c++ and target environment

[v4vijayakumar]

Lot of changes are happening to c++, nowadays. Even after the
standardization, we see many interesting things, like, threading,
regex, rope, etc. I read some TR1 and TR2 proposals, and I am not very
sure, we are going to get all this into c++.

These are not brand-new concepts, but why these things took this many
years to get into c++?.

Is still the c++ target environment now same as the target environment
before the standardization?

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Erik_Wikstr=F6m?=]

On 2007-09-04 11:16, v4vijayakumar wrote:

Lot of changes are happening to c++, nowadays. Even after the
standardization, we see many interesting things, like, threading,
regex, rope, etc. I read some TR1 and TR2 proposals, and I am not very
sure, we are going to get all this into c++.

All the stuff in TR1 will be in the next standard (along with a lot of
other things), those in TR2 will have to wait a while.

These are not brand-new concepts, but why these things took this many
years to get into c++?.

Because a committee have to approve them, not all members are convinced
that all the features are needed. And since there is not enough time to
get all of them in compromises have to be be made. Remember also that
all the members in the committee are doing this on their spare time or
the time their companies allows them to spend, none of them are working
full time on the standardisation.

Another problem is that all the feature have to be examined to determine
of they actually add any value, or if they would just be bloat in the
standard. And all feature have to be examined so that they work together
with the other features in the standard. Many libraries have lots of
functions/classes that does not work together with other parts of the
library or more than one function for doing something.

And all the already existing feature have to be retrofitted to work with
new ones, just imagine the work needed to make the existing containers
and algorithms work with Concepts. And when all that is done one have to
check for inconsistencies and ambiguities, considering that the current
working paper is nearly 1200 pages that's no easy task.

Is still the c++ target environment now same as the target environment
before the standardization?

C++ is a multipurpose programming language with focus on systems
programming and allows for usage of multiple programming paradigms, and
I think that has been the goal for quite some time. IT does not target
any specific environment that I'm aware of, but as I said, it is
primarily a systems programming language, though the Performance TR
describes how to efficiently use it in an embedded environment.

--
Erik Wikström

[Pete Becker]

On 2007-09-04 06:56:38 -0400, Erik Wikström <Er***********@telia.comsaid:

On 2007-09-04 11:16, v4vijayakumar wrote:

>Lot of changes are happening to c++, nowadays. Even after the
standardization, we see many interesting things, like, threading,
regex, rope, etc. I read some TR1 and TR2 proposals, and I am not very
sure, we are going to get all this into c++.

All the stuff in TR1 will be in the next standard (along with a lot of
other things), those in TR2 will have to wait a while.

Just a minor note: all the stuff in TR1 except the special math
functions will be in the next standard. The special math functions will
go into their own separate standard.

--
Pete
Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. (www.versatilecoding.com) Author of "The
Standard C++ Library Extensions: a Tutorial and Reference
(www.petebecker.com/tr1book)

[v4vijayakumar]

On Sep 4, 12:56 pm, Erik Wikström <[e-mail]:

On 2007-09-04 11:16, v4vijayakumar wrote:

....

These are not brand-new concepts, but why these things took this many
years to get into c++?.

Because a committee have to approve them, not all members are convinced
that all the features are needed. And since there is not enough time to
get all of them in compromises have to be be made. Remember also that
all the members in the committee are doing this on their spare time or
the time their companies allows them to spend, none of them are working
full time on the standardisation.

Another problem is that all the feature have to be examined to determine
of they actually add any value, or if they would just be bloat in the
standard. And all feature have to be examined so that they work together
with the other features in the standard. Many libraries have lots of
functions/classes that does not work together with other parts of the
library or more than one function for doing something.

And all the already existing feature have to be retrofitted to work with
new ones, just imagine the work needed to make the existing containers
and algorithms work with Concepts. And when all that is done one have to
check for inconsistencies and ambiguities, considering that the current
working paper is nearly 1200 pages that's no easy task.

Are these reasons for c++ community, with such a huge developer base,
has to wait decades for just to get templates and regex?

Why isn't yet there a open c++ standard?

[v4vijayakumar]

On Sep 4, 12:56 pm, Erik Wikström <[e-mail]:

On 2007-09-04 11:16, v4vijayakumar wrote:

....

Is still the c++ target environment now same as the target environment
before the standardization?

C++ is a multipurpose programming language with focus on systems
programming and allows for usage of multiple programming paradigms, and
I think that has been the goal for quite some time. IT does not target
any specific environment that I'm aware of, but as I said, it is
primarily a systems programming language, though the Performance TR
describes how to efficiently use it in an embedded environment.

