Re: Standard Versus Non-Standard C++
On Monday, July 2, 2012 1:06:18 PM UTC-5, Francis Glassborow 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. ...
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.
Yes, you are correct. The UK was rejecting C++/CLI becoming an ISO
standard. And in the process of rejecting C++/CLI, they stated, if
not explicitly, very implicitly, that C++/CLI is a new language,
meaning, "C++/CLI is not C++".
Thus is the essence of my argument. A C++ standard's body, of all
organizations, plainly stated that C++/CLI is not C++, yet Microsoft
persists in saying that it is.
What is the truth? They cannot both be right.
To be clear, I have no issue with any compiler anywhere adding
new keywords to their C++ compiler. The issue I have is that they
take existing keywords of C++, redefine the semantics, then tell
programmers, "Yes, it's slightly different, but it is still C++."
Fortunately, UK ISO showed that it is not.
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)
I do agree that there is stellar talent inside Microsoft that has
been giving us an outstanding C/C++ compiler for over 20 years.
But in case you have not been watching, things are changing inside
Microsoft. Not everyone believes in the virtue of Standard C++, and
some of these people are now part of the team that makes Visual
Studio.
This is why we must be vigilant in laying out the truth for all
to see, then let each programmer make his/her own decision.
-Le Chaud Lapin-
--
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]