ECMA-372 is stepping in on C++

Discussion in 'C++' started by Michael Rasmussen, Jan 20, 2006.

  1. Hi all,

    I write to you because I am concerned about the steps taken by ECMA and MS
    to substantially change the specifications for ISO-C++.

    I have receive the following post from lois goldthwaite and the UK where
    they express their concerns which I also have. Do you fellow C++
    programmers have an opinion about that?

    Read the full text from this address:
    http://www.datanom.net/c /Objection_to_Fast-track_Ballot_ECMA-372_in_JTC1_N8037.pdf

    PS. I sincerelly hope that I am not OT.

    --
    Hilsen/Regards
    Michael Rasmussen
    http://keyserver.veridis.com:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xE3E80917
     
    Michael Rasmussen, Jan 20, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Michael Rasmussen wrote:
    > I write to you because I am concerned about the steps taken by ECMA and MS
    > to substantially change the specifications for ISO-C++.


    Where in hell did you get this impression? Nothing in the proposed
    C++/CLI specification affects directly what ISO-C++ (I assume you mean
    the Standard C++ language) is.

    > I have receive the following post from lois goldthwaite and the UK where
    > they express their concerns which I also have. Do you fellow C++
    > programmers have an opinion about that?


    I don't, except to say, 'Live and let live'.

    > Read the full text from this address:
    > http://www.datanom.net/c /Objection_to_Fast-track_Ballot_ECMA-372_in_JTC1_N8037.pdf


    I just did. Thank you for the link.

    > PS. I sincerelly hope that I am not OT.


    No, you're not. Since you think (erroneously, IMO) that it somehow
    affects the Standard C++ language, your post if topical. It's a knee-
    jerk reaction, I think, but it's topical.

    V
     
    Victor Bazarov, Jan 20, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 22:53:09 +0100, Michael Rasmussen <>
    wrote:

    >Hi all,
    >
    >I write to you because I am concerned about the steps taken by ECMA and MS
    >to substantially change the specifications for ISO-C++.
    >
    >I have receive the following post from lois goldthwaite and the UK where
    >they express their concerns which I also have. Do you fellow C++
    >programmers have an opinion about that?
    >
    >Read the full text from this address:
    >http://www.datanom.net/c /Objection_to_Fast-track_Ballot_ECMA-372_in_JTC1_N8037.pdf


    I like this (closing statement):

    "This paper should not in any way be taken as suggesting that there is
    a sinister plot by Microsoft or anyone else to usurp or subvert the
    C++ Standard. (...)"

    LOL! If that's not what it is, then what is it? Once CLI is part of
    the standard, then standards-conforming compilers will have to
    implement it, whether they like it or not. Otherwise, the standard
    will fork, and I don't think anyone wants that.

    They did it to Java; they did it to XOpen/ODBC; what makes you think
    they won't (try to) do it to C++?

    >PS. I sincerelly hope that I am not OT.


    No, not as far as I can see.

    --
    Bob Hairgrove
     
    Bob Hairgrove, Jan 20, 2006
    #3
  4. On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 23:21:31 +0100, Bob Hairgrove wrote:

    >
    > LOL! If that's not what it is, then what is it? Once CLI is part of the
    > standard, then standards-conforming compilers will have to implement it,
    > whether they like it or not. Otherwise, the standard will fork, and I
    > don't think anyone wants that.

    Well, the dont what to put it into the ISO specification, they what to
    keep it as a separate standard but MS refers to the C++/CLI standard as
    C++. That is my concern!

    --
    Hilsen/Regards
    Michael Rasmussen
    http://keyserver.veridis.com:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xE3E80917
     
    Michael Rasmussen, Jan 20, 2006
    #4
  5. On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 17:14:20 -0500, Victor Bazarov wrote:

    >
    > Where in hell did you get this impression? Nothing in the proposed
    > C++/CLI specification affects directly what ISO-C++ (I assume you mean the
    > Standard C++ language) is.
    >

    No, but what upsets me is that MS refers to the C++/CLI specification as
    C++.

