------------------- It is time to wake up for C++
community and say no to Microsoft's effect to pollute C++.
Perhaps. But you might be interested to learn that Andy Koenig
woke up a few years ago and gave a talk proposing changes to
Standard C++ that are remarkably close to what Microsoft had
already begun and has now become C++/CLI.
Really? CLI mainly has three parts that C++ is lack of: VM, garbage
collection, and middleware platform. For the VM and garbage
collection, it is not in the spirit of C++. Would Andy Koenig prefer
those?
Dunno, ask him. But *many* people have experimented with garbage
collection in C++, spirit or no spirit. Lucky for us all, no
single person is in charge of enforcing the "spirit of C++" --
not even BS, who has the best claim for that role.
However, if C++ is evolving toward CLI or likes, i.e. interface first
following by implementation without changing C++ language, I have no
object to this process. The C++/CLI stuff is coming from
implementation first following by changing C++ in order to fit the
interface. It is not revolutionary but revolting (thanks for teaching
me some English).
Welcome. I think.
Conservation and conservatism evolved from the same root word,
as did revolutionary and revolting. A lot depends upon your
point of view.
OH,yea! You are the one who vigorously promote C++/CLI.
Uh, so far I've written one editorial for C/C++ Users Journal,
where I said that I've enjoyed writing in this new dialect.
And I've responded to a few newsgroup postings, mostly to
counter errors of fact. Not my notion of vigorous, but I'll
accept the characterization anyway.
It is
certain that you can sell more C++/CLI libraries to Microsoft.
Doubt it. I expect I've sold them all they're likely to buy
from Dinkumware. But I will indeed keep trying.
For
C++ programmers, we get more ugly syntax and confusion, and less
spirit of C++. I think you have created a perfect shoe for yourself
to wear.
I didn't create the syntax, confusion, or shoe. I just negotiated
a contract between Dinkumware and Microsoft what has, so far, been
mostly fun to carry out.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The reason for rejection was flame. But why they never reject P.J.
Plauger's flame posting?
I assume you're talking about the newsgroup moderators now, not
the C++ committee. They reject my stuff quite often -- usually
because I get vulgar or snarky or a bit too far off topic. Get
used to it.
Certainly, I just tell the truth:
Well, I try to do that sort of thing myself. P.J.
Plauger and his company sell C++/CLI libraries to Microsoft and that's
why he supports Microsoft to pollute C++.
I supported Microsoft's effort to improve Managed C++ long before
any hope of a contract dawned. I like to think I'd still support
it even if they hadn't given us a contract. And I have trouble
calling any of this stuff pollution, not after the C++ committee
added exceptions, namespaces, export templates, locale facets,
etc. etc. to what was once just a reasonably simple extension of C.
We all see C++ is declining.
Not this part of "we".
However, if someone criticizes C++
standard committee, they either censor different opinions
As I said earlier, we lack this power. Stop fantasizing, and
stop hyperventilating.
or shut up
criticism by saying "no participate and no voice".
Yep. After nearly a quarter century of participating in standards
efforts, I have no problem whatsoever in the "put up or shut up"
response. We're all volunteers, and we all have day jobs. We're
*not* going to carry your water if you don't feel strongly enough
to do some serious work yourself.
As one poster
stated, it was waste time to participate C++ standard process since
the C++ standard committee never achieved anything after C++ was
standardized in 1999. I concur!
Then why are you so upset that the committee doesn't do what you
want if it's so ineffectual?
The reason of C++ declining, IMO, is
C++ is lack of libraries in a standard way for common programming
tasks into applications, such as thread library. The committee
responded to this criticism was they didn't have time or no one
participated. But there are plenty good open source libraries, for
example, ACE has a nice thread implementation. If they are
incompetent to create one, why do they just accept one from open
source?
If there's already a good one out there, why does it have to
be blessed by the C++ standards committee before it can make
a difference? Once upon a time, people developed languages
and libraries, used them for years to find out what was good
and what was bad, and only then saw fit to standardize the
best of the best.
If you put open source technology QT/KDE for desktop, ACE for
run-time environment, TAO for CORBA middleware implementation, Apache
C++ implementation for XML and Web Services together under C++ roof,
IMO, it is far superior to J2EE and .NET. Why they have to tie C++ to
.NET instead of standardizing the above technologies so that C++ can
compete with Java and .NET?
If that combo is as good as you say it is, *someone* ought to
be able to make the next billion dollar company with next to
no investment. I smell opportunity, for someone.
The reason I am againt C++/CLI is very simple. If C++ binds to CLI,
C++ shouldn't be changed.
Standard C++ hasn't changed. That's the province of SC22/WG21,
who don't plan to issue a new standard for several years.
The binding should be through library
instead of changing C++ syntax. CLI is just like CORBA. The binding
between C++ and CORBA never requires C++ change. Why does the binding
between C++ and CLI require C++ change? Certainly, it is Microsoft,
the bigot. People praise CLI, calling it platform independent.
Please hold your breath. Since Windows is a proprietary OS, there is
always one single vendor. Even if CLI becomes standard, no one can
implement it in Windows. If Microsoft doesn't like some features in
CLI, she could have no implementation in Windows so that the features
would be useless. Also, if CLI standard committee is full of
Microsoft and her sycophants, how could you make CLI vendor and
platform independent? Tying C++ to .NET by changing C++ syntax would
lead to the ultimate death of C++, IMO. The reason for some C++
standard committee to help Microsoft to pollute C++, as I can see, is
about money. You have the chairman of the committee Herb Sutter who
works for Microsoft, and member P.J. Plauger who sell libraries to
Microsoft.
