Standard Versus Non-Standard C++
{ Reformatted; please limit your lines to 70 characters -mod }
Hi All,
I asked a rhetorical question in a recent post, and the post was
rejected, perhaps because I did not explain why I was asking the
question. The question was:
"Is this valid C++ code or not?"
"this" was code like:
// Is this C++?
SyndicationClient^ client = ref new SyndicationClient();
for(wstring url : urls)
// Perhaps it is, and my compiler is simply out of compliance.
....found on this page:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/apps/hh465045.aspx
The Moderator pointed out that it was obviously not.
I asked the question because I believe that Microsoft is being
somewhat untruthful when they persist in calling C++/CX or C++/CLI or
C++/whatever "C++".
It is not. And it is harmful to the integrity of C++ to do so, IMHO.
If it were C++, I would be able to compile it with my
highly-accommodating C++ compiler.
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. Experienced programmers know better, but it causes
me some dismay to think of all the young programmers who are just
starting out with "Hello World" being told that highly non-standard
extensions are C++. Aside from the non-standard syntax, which, alone
would break any compliant C++ compiler, they use keywords like:
1. sealed
2. ref
3. get
Scattered across the Internet are statements like:
"You're still coding in C++, and you can access the STL, the CRT, and
any other C++ libraries, except that you can't invoke certain
functions directly, such as those related to file I/O."
If you use those three keywords in your code, you are ~not~ coding in
C++. You're coding in something else that just so happens to share a
lot of keywords and syntax with C++.
A few years ago, in this very group, I castigated a Microsoft writer
for naming his MSDN article "Pure C++", when it was anything but, and
he relented, but Microsoft persists with this inaccuracy everywhere.
Experienced coders like those who lurk here know better, and for that
reason, we have a responsibility to make sure young coders are not
corrupted by misrepresentations before they even get started.
--
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]