    There is clear evidence that this confusion is already causing a problem.
    Just take a look at the Microsoft online documentation -- start with the
    article on "New C++ Language Features" at
    http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/xey702bw.aspx, which explains
    about all the new keywords that have been added to C++ -- NOT "C++/CLI"
    or even "C++.Net". Another example is
    http://msdn.microsoft.com/visualc/default.aspx?pull=/library/en-us/dndotnet/html/NetFramework.asp,
    which has many examples showing parallel code for "C#", "Visual Basic",
    and "C++" (without qualifier). None of these examples would compile in a
    Standard C++ environment.

    --
    Hilsen/Regards
    Michael Rasmussen
    http://keyserver.veridis.com:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xE3E80917
     
    Michael Rasmussen, Jan 20, 2006
    #5
  6. Bob Hairgrove wrote:
    > On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 22:53:09 +0100, Michael Rasmussen <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Hi all,
    >>
    >>I write to you because I am concerned about the steps taken by ECMA and MS
    >>to substantially change the specifications for ISO-C++.
    >>
    >>I have receive the following post from lois goldthwaite and the UK where
    >>they express their concerns which I also have. Do you fellow C++
    >>programmers have an opinion about that?
    >>
    >>Read the full text from this address:
    >>http://www.datanom.net/c /Objection_to_Fast-track_Ballot_ECMA-372_in_JTC1_N8037.pdf

    >
    >
    > I like this (closing statement):
    >
    > "This paper should not in any way be taken as suggesting that there is
    > a sinister plot by Microsoft or anyone else to usurp or subvert the
    > C++ Standard. (...)"
    >
    > LOL! If that's not what it is, then what is it? Once CLI is part of
    > the standard,


    Who said that they are trying to make it "part of the standard" (and what
    do you mean by it)?

    > then standards-conforming compilers will have to
    > implement it, whether they like it or not. Otherwise, the standard
    > will fork, and I don't think anyone wants that.


    I think you misunderstand something here. It's not an addition or
    correction to 14882-2003, it's proposed as its own standard (although
    I am not certain whether it refers to 14882 or not). They are not trying
    to introduce CLI into the Standard C++.

    Essentially, they _are_ "forking" the language definition. Just like C++
    has part of 'C' in it (and hence carries the 'C' in its name), they are
    proposing to inherit most of the stuff from C++ and thus including those
    three letters in the name of their language.

    > They did it to Java;


    They did WHAT to Java? Has Java ever been standardized before they "did
    it" (whatever 'it' is)?

    > they did it to XOpen/ODBC; what makes you think
    > they won't (try to) do it to C++?


    Why would they? C++ has already been standardized internationally, twice.
    What would be the point for them to try "it". Please, open my eyes for
    me.

    What they are doing is trying to introduce the base for their proprietary
    stuff so that others will have more reason to develop something to provide
    spreading of their technology. It doesn't affect what C++ is or how it is
    going to continue its life. It just gives MS CLI more weight. It also
    establishes a more complicated mechanism to make any changes to it. I am
    not certain MS folks realise that. But who am I to tell them?

    Now, whether in reality people will jump on their band wagon and suddenly
    begin developing the "standard" CLI (Common Language Infrastructure) is
    yet to be seen. How many platforms does it exist on right now? Well, I
    am not asking to continue a discussion on CLI here. I am just asking to
    hold your horses a bit before accusing MS of an attack on C++ language.

    V
     
    Victor Bazarov, Jan 20, 2006
    #6
  7. Michael Rasmussen wrote:
    > On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 17:14:20 -0500, Victor Bazarov wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Where in hell did you get this impression? Nothing in the proposed
    >>C++/CLI specification affects directly what ISO-C++ (I assume you mean the
    >>Standard C++ language) is.
    >>

    >
    > No, but what upsets me is that MS refers to the C++/CLI specification as
    > C++.
    >
    > There is clear evidence that this confusion is already causing a problem.
    > Just take a look at the Microsoft online documentation -- start with the
    > article on "New C++ Language Features" at
    > http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/xey702bw.aspx, which explains
    > about all the new keywords that have been added to C++ -- NOT "C++/CLI"
    > or even "C++.Net". Another example is
    > http://msdn.microsoft.com/visualc/default.aspx?pull=/library/en-us/dndotnet/html/NetFramework.asp,
    > which has many examples showing parallel code for "C#", "Visual Basic",
    > and "C++" (without qualifier). None of these examples would compile in a
    > Standard C++ environment.
    >


    I think MS opponents should be _happy_ about all those things. MS f***ed
    up once again! As much as they might try to diminish the language, they
    most likely won't be able to, if the language is strong and continues to
    develop and improve, independently of what _other_ languages pop up here
    and there. It all depends on the market. As soon as they gain support,
    just because the number of programmers in the world is a constant, the
    fewer will do _real_ C++. But that's market. There are no absolute
    things here. Even if they rename it and call it F++, people will follow
    if they see profit in it. And that means fewer will continue working in
    C++. It's inevitable.