That's quite a rant. (Wish I could get something like that past the
moderators. Or maybe not.) But the information content is low. The
interesting thing about C++/CLI, and other pieces of the .NET
environment, is that Microsoft has ceded control to ECMA committees,
in some cases quite early in the development process. Yes, there's
one major implementation of all this stuff, and one minor one still
playing catch up, but Microsoft's willingness to give up control
should not be underestimated. It greatly increases the chance that
others can join this game and become players, with much less fear
that Microsoft can just change the rules if any competition gets too
serious.
I don't underestimate Microsoft's competitiveness, and I don't for
a moment believe they've fallen prey to excessive altruism. I
simply believe that Microsoft has found an interesting new balance
point; and I for one am happy to have a small part in refining a
well thought out specification.
That leads to my conclusion. We should dissolve C++ standard
committee and form a C++ Foundation as an open source. Under C++
Foundation, merge some C++ technologies in a standard way consisting
of C++ language, C++ run-time environment and C++ middleware platform.
If we can do it, I see a bright future for C++.
If you're right, I see no need to dissolve the C++ standards
committee. You'll leave 'em in the dust anyway. Just go for it.
P.J. Plauger
Dinkumware, Ltd. http://www.dinkumware.com
On 8 Jul 2004 06:36:16 -0700, da**********@yahoo.com (David Eng)
wrote: In replying to P.J. Plauger (
http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&...252B.moderated
) who responded my post in comp.long.c++ moderated neww group
regarding "C++ standard and C++/CLI" topic, I worte the following post
which was sensor by comp.lang.c++.moderated:
OH,yea! You are the one who vigorously promote C++/CLI. It is
certain that you can sell more C++/CLI libraries to Microsoft. For
C++ programmers, we get more ugly syntax and confusion, and less
spirit of C++. I think you have created a perfect shoe for yourself
to wear.
That'll be the paragraph that got the post rejected. If you tone that
down, I'm sure it will get through. While "For C++ programmers, we get
more ugly syntax and confusion, and less spirit of C++." is fine, the
attacks on PJP's motives are not appropriate to a moderated newsgroup.
Tom
--
C++ FAQ: http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
"P.J. Plauger" <pj*@dinkumware.com> wrote in message
news:Zl*******************@nwrddc03.gnilink.net... Perhaps. But you might be interested to learn that Andy Koenig
woke up a few years ago and gave a talk proposing changes to
Standard C++ that are remarkably close to what Microsoft had
already begun and has now become C++/CLI.
Really? CLI mainly has three parts that C++ is lack of: VM, garbage
collection, and middleware platform. For the VM and garbage
collection, it is not in the spirit of C++. Would Andy Koenig prefer
those?
Dunno, ask him. But *many* people have experimented with garbage
collection in C++, spirit or no spirit. Lucky for us all, no
single person is in charge of enforcing the "spirit of C++" --
not even BS, who has the best claim for that role.
I'd like to explain my position, because I don't think Bill Plauger has it
quite right--although I can understand how he, or anyone who sees little of
me outside standards meetings, might have gotten the impression that he did.
First, it's not accurate to say that I "woke up," because that phrase
suggests that I suddenly changed my opinion to consider facts to which I had
previously been oblivious. In fact, the opinions that I presented to the
C++ committee were ones that I had held for many years,. I had not
expressed them to the committe before then only because I felt that they
were outside the committee's purview. Indeed, even when I gave that talk, I
still felt that it was outside their purview, which was why I asked to
present my viewpoint in a "technical session" rather than as part of the
committee's official deliberations.
Next, it's slightly inaccurate to say that I "proposed changes" to Standard
C++. If I remember correctly, I argued that
1) C++ has some siginificant limitations, which are becoming more
significant as the nature of our software and hardware systems change.
2) I do not see how those limitations can be addressed within the
framework of Standard C++ as it stands today. (Note: when I say that I
don't see how to address them, I am not using that claim as a euphemism for
an opinion that they cannot be addressed--indeed part of the reason for
giving the talk is the hope that someone else will figure out how to address
them)
3) I think that it is inevitable that programming languages similar to
C++ will evolve in response to those limitations. The standards committee
does not have a choice about whether or not that evolution will happen; its
only choice is about whether or not it will be a part of it.
My conclusion that I hoped that someone close to the committee would try
some experiments with other C++-like languages that tried to address some of
these problems, regardless of whether they wound up influencing the
evolution of the C++ standard directly, but that doing so would require more
resources than I could personally control.
I hoped that one possible result might be a language that is similar to, and
strongly interoperable with, C++ that could deal with some of the problems
that would require incompatible changes to C++ to solve.
It was only after that talk that I even learned of the existence of
Microsoft's C++/CLI efforts. Apparently someone at Microsoft looked at the
same facts that I did and independently drew similar conclusions.
"tom_usenet" <to********@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hp********************************@4ax.com... OH,yea! You are the one who vigorously promote C++/CLI. It is
certain that you can sell more C++/CLI libraries to Microsoft. For
C++ programmers, we get more ugly syntax and confusion, and less
spirit of C++. I think you have created a perfect shoe for yourself
to wear.
I, for one, would be more impressed with your diatribe if you could as least
spell a simple word like "yeah."