I thought that c++ target environment is too general to implement
anything, like threading and networking, that requires special
instructions to execute. If it is possible now, why not then?

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Erik_Wikstr=F6m?=]

On 2007-09-04 14:34, v4vijayakumar wrote:

On Sep 4, 12:56 pm, Erik Wikström <[e-mail]:

>On 2007-09-04 11:16, v4vijayakumar wrote:

...

These are not brand-new concepts, but why these things took this many
years to get into c++?.

Because a committee have to approve them, not all members are convinced
that all the features are needed. And since there is not enough time to
get all of them in compromises have to be be made. Remember also that
all the members in the committee are doing this on their spare time or
the time their companies allows them to spend, none of them are working
full time on the standardisation.

Another problem is that all the feature have to be examined to determine
of they actually add any value, or if they would just be bloat in the
standard. And all feature have to be examined so that they work together
with the other features in the standard. Many libraries have lots of
functions/classes that does not work together with other parts of the
library or more than one function for doing something.

And all the already existing feature have to be retrofitted to work with
new ones, just imagine the work needed to make the existing containers
and algorithms work with Concepts. And when all that is done one have to
check for inconsistencies and ambiguities, considering that the current
working paper is nearly 1200 pages that's no easy task.

Are these reasons for c++ community, with such a huge developer base,
has to wait decades for just to get templates and regex?

Why isn't yet there a open c++ standard?

There is, in fact there are two, ISO/IEC 14882:1998 and the more recent
ISO/IEC 14882:2003. Both have included templates and I think the second
one included regex.

--
Erik Wikström

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Erik_Wikstr=F6m?=]

On 2007-09-04 14:40, v4vijayakumar wrote:

On Sep 4, 12:56 pm, Erik Wikström <[e-mail]:

>On 2007-09-04 11:16, v4vijayakumar wrote:

...

Is still the c++ target environment now same as the target environment
before the standardization?

C++ is a multipurpose programming language with focus on systems
programming and allows for usage of multiple programming paradigms, and
I think that has been the goal for quite some time. IT does not target
any specific environment that I'm aware of, but as I said, it is
primarily a systems programming language, though the Performance TR
describes how to efficiently use it in an embedded environment.

I thought that c++ target environment is too general to implement
anything, like threading and networking, that requires special
instructions to execute. If it is possible now, why not then?

There's a difference between threading and networking in that threading
can be abstracted to a level where it becomes platform independent (you
can fake threading on almost any architecture) which the same is not
true for networking.

The reason that threading has not been included until now is probably
that there has not been any need for standardised threading until now.

--
Erik Wikström

[Charles Bailey]

On 2007-09-04, Erik Wikström <Er***********@telia.comwrote:

>
There is, in fact there are two, ISO/IEC 14882:1998 and the more recent
ISO/IEC 14882:2003. Both have included templates and I think the second
one included regex.

I'm fairly sure that 14882:2003 does not include regex, it's still a
TR1 feature.

[James Kanze]

On Sep 4, 5:31 pm, Erik Wikström <[e-mail]:

On 2007-09-04 14:40, v4vijayakumar wrote:

On Sep 4, 12:56 pm, Erik Wikström <[e-mail]:

On 2007-09-04 11:16, v4vijayakumar wrote:

...

Is still the c++ target environment now same as the target environment
before the standardization?

C++ is a multipurpose programming language with focus on systems
programming and allows for usage of multiple programming paradigms, and
I think that has been the goal for quite some time. IT does not target
any specific environment that I'm aware of, but as I said, it is
primarily a systems programming language, though the Performance TR
describes how to efficiently use it in an embedded environment.

I thought that c++ target environment is too general to implement
anything, like threading and networking, that requires special
instructions to execute. If it is possible now, why not then?

There's a difference between threading and networking in that threading
can be abstracted to a level where it becomes platform independent (you
can fake threading on almost any architecture) which the same is not
true for networking.

The reason that threading has not been included until now is probably
that there has not been any need for standardised threading until now.

Possibly, too, because the technology wasn't all that mature,
and there was no consensus as to what was required. Java, for
example, can move a lot faster, because they target a lot less
varied community, and aren't necessarily concerned about
possible side effects or undesirable repercusions outside of
that community. And because they don't have an ISO standard,
nothing is cast in stone; they can easily go back and change
things which didn't work.

--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:[e-mail]
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, [phone]