    Now, if you're afraid that's what's going to happen, I cannot help you.
    Nobody can. Fear of change is incurable.

    V
     
    Victor Bazarov, Jan 20, 2006
    #7
  8. Michael Rasmussen

    Shark Guest

    Michael Rasmussen wrote:
    > No, but what upsets me is that MS refers to the C++/CLI specification as
    > C++.
    >
    > There is clear evidence that this confusion is already causing a problem.
    > Just take a look at the Microsoft online documentation -- start with the
    > article on "New C++ Language Features" at
    > http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/xey702bw.aspx, which explains
    > about all the new keywords that have been added to C++ -- NOT "C++/CLI"
    > or even "C++.Net". Another example is
    >


    I think this explains why many people post to this group asking
    questions about Visual Studio windows programming/dlls/mfc etc. You
    have a good point, imho......
     
    Shark, Jan 21, 2006
    #8
  9. Michael Rasmussen

    P.J. Plauger Guest

    "Shark" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > Michael Rasmussen wrote:
    >> No, but what upsets me is that MS refers to the C++/CLI specification as
    >> C++.
    >>
    >> There is clear evidence that this confusion is already causing a problem.
    >> Just take a look at the Microsoft online documentation -- start with the
    >> article on "New C++ Language Features" at
    >> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/xey702bw.aspx, which explains
    >> about all the new keywords that have been added to C++ -- NOT "C++/CLI"
    >> or even "C++.Net". Another example is
    >>

    >
    > I think this explains why many people post to this group asking
    > questions about Visual Studio windows programming/dlls/mfc etc. You
    > have a good point, imho......


    Uh, no. There is, perforce, in every programmer's career a time when
    s/he knows only one implementation of a programming language (the
    first one encountered, of course). It is *extremely* hard to tease
    apart that which is specific to an implementation from that which is
    portable across most/all systems. Quite a few programmers never get
    beyond this point, simply because they don't have to. So this ng
    gets naive questions about system-specific issues. They give the
    kinder folk a chance to provide some basic education, and the Off
    Topic Police yet another opportunity to be rude.

    It has *always* been that way, folks. Whether the dominant vendor in
    some enclave was IBM, DEC, AT&T, or whatever, the leading brand at
    the time looked to many like the One True Implementation. And that
    dominant vendor is more concerned with making happy customers than
    explaining on a daily basis which bits are easily moved to a
    competitor's platform and which are helpful additions supplied by
    Yours Truly. You can accuse them of indifference, sloppiness, or
    the evil crime of Vendor Lockin, but the forces at work are natural
    and practically inevitable.

    Today, Microsoft rules the roost with upwards of a billion
    programmable machines as a potential marketplace and a cadre of
    millions of programmers -- of varying abilities -- eager to pursue
    that marketplace. What is actually unique this time around is that
    Microsoft has made a concerted effort to make C++/CLI play well
    with Standard C++. Even further, Microsoft has made a point of
    ceding at least nominal control of their new dialect to a standards
    organization.

    So if the folks at the Evil Empire don't always distinguish their
    innovations from the vanilla stuff, what the heck. At least they're
    innovating.

    P.J. Plauger
    Dinkumware, Ltd.
    http://www.dinkumware.com
     
    P.J. Plauger, Jan 21, 2006
    #9
  10. Michael Rasmussen

    Bo Persson Guest

    "Michael Rasmussen" <> skrev i meddelandet
    news:p...
    > On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 23:21:31 +0100, Bob Hairgrove wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> LOL! If that's not what it is, then what is it? Once CLI is part of
    >> the
    >> standard, then standards-conforming compilers will have to
    >> implement it,
    >> whether they like it or not. Otherwise, the standard will fork, and
    >> I
    >> don't think anyone wants that.

    > Well, the dont what to put it into the ISO specification, they what
    > to
    > keep it as a separate standard


    Sure, it is not a change to The ISO C++, it is another language
    standard with the proposed name of ISO C++/CLI.