DrX
"Xenos" <do**********@spamhate.com> wrote in message
news:cc*********@cui1.lmms.lmco.com...
"tom_usenet" <to********@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hp********************************@4ax.com...OH,yea! You are the one who vigorously promote C++/CLI. It is
certain that you can sell more C++/CLI libraries to Microsoft. For
C++ programmers, we get more ugly syntax and confusion, and less
spirit of C++. I think you have created a perfect shoe for yourself
to wear.
I, for one, would be more impressed with your diatribe if you could as
least spell a simple word like "yeah."
And here we have a classic example of shifting the discussion away from the
topic and substance, and redirecting to some triviality like spelling or
language choice. Such is the nature of starting a flame war. The use of
"yea" may even be appropriate, if a bit archaic. It would indicate
agreement, however, as in "O yea, O yea, verily" and probably wasn't meant.
Regardless, the post was itself a diatribe and easily ignored. I guess that
"OH,yea!" was too good to pass up. ::))
[Who has noticed that I have too much time on my hands?]
--
Gary
* Xenos:
"tom_usenet" <to********@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hp********************************@4ax.com...OH,yea!
The entity calling itself Tom Usenet did _not_ write that.
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
"Alf P. Steinbach" <al***@start.no> wrote in message
news:40****************@news.individual.net... * Xenos:
"tom_usenet" <to********@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hp********************************@4ax.com... >OH,yea!
The entity calling itself Tom Usenet did _not_ write that.
O yea! I guessed it. I got lost in all the > > > > > > and couldn't figure
out who said what.
There must be a trick to it, but once it gets past three I lose track. Don't
take offence in any case, I meant none to anybody.
--
Gary
"Xenos" <do**********@spamhate.com> wrote in message
news:cc*********@cui1.lmms.lmco.com...
"tom_usenet" <to********@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hp********************************@4ax.com...OH,yea! You are the one who vigorously promote C++/CLI. It is
certain that you can sell more C++/CLI libraries to Microsoft. For
C++ programmers, we get more ugly syntax and confusion, and less
spirit of C++. I think you have created a perfect shoe for yourself
to wear.
I, for one, would be more impressed with your diatribe if you could as
least spell a simple word like "yeah."
DrX
Oh, the irony is killing me...
--
David Hilsee
"P.J. Plauger" <pj*@dinkumware.com> wrote in message news:<Zl*******************@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>. ..
I supported Microsoft's effort to improve Managed C++ long before
any hope of a contract dawned. I like to think I'd still support
it even if they hadn't given us a contract. And I have trouble
calling any of this stuff pollution, not after the C++ committee
added exceptions, namespaces, export templates, locale facets,
etc. etc. to what was once just a reasonably simple extension of C.
If I have a drug patent, you cannot put a coating on my drug to
resell. It is illegel. The same thing applies to C++/CLI. Microsoft
cannot put a coating on C++ then call it C++/CLI and resell it under
the Windows. However, if you change your patent, it is your business
and it is legal. I believe a three years old kid can understand this
logic. You'd be better to go back to a element school to learn some
logic!
We all see C++ is declining.
Not this part of "we".
Please go to any job sites to search under Java then C++ to find out
what I mean or you can look at this site
http://mshiltonj.com/sm/categories/languages/ Just accept this fact
that Java has taken over C++ as the most popular programming language
and C++ is declining. As a C++ standard committee, you should help to
halt the decline instead of helping Microsoft to pollute C++. It is
shame on you.
The reason of C++ declining, IMO, is
C++ is lack of libraries in a standard way for common programming
tasks into applications, such as thread library. The committee
responded to this criticism was they didn't have time or no one
participated. But there are plenty good open source libraries, for
example, ACE has a nice thread implementation. If they are
incompetent to create one, why do they just accept one from open
source?
If there's already a good one out there, why does it have to
be blessed by the C++ standards committee before it can make
a difference?
Come on! We all know the value of standardize. It promotes use and
portability. Otherwise, why C++ needs to be standardize in the first
place?
Once upon a time, people developed languages
and libraries, used them for years to find out what was good
and what was bad, and only then saw fit to standardize the
best of the best.
That is the problem about current C++ standard process: too slow to
adapt the change of hardware and software development. If under your
watch, I can be sure to forget about standard C++ implementation of
XML in next 10 years. This is another reason why C++ is declining. If you put open source technology QT/KDE for desktop, ACE for
run-time environment, TAO for CORBA middleware implementation, Apache
C++ implementation for XML and Web Services together under C++ roof,
IMO, it is far superior to J2EE and .NET. Why they have to tie C++ to
.NET instead of standardizing the above technologies so that C++ can
compete with Java and .NET?
If that combo is as good as you say it is, *someone* ought to
be able to make the next billion dollar company with next to
no investment. I smell opportunity, for someone.
Don't laugh! You probably never write any distributed applications
other than your "the draft standard C++ library". I once worked at a
company which developed a trading system. The product manager decided
to use J2EE. End up that the frontend (Swing application) was not
only slow but also couldn't handle high volume messages. The company
fired the manager. The new product manager decided using C# .NET to
replace Swing application and using Web Services to communicate with
Java backend. Alas! The performance was even worse. Finally, the
company decided using C++ to develop the system. The technologies
included MFC, RougeWave, CORBA, and TIB/RV. It turned out a great
success. I learned a great deal through this process. There are
plenty good run-time libraries there. If C++ standard committee can
standardize these libraries, C++ will have a great demand, especially,
at the high-end applications. The reason I am againt C++/CLI is very simple. If C++ binds to CLI,
C++ shouldn't be changed.
