C++ standard committee censor different opinions

Discussion in 'C++' started by David Eng, Jul 8, 2004.

  1. David Eng

    David Eng Guest

    In replying to P.J. Plauger (
    http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=...r=&ie=UTF-8&group=comp.lang.c%2B%2B.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++.
     
    David Eng, Jul 8, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. David Eng wrote:
    > In replying to P.J. Plauger (
    > http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=...r=&ie=UTF-8&group=comp.lang.c%2B%2B.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.
     
    Victor Bazarov, Jul 8, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. David Eng wrote:
    >
    > In replying to P.J. Plauger (
    > http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=...r=&ie=UTF-8&group=comp.lang.c%2B%2B.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
     
    Ioannis Vranos, Jul 8, 2004
    #3
  4. David Eng

    P.J. Plauger Guest

    "David Eng" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    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=...r=&ie=UTF-8&group=comp.lang.c%2B%2B.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
     
    P.J. Plauger, Jul 8, 2004
    #4
  5. David Eng

    tom_usenet Guest

    On 8 Jul 2004 06:36:16 -0700, (David Eng)
    wrote:

    >In replying to P.J. Plauger (
    >http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=...r=&ie=UTF-8&group=comp.lang.c%2B%2B.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
     
    tom_usenet, Jul 8, 2004
    #5
  6. "P.J. Plauger" <> wrote in message
    news:ZldHc.30420$...

    > > > 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.
     
    Andrew Koenig, Jul 8, 2004
    #6
  7. David Eng

    Xenos Guest

    "tom_usenet" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >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, Jul 8, 2004
    #7
  8. "Xenos" <> wrote in message
    news:ccjuk7$...
    >
    > "tom_usenet" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > >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
     
    Gary Labowitz, Jul 8, 2004
    #8
  9. * Xenos:
    >
    > "tom_usenet" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > >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, Jul 8, 2004
    #9
  10. "Alf P. Steinbach" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > * Xenos:
    > >
    > > "tom_usenet" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > > >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
     
    Gary Labowitz, Jul 8, 2004
    #10
  11. David Eng

    David Hilsee Guest

    "Xenos" <> wrote in message
    news:ccjuk7$...
    >
    > "tom_usenet" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > >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
     
    David Hilsee, Jul 9, 2004
    #11
  12. David Eng

    David Eng Guest

    "P.J. Plauger" <> wrote in message news:<ZldHc.30420$>...
    >
    > 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, Jul 9, 2004
    #12
  13. 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, Jul 9, 2004
    #13
  14. 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-PR-software_developers.asp

    http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?artid=38661523






    Regards,

    Ioannis Vranos
     
    Ioannis Vranos, Jul 9, 2004
    #14
  15. David Eng

    Jeff Flinn Guest

    "Ioannis Vranos" <> wrote in message
    news:ccmc41$71o$...
    > 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-PR-software_developers.asp
    >
    >

    http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?artid=38661523
    >


    Jeff F
     
    Jeff Flinn, Jul 9, 2004
    #15
  16. 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, Jul 9, 2004
    #16
  17. 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
     
    Ioannis Vranos, Jul 9, 2004
    #17
  18. David Eng

    P.J. Plauger Guest

    "David Eng" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > "P.J. Plauger" <> wrote in message

    news:<ZldHc.30420$>...
    > >
    > > 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, Jul 9, 2004
    #18
  19. David Eng

    JKop Guest

    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
     
    JKop, Jul 9, 2004
    #19
  20. David Eng

    David Eng Guest

    "P.J. Plauger" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:fAHc.34751$...

    > 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.
     
    David Eng, Jul 9, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. David Abrahams

    ANSI/ISO C++ committee website moved

    David Abrahams, May 12, 2004, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    361
    David Abrahams
    May 12, 2004
  2. lovecreatesbeauty
    Replies:
    52
    Views:
    941
  3. Lighter
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    362
    Ian Collins
    Jul 6, 2006
  4. Lighter
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    513
    Michael Taylor
    Jul 6, 2006
  5. Rui Maciel
    Replies:
    37
    Views:
    365
    Alf P. Steinbach
    Jan 10, 2014
Loading...

Share This Page