    So who's confused? :)

    >

    but MS refers to the C++/CLI standard as
    > C++. That is my concern!


    That's the problem.

    And if we get two standards, ISO C++, and ISO C++/CLI, which one is
    then the real C++?

    Why do we want two of them?


    Bo Persson
     
    Bo Persson, Jan 21, 2006
    #10
  11. Michael Rasmussen

    Chris Hills Guest

    In article <0hdAf.122$01.us.to.verio.net>, Victor
    Bazarov <> writes
    >Michael Rasmussen wrote:
    >> I write to you because I am concerned about the steps taken by ECMA and MS
    >> to substantially change the specifications for ISO-C++.

    >
    >Where in hell did you get this impression? Nothing in the proposed
    >C++/CLI specification affects directly what ISO-C++ (I assume you mean
    >the Standard C++ language) is.


    Yes it does, and it greatly effects it.

    --
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
    /\/\/ www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
     
    Chris Hills, Jan 22, 2006
    #11
  12. Michael Rasmussen

    Chris Hills Guest

    In article <>, Bob Hairgrove
    <> writes
    >On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 22:53:09 +0100, Michael Rasmussen <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>Hi all,
    >>
    >>I write to you because I am concerned about the steps taken by ECMA and MS
    >>to substantially change the specifications for ISO-C++.
    >>
    >>I have receive the following post from lois goldthwaite and the UK where
    >>they express their concerns which I also have. Do you fellow C++
    >>programmers have an opinion about that?
    >>
    >>Read the full text from this address:
    >>http://www.datanom.net/c /Objection_to_Fast-track_Ballot_ECMA-

    >372_in_JTC1_N8037.pdf
    >
    >I like this (closing statement):
    >
    >"This paper should not in any way be taken as suggesting that there is
    >a sinister plot by Microsoft or anyone else to usurp or subvert the
    >C++ Standard. (...)"
    >
    >LOL! If that's not what it is, then what is it? Once CLI is part of
    >the standard, then standards-conforming compilers will have to
    >implement it, whether they like it or not. Otherwise, the standard
    >will fork, and I don't think anyone wants that.
    >


    It has happened in C already and it will happen in C++(/CLI) The
    majority of C++ compilers in the world do not target a windows platform.


    --
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
    /\/\/ www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
     
    Chris Hills, Jan 22, 2006
    #12
  13. Michael Rasmussen

    Chris Hills Guest

    In article <>, Bo Persson <>
    writes
    >
    >"Michael Rasmussen" <> skrev i meddelandet
    >news:p...
    >> On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 23:21:31 +0100, Bob Hairgrove wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> LOL! If that's not what it is, then what is it? Once CLI is part of
    >>> the
    >>> standard, then standards-conforming compilers will have to
    >>> implement it,
    >>> whether they like it or not. Otherwise, the standard will fork, and
    >>> I
    >>> don't think anyone wants that.

    >> Well, the dont what to put it into the ISO specification, they what
    >> to
    >> keep it as a separate standard

    >
    >Sure, it is not a change to The ISO C++, it is another language
    >standard with the proposed name of ISO C++/CLI.
    >
    >So who's confused? :)


    Al the MS manuals and documentation and some new books coming out on
    C++(/CLI).

    >
    >>

    >but MS refers to the C++/CLI standard as
    >> C++. That is my concern!

    >
    >That's the problem.
    >
    >And if we get two standards, ISO C++, and ISO C++/CLI, which one is
    >then the real C++?
    >
    >Why do we want two of them?


    that is the problem. IT will by default mean that the MS platform is the
    standard and anything else is not standard...

    --
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
    /\/\/ www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
     
    Chris Hills, Jan 22, 2006
    #13
    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. PJ
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    406
  2. =?Utf-8?B?UGF1bA==?=

    page 372 dev web applications book

    =?Utf-8?B?UGF1bA==?=, Feb 10, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    337
    =?Utf-8?B?UGF1bA==?=
    Feb 10, 2004
  3. Armin Ronacher
    Replies:
    28
    Views:
    763
  4. Jonathan Fine
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    452
    Jonathan Fine
    Nov 17, 2009
  5. John Bokma
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    209
    John Bokma
    Dec 2, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page