Standard C++ hasn't changed. That's the province of SC22/WG21,
who don't plan to issue a new standard for several years.
You are raving now. What I was saying was that C++/CLI pollute C++.
No matter what happen to your contract with Microsoft, just accept
this fact that C++/CLI pollute C++. The binding should be through library
instead of changing C++ syntax. CLI is just like CORBA. The binding
between C++ and CORBA never requires C++ change. Why does the binding
between C++ and CLI require C++ change? Certainly, it is Microsoft,
the bigot. People praise CLI, calling it platform independent.
Please hold your breath. Since Windows is a proprietary OS, there is
always one single vendor. Even if CLI becomes standard, no one can
implement it in Windows. If Microsoft doesn't like some features in
CLI, she could have no implementation in Windows so that the features
would be useless. Also, if CLI standard committee is full of
Microsoft and her sycophants, how could you make CLI vendor and
platform independent? Tying C++ to .NET by changing C++ syntax would
lead to the ultimate death of C++, IMO. The reason for some C++
standard committee to help Microsoft to pollute C++, as I can see, is
about money. You have the chairman of the committee Herb Sutter who
works for Microsoft, and member P.J. Plauger who sell libraries to
Microsoft.
That's quite a rant. (Wish I could get something like that past the
moderators. Or maybe not.) But the information content is low. The
interesting thing about C++/CLI, and other pieces of the .NET
environment, is that Microsoft has ceded control to ECMA committees,
in some cases quite early in the development process. Yes, there's
one major implementation of all this stuff, and one minor one still
playing catch up, but Microsoft's willingness to give up control
should not be underestimated. It greatly increases the chance that
others can join this game and become players, with much less fear
that Microsoft can just change the rules if any competition gets too
serious.
I don't underestimate Microsoft's competitiveness, and I don't for
a moment believe they've fallen prey to excessive altruism. I
simply believe that Microsoft has found an interesting new balance
point; and I for one am happy to have a small part in refining a
well thought out specification.
What a sycophant! I was not rant. I tell the truth. Who can trust
Microsoft? What will happen if some companies make more money on CLI
than Microsoft does? If Microsoft is so nice and welcomes competition
as you said, she would not reject CORBA 10 years ago. Then, the
computing world would be totally different now. There wouldn't be
J2EE, CLI and Web Services. Everyone could have the freedom to choose
what programming language he likes and what hardware he prefers to
write programs that communicate each other through CORBA. The fact
that that wouldn't happen because of Microsoft, the bigot. Besides,
don't bet on CLI. There is no real world applications based on CLI
just yet other than these pop mom shops or pet.com likes. That leads to my conclusion. We should dissolve C++ standard
committee and form a C++ Foundation as an open source. Under C++
Foundation, merge some C++ technologies in a standard way consisting
of C++ language, C++ run-time environment and C++ middleware platform.
If we can do it, I see a bright future for C++.
If you're right, I see no need to dissolve the C++ standards
committee. You'll leave 'em in the dust anyway. Just go for it.
I am sorry. I shouldn't say that. I just read a article http://www.ddj.com/documents/s=7536/ddj0209o/ I believe some
committee will not be happy to see Micorsoft to pollute C++. Only
traitors will support Microsoft to pollute C++. I wonder what Stan
Lippman, Herb Sutter and P.J. Plauger stand for. If they stand for
Microsoft instead of C++ community, how can they still sit on C++
standard committee?
David Eng wrote: Please go to any job sites to search under Java then C++ to find out
what I mean or you can look at this site
http://mshiltonj.com/sm/categories/languages/ Just accept this fact
that Java has taken over C++ as the most popular programming language
and C++ is declining. As a C++ standard committee, you should help to
halt the decline instead of helping Microsoft to pollute C++. It is
shame on you.
I think you are a troll. If you are honest check for the IDC developer
report. 2.6+ million C++ programmers worldwide, with Java being third in
the list of about 1 million more or less (I do not remember the accurate
number for Java since I do not care for this proprietary language,
however it was around 1 million - I think in the thousands side).
In any case the difference is vast.
I do not check the rest of your message, since you are probably a troll.
Ioannis Vranos wrote: David Eng wrote:
Please go to any job sites to search under Java then C++ to find out
what I mean or you can look at this site
http://mshiltonj.com/sm/categories/languages/ Just accept this fact
that Java has taken over C++ as the most popular programming language
and C++ is declining. As a C++ standard committee, you should help to
halt the decline instead of helping Microsoft to pollute C++. It is
shame on you.
I think you are a troll. If you are honest check for the IDC developer
report. 2.6+ million C++ programmers worldwide, with Java being third in
the list of about 1 million more or less (I do not remember the accurate
number for Java since I do not care for this proprietary language,
however it was around 1 million - I think in the thousands side).
In any case the difference is vast.
I do not check the rest of your message, since you are probably a troll.
IDC 2002: http://www.idc.com.sg/Press/2003/US-...developers.asp http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...artid=38661523
Regards,
Ioannis Vranos
"Ioannis Vranos" <iv*@guesswh.at.grad.com> wrote in message
news:cc**********@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr... Ioannis Vranos wrote:
David Eng wrote:
Please go to any job sites to search under Java then C++ to find out
what I mean or you can look at this site
http://mshiltonj.com/sm/categories/languages/ Just accept this fact
that Java has taken over C++ as the most popular programming language
and C++ is declining. As a C++ standard committee, you should help to
halt the decline instead of helping Microsoft to pollute C++. It is
shame on you.
