Re: Standard Versus Non-Standard C++
On Sunday, July 1, 2012 7:53:37 AM UTC-5, Francis Glassborow wrote:
On 01/07/2012 08:12, 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. 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++.
Sorry, but I disagree. You are programming in an extended C++.
I am responding to Francis [since I like Francis :)], but please
take this response as a response to all replies to my OP so far,
as they all share similar rebuttals to my argument.
As several have pointed out, there are numerous C++ compilers that
provide their own extensions. These, I have no problem with, because
they generally:
1. Add a feature that is not present in C++ proper.
2. Allow tweaking of feature that is present in C++ proper.
C++/CLI actually changes the meaning of existing C++ keywords sometimes.
To continue with the analogy regarding US English vs British
English, naturally, there are many words that are not shared
in everyday English between the two. Some words have different
meanings depending on which context. But the differences are not
so large so as to make prose written in one dialect unreadable by
someone not familiar with that dialect. I have no problem reading
British or Australian English, but if the grammatical structure
were changed to force use of the the various cases of, say,
Swedish, I would have trouble.
I have no problem reading C++ code that uses Microsoft COM extension
keywords. I have enormous problems reading the so-called C++/CLI.
I have no idea what the '^' character means in that context,
and I have no intention of learning, unless, of course, their
extensions become standardized by ISO, as a variant of C++,
in which case I will learn it. But therein lies the problem. They
are not extensions, but fundamental changes to the language.
UK representation of ISO pointed this out entitling one of their
sections of an objection letter:
"IV. A new language needs a new name "
....and also by writing:
"The UK request that Ecma withdraw this document from
fast-track voting and if they must re-submit it to JTC1,
do so under a name which does not include ?C++?.
See:
http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/uk-objections.pdf
-Le Chaud Lapin-
--
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]