I think you are a troll. If you are honest check for the IDC developer
report. 2.6+ million C++ programmers worldwide, with Java being third in
From your links below:
"In terms of individual languages being used by developers in North America,
C/C++ (as well as the newer Microsoft language, C#) still dominates with 29
per cent of the total."
Note that they included 'C' and 'C#' in those figures.
the list of about 1 million more or less (I do not remember the accurate
number for Java since I do not care for this proprietary language,
however it was around 1 million - I think in the thousands side).
In any case the difference is vast.
I do not check the rest of your message, since you are probably a troll.
IDC 2002:
http://www.idc.com.sg/Press/2003/US-...developers.asp
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...artid=38661523
Jeff F
Jeff Flinn wrote: From your links below:
"In terms of individual languages being used by developers in North America,
C/C++ (as well as the newer Microsoft language, C#) still dominates with 29
per cent of the total."
Note that they included 'C' and 'C#' in those figures.
Yes, however in IDC 2001 C++/C was first in 2.6 millions (with a note
that the majority was C++ rather than C) and Java was third after VB.
And the trend was increasing for C++. In any case Java having surpassed
C++ is pure imagination.
Regards,
Ioannis Vranos
Ioannis Vranos wrote: Jeff Flinn wrote:
From your links below:
"In terms of individual languages being used by developers in North
America,
C/C++ (as well as the newer Microsoft language, C#) still dominates
with 29
per cent of the total."
Note that they included 'C' and 'C#' in those figures.
Yes, however in IDC 2001 C++/C was first in 2.6 millions (with a note
that the majority was C++ rather than C) and Java was third after VB.
And the trend was increasing for C++. In any case Java having surpassed
C++ is pure imagination.
And the other stuff he mentioned against C++ committee and the rest of
non-sense pointed to troll behaviour.
Regards,
Ioannis Vranos
"David Eng" <da**********@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6b**************************@posting.google.c om... "P.J. Plauger" <pj*@dinkumware.com> wrote in message
news:<Zl*******************@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>. ..
I supported Microsoft's effort to improve Managed C++ long before
any hope of a contract dawned. I like to think I'd still support
it even if they hadn't given us a contract. And I have trouble
calling any of this stuff pollution, not after the C++ committee
added exceptions, namespaces, export templates, locale facets,
etc. etc. to what was once just a reasonably simple extension of C.
If I have a drug patent, you cannot put a coating on my drug to
resell. It is illegel. The same thing applies to C++/CLI.
Nope. No patents involved.
Microsoft
cannot put a coating on C++ then call it C++/CLI and resell it under
the Windows.
Sure they can. People have been putting out "enhanced" dialects of
programming languages, standardized or otherwise, for most of the
past half century. Nothing to stop them, except market acceptance.
However, if you change your patent, it is your business
and it is legal. I believe a three years old kid can understand this
logic. You'd be better to go back to a element school to learn some
logic!
No comment.
We all see C++ is declining.
Not this part of "we".
Please go to any job sites to search under Java then C++ to find out
what I mean or you can look at this site
http://mshiltonj.com/sm/categories/languages/ Just accept this fact
that Java has taken over C++ as the most popular programming language
and C++ is declining.
Nope. Won't. Can't make me. And even if that should happen to be
true (and it doesn't look that way to me), your conclusions about
whose fauit it might be and how to fix it are, to be polite, naive.
As a C++ standard committee, you should help to
halt the decline instead of helping Microsoft to pollute C++. It is
shame on you.
No comment.
The reason of C++ declining, IMO, is
C++ is lack of libraries in a standard way for common programming
tasks into applications, such as thread library. The committee
responded to this criticism was they didn't have time or no one
participated. But there are plenty good open source libraries, for
example, ACE has a nice thread implementation. If they are
incompetent to create one, why do they just accept one from open
source?
If there's already a good one out there, why does it have to
be blessed by the C++ standards committee before it can make
a difference?
Come on! We all know the value of standardize. It promotes use and
portability. Otherwise, why C++ needs to be standardize in the first
place?
You standardize something once it looks to be a success and you
want to minimize dialect formation. But standardization is neither
necessary nor sufficient to determine whether something is a success.
Once upon a time, people developed languages
and libraries, used them for years to find out what was good
and what was bad, and only then saw fit to standardize the
best of the best.
That is the problem about current C++ standard process: too slow to
adapt the change of hardware and software development. If under your
watch, I can be sure to forget about standard C++ implementation of
XML in next 10 years. This is another reason why C++ is declining.
You have a different view of the purpose of standards than I do.
I agree that you're not alone in the notion that standards should
change rapidly, but I'm also not alone in seeing the downside of
such excessive flexibility.
If you put open source technology QT/KDE for desktop, ACE for
run-time environment, TAO for CORBA middleware implementation, Apache
C++ implementation for XML and Web Services together under C++ roof,
IMO, it is far superior to J2EE and .NET. Why they have to tie C++ to
.NET instead of standardizing the above technologies so that C++ can
compete with Java and .NET?
If that combo is as good as you say it is, *someone* ought to
be able to make the next billion dollar company with next to
no investment. I smell opportunity, for someone.
Don't laugh!
I'm not laughing. I'm challenging you to put your money where your
(ill disciplined) mouth is. If you're a billionaire in five years,
you'll have proved your point to my satisfaction.
You probably never write any distributed applications
other than your "the draft standard C++ library".
No comment.
I once worked at a
company which developed a trading system. The product manager decided
to use J2EE. End up that the frontend (Swing application) was not
only slow but also couldn't handle high volume messages. The company
fired the manager. The new product manager decided using C# .NET to
replace Swing application and using Web Services to communicate with
Java backend. Alas! The performance was even worse. Finally, the
company decided using C++ to develop the system. The technologies
included MFC, RougeWave, CORBA, and TIB/RV. It turned out a great
success.
And I'll bet that, under different management, Java and/or C# could
have done the job and C++ could have been a failure. Seen 'em all.
I learned a great deal through this process. There are
plenty good run-time libraries there. If C++ standard committee can
standardize these libraries, C++ will have a great demand, especially,
at the high-end applications.
But if they're so good, why do we have to wait for the blessing of
standardization before they take off?
The reason I am againt C++/CLI is very simple. If C++ binds to CLI,
C++ shouldn't be changed.
Standard C++ hasn't changed. That's the province of SC22/WG21,
who don't plan to issue a new standard for several years.
You are raving now.
No, just stating an independently verifiable fact.
What I was saying was that C++/CLI pollute C++.
No matter what happen to your contract with Microsoft, just accept
this fact that C++/CLI pollute C++.
Nope. That's your hobby horse. You ride it.
The binding should be through library
instead of changing C++ syntax. CLI is just like CORBA. The binding
between C++ and CORBA never requires C++ change. Why does the binding
between C++ and CLI require C++ change? Certainly, it is Microsoft,
the bigot. People praise CLI, calling it platform independent.
Please hold your breath. Since Windows is a proprietary OS, there is
always one single vendor. Even if CLI becomes standard, no one can
implement it in Windows. If Microsoft doesn't like some features in
CLI, she could have no implementation in Windows so that the features
would be useless. Also, if CLI standard committee is full of
Microsoft and her sycophants, how could you make CLI vendor and
platform independent? Tying C++ to .NET by changing C++ syntax would
lead to the ultimate death of C++, IMO. The reason for some C++
standard committee to help Microsoft to pollute C++, as I can see, is
about money. You have the chairman of the committee Herb Sutter who
works for Microsoft, and member P.J. Plauger who sell libraries to
Microsoft.
That's quite a rant. (Wish I could get something like that past the
moderators. Or maybe not.) But the information content is low. The
interesting thing about C++/CLI, and other pieces of the .NET
environment, is that Microsoft has ceded control to ECMA committees,
in some cases quite early in the development process. Yes, there's
one major implementation of all this stuff, and one minor one still
playing catch up, but Microsoft's willingness to give up control
should not be underestimated. It greatly increases the chance that
others can join this game and become players, with much less fear
that Microsoft can just change the rules if any competition gets too
serious.
I don't underestimate Microsoft's competitiveness, and I don't for
a moment believe they've fallen prey to excessive altruism. I
simply believe that Microsoft has found an interesting new balance
point; and I for one am happy to have a small part in refining a
well thought out specification.
What a sycophant! I was not rant. I tell the truth.
Using terms like "bigot", "sycophant", "death", "pollute", and
accusing someone of behaving unethically for monetary gain --
this is the stuff of ranting, not polite discourse. To put it
mildly, you're being a jerk.
Who can trust
Microsoft? What will happen if some companies make more money on CLI
than Microsoft does? If Microsoft is so nice and welcomes competition
as you said, she would not reject CORBA 10 years ago. Then, the
computing world would be totally different now. There wouldn't be
J2EE, CLI and Web Services. Everyone could have the freedom to choose
what programming language he likes and what hardware he prefers to
write programs that communicate each other through CORBA. The fact
that that wouldn't happen because of Microsoft, the bigot. Besides,
don't bet on CLI. There is no real world applications based on CLI
just yet other than these pop mom shops or pet.com likes.
Yet another rant. That leads to my conclusion. We should dissolve C++ standard
committee and form a C++ Foundation as an open source. Under C++
Foundation, merge some C++ technologies in a standard way consisting
of C++ language, C++ run-time environment and C++ middleware platform.
If we can do it, I see a bright future for C++.
If you're right, I see no need to dissolve the C++ standards
committee. You'll leave 'em in the dust anyway. Just go for it.
I am sorry. I shouldn't say that. I just read a article
http://www.ddj.com/documents/s=7536/ddj0209o/ I believe some
committee will not be happy to see Micorsoft to pollute C++. Only
traitors will support Microsoft to pollute C++. I wonder what Stan
Lippman, Herb Sutter and P.J. Plauger stand for. If they stand for
Microsoft instead of C++ community, how can they still sit on C++
standard committee?
Now you're being a major league asshole. Please go off in a corner
and grow up.
P.J. Plauger
Dinkumware, Ltd. http://www.dinkumware.com
P.J. Plauger posted: I'm not laughing. I'm challenging you to put your money where your
(ill disciplined) mouth is. If you're a billionaire in five years,
you'll have proved your point to my satisfaction.
Oprah Winfrey's a billionaire.
-JKop
"P.J. Plauger" <pj*@dinkumware.com> wrote in message
news:of******************@nwrddc03.gnilink.net... Using terms like "bigot", "sycophant", "death", "pollute", and
accusing someone of behaving unethically for monetary gain --
this is the stuff of ranting, not polite discourse. To put it
mildly, you're being a jerk.
Then he wrote:
Nope. Won't. Can't make me. And even if that should happen to be
true (and it doesn't look that way to me), your conclusions about
whose fauit it might be and how to fix it are, to be polite, naive.
Yet another rant.
Now you're being a major league asshole. Please go off in a corner
and grow up.
You are so predictable. You proved yourself as an idiot. Congratulation!
Why are you so upset that I use bigot to describe Microsoft and sycophant to
describe you? We all know Microsoft is a bully, that's why US and EU
governments filed lawsuits against her. We all know defending Microsoft as
a nice guy is an sycophant. If you don't like the word sycophant, how about
we call you a butt-licker?
Now you're being a major league butt-licker. Please go off in a corner and
lick your master's asshole.
"JKop" <NU**@NULL.NULL> wrote in message
news:dp*****************@news.indigo.ie... P.J. Plauger posted:
I'm not laughing. I'm challenging you to put your money where your
(ill disciplined) mouth is. If you're a billionaire in five years,
you'll have proved your point to my satisfaction.
Oprah Winfrey's a billionaire.
Yep. She did what she did very well, and she was careful
to maintain enough control to profit from it. She's certainly
earned my respect.
P.J. Plauger
Dinkumware, Ltd. http://www.dinkumware.com
"P.J. Plauger" <pj*@dinkumware.com> wrote in message
news:_B*******************@nwrddc02.gnilink.net... "JKop" <NU**@NULL.NULL> wrote in message
news:dp*****************@news.indigo.ie...
P.J. Plauger posted:
I'm not laughing. I'm challenging you to put your money where your
(ill disciplined) mouth is. If you're a billionaire in five years,
you'll have proved your point to my satisfaction.
Oprah Winfrey's a billionaire.
Yep. She did what she did very well, and she was careful
to maintain enough control to profit from it. She's certainly
earned my respect.
Another masterpiece of butt licking. You deserve a hall of fame in the
major league butt-licker.
"David Eng" <da**********@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Pt******************@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
"P.J. Plauger" <pj*@dinkumware.com> wrote in message
news:of******************@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
Why are you so upset that I use bigot to describe Microsoft and
sycophant to describe you? We all know Microsoft is a bully, that's why US and
EU governments filed lawsuits against her. We all know defending
Microsoft as a nice guy is an sycophant. If you don't like the word sycophant,
how about we call you a butt-licker?
Now you're being a major league butt-licker. Please go off in a
corner and lick your master's asshole.
This is the most disgusting post I've seen in a serious newsgroup,
except for the occassional neo-nazi spam.
P.J. Plauger and Andrew Koenig gave very thoughtful comments on the
future of C++, the standardization process and the software industry
in general despite plenty of indications in your original post that it
needn't be taken seriously. PJP gave very generous 'no comment's when
something much stronger would have been appropriate.
Remember that other people read the crap you write. It makes you look
stupid and nauseates the rest of us.
Jonathan
"Jonathan Turkanis" <te******@kangaroologic.com> wrote in message
news:2l************@uni-berlin.de... This is the most disgusting post I've seen in a serious newsgroup,
except for the occassional neo-nazi spam.
P.J. Plauger and Andrew Koenig gave very thoughtful comments on the
future of C++, the standardization process and the software industry
in general despite plenty of indications in your original post that it
needn't be taken seriously. PJP gave very generous 'no comment's when
something much stronger would have been appropriate.
Remember that other people read the crap you write. It makes you look
stupid and nauseates the rest of us.
Don't blame me! PJ Plauger started this flame war (just look my first
post).
What is my crap? All I want to say here is that C++/CLI pollutes C++. I
agree PJP that Microsoft can extend C++. That's fine as long as Microsoft
keeps it as a Microsoft extension, i.e., a proprietary extension. The
problem is Microsoft wants to make it as an ISO standard. How can a
Microsoft extension become an ISO standard? As Mr. Francis Glassborow
stated out, Microsoft is abusing the system. If you can explain to my that
this is all right, I am more glad to apologize to this newsgroup.
"David Eng" <da**********@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:HS******************@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
"Jonathan Turkanis" <te******@kangaroologic.com> wrote in message
news:2l************@uni-berlin.de...
This is the most disgusting post I've seen in a serious newsgroup,
except for the occassional neo-nazi spam.
P.J. Plauger and Andrew Koenig gave very thoughtful comments on
the future of C++, the standardization process and the software
industry in general despite plenty of indications in your original post
that it needn't be taken seriously. PJP gave very generous 'no comment's
when something much stronger would have been appropriate.
Remember that other people read the crap you write. It makes you
look stupid and nauseates the rest of us.
Don't blame me! PJ Plauger started this flame war (just look my
first post).
If you say so.
What is my crap?
I quoted the relevant passages.
Jonathan
Mr. Plauger,
On the behalf of decency and all those who benefit from your postings
I would like to apologize for what you have endured in this thread. I
found the postings and language of David Eng offensive and sickening.
You and the other experts (several in this very thread) are a great
benefit in these forums for those such as me who are seeking to learn.
And I have always admired the fact that ones such as you take time to
share your insights and knowledge with us. Thus, even though I
obviously bear no responsibility for David Eng's behavior, I feel
partly responsible that you sometimes run individuals well removed
from civil discourse as we have observed here while delivering such a
valuable service to the community.
So for what it's worth, I regret what has transpired here and I (and I
know countless others) sincerely appreciate your participation in this
newsgroup.
Keith
"Keith H Duggar" <du****@mit.edu> wrote in message
news:b4*************************@posting.google.co m... Mr. Plauger,
On the behalf of decency and all those who benefit from your postings
I would like to apologize for what you have endured in this thread. I
found the postings and language of David Eng offensive and sickening.
You and the other experts (several in this very thread) are a great
benefit in these forums for those such as me who are seeking to learn.
And I have always admired the fact that ones such as you take time to
share your insights and knowledge with us. Thus, even though I
obviously bear no responsibility for David Eng's behavior, I feel
partly responsible that you sometimes run individuals well removed
from civil discourse as we have observed here while delivering such a
valuable service to the community.
So for what it's worth, I regret what has transpired here and I (and I
know countless others) sincerely appreciate your participation in this
newsgroup.
Keith
Thanks very much. An open forum has its costs, and its benefits.
P.J. Plauger
Dinkumware, Ltd. http://www.dinkumware.com
"P.J. Plauger" wrote:
[...] We're all volunteers
Tax deductible? I hope. ;-)
regards,
alexander.
David Eng wrote:
What is my crap? All I want to say here is that C++/CLI pollutes C++.
Fine. We all read it.
Now go away.
--
Karl Heinz Buchegger kb******@gascad.at
tom_usenet <to********@hotmail.com> wrote: On 8 Jul 2004 06:36:16 -0700, da**********@yahoo.com (David Eng)
wrote:In replying to P.J. Plauger (
http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&...252B.moderated
) who responded my post in comp.long.c++ moderated neww group
regarding "C++ standard and C++/CLI" topic, I worte the following post
which was sensor by comp.lang.c++.moderated:
OH,yea! You are the one who vigorously promote C++/CLI. It is
certain that you can sell more C++/CLI libraries to Microsoft. For
C++ programmers, we get more ugly syntax and confusion, and less
spirit of C++. I think you have created a perfect shoe for yourself
to wear.
That'll be the paragraph that got the post rejected. If you tone that
down, I'm sure it will get through. While "For C++ programmers, we get
more ugly syntax and confusion, and less spirit of C++." is fine, the
attacks on PJP's motives are not appropriate to a moderated newsgroup.
Indeed, that's the paragraph I objected to and said so (if I remember
correctly) in the rejection of the article. ... and to make one thing
clear: I or any of the other moderators of comp.lang.c++.moderated do not
care who the person is when reviewing an article. I have rejected articles
for flames from several of the highly respected people and actually I
consider rejection of flames as a service to both the newsgroup and the
author of the article: it is fairly easy to ruin one's reputation.
--
<mailto:di***********@yahoo.com> <http://www.dietmar-kuehl.de/>
<http://www.contendix.com> - Software Development & Consulting This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: Michael Hoffman |
last post by:
Many of you are familiar with Jason Orendorff's path module
<http://www.jorendorff.com/articles/python/path/>, which is frequently
recommended here on c.l.p. I submitted an RFE to add it to the...
|
by: skoco |
last post by:
Hello!
Do you know when will be the new standard for c++ approved? And WHAT
will be inside? Hope there will be some thread and synchro classes,
text and XML parsing, new containers and other new...
|
by: Christopher Benson-Manica |
last post by:
At what point was the .h dropped from the STL headers? I just had a
discussion yesterday with my boss, who said he wanted .h on all the
STL includes, despite me protesting that it was not...
|
by: Ioannis Vranos |
last post by:
I have initiated a similar discussion thread in clc++m, however because
of the "m" in the name, the discussion is progressing slowly, so I am
setting another thread here.
Well the story is...
|
by: Steven T. Hatton |
last post by:
Now that I have a better grasp of the scope and capabilities of the C++
Standard Library, I understand that products such as Qt actually provide
much of the same functionality through their own...
|
by: toolmaster |
last post by:
Since many of the modern computer languages have built-in namespace
features, I can't understand why not add this feature into standard C.
I've heard many people complain of the lacking of...
|
by: lovecreatesbeauty |
last post by:
Why the C standard committee doesn't provide a standard implementation
including the C compiler and library when the language standard
document is published?
C works on the abstract model of low...
|
by: David Mathog |
last post by:
One thing that keeps coming up in this forum is that
standard C lacks many functions which are required in
a workstation or server but not possible in an embedded controller.
This results in a...
|
by: josh |
last post by:
Where can I download a free copy of ISO C++ standard ?
|
by: Charles Arthur |
last post by:
How do i turn on java script on a villaon, callus and itel keypad mobile phone
|
by: ryjfgjl |
last post by:
If we have dozens or hundreds of excel to import into the database, if we use the excel import function provided by database editors such as navicat, it will be extremely tedious and time-consuming...
|
by: nemocccc |
last post by:
hello, everyone, I want to develop a software for my android phone for daily needs, any suggestions?
|
by: Sonnysonu |
last post by:
This is the data of csv file
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
2 3
2 3
3
the lengths should be different i have to store the data by column-wise with in the specific length.
suppose the i have to...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
There are some requirements for setting up RAID:
1. The motherboard and BIOS support RAID configuration.
2. The motherboard has 2 or more available SATA protocol SSD/HDD slots (including MSATA, M.2...
|
by: marktang |
last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However,...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Overview:
Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows...
|
by: tracyyun |
last post by:
Dear forum friends,
With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each...
| |
