exported templates in icpc

Discussion in 'C++' started by ciccio, Jan 7, 2008.

  1. ciccio

    ciccio Guest

    Hi all,

    The intel c++ compiler supports exported templates but I was wondering a
    bit about their used syntax. If I compare the syntax written in
    strostroup's book then there is a difference. So I was wondering if the
    following syntax proposed by intel is correct.

    Thanks a lot


    // file1.cpp
    #include <stdio.h>
    static void trace() { printf("File 1\n"); }
    export template<class T> T const& min(T const&, T const&);
    int main() {
    trace();
    return min(2, 3);
    }
    // file2.cpp
    #include <stdio.h>
    static void trace() { printf("File 2\n"); }
    export template<class T> T const& min(T const &a, T const &b) {
    trace();
    return a<b? a: b;
    }
     
    ciccio, Jan 7, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. ciccio

    Salt_Peter Guest

    On Jan 7, 5:11 am, ciccio <> wrote:
    > Hi all,
    >
    > The intel c++ compiler supports exported templates but I was wondering a
    > bit about their used syntax. If I compare the syntax written in
    > strostroup's book then there is a difference. So I was wondering if the
    > following syntax proposed by intel is correct.
    >
    > Thanks a lot
    >
    > // file1.cpp
    > #include <stdio.h>
    > static void trace() { printf("File 1\n"); }
    > export template<class T> T const& min(T const&, T const&);
    > int main() {
    > trace();
    > return min(2, 3);}
    >
    > // file2.cpp
    > #include <stdio.h>
    > static void trace() { printf("File 2\n"); }
    > export template<class T> T const& min(T const &a, T const &b) {
    > trace();
    > return a<b? a: b;
    >
    > }



    Did you check with Intel first?
    This newsgroup doesn't cover specific compilers.
    [OT]
    The syntax looks correct, you do need the -export/-export_dir options.
    [/OT]
     
    Salt_Peter, Jan 7, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. ciccio

    ciccio Guest

    Salt_Peter wrote:
    > On Jan 7, 5:11 am, ciccio <> wrote:
    >> Hi all,
    >>
    >> The intel c++ compiler supports exported templates but I was wondering a
    >> bit about their used syntax. If I compare the syntax written in
    >> strostroup's book then there is a difference. So I was wondering if the
    >> following syntax proposed by intel is correct.
    >>
    >> Thanks a lot
    >>
    >> // file1.cpp
    >> #include <stdio.h>
    >> static void trace() { printf("File 1\n"); }
    >> export template<class T> T const& min(T const&, T const&);
    >> int main() {
    >> trace();
    >> return min(2, 3);}
    >>
    >> // file2.cpp
    >> #include <stdio.h>
    >> static void trace() { printf("File 2\n"); }
    >> export template<class T> T const& min(T const &a, T const &b) {
    >> trace();
    >> return a<b? a: b;
    >>
    >> }

    >
    >
    > Did you check with Intel first?
    > This newsgroup doesn't cover specific compilers.
    > [OT]
    > The syntax looks correct, you do need the -export/-export_dir options.
    > [/OT]


    Yes I am aware of that, but according to strostroup there should not be
    an export in file1.cpp. So the question was, is the syntax correct?
    Hence, it belongs in this news group ;-)
     
    ciccio, Jan 7, 2008
    #3
  4. ciccio

    James Kanze Guest

    On Jan 7, 1:33 pm, ciccio <> wrote:
    > Salt_Peter wrote:
    > > On Jan 7, 5:11 am, ciccio <> wrote:


    > >> The intel c++ compiler supports exported templates but I
    > >> was wondering a bit about their used syntax. If I compare
    > >> the syntax written in strostroup's book then there is a
    > >> difference. So I was wondering if the following syntax
    > >> proposed by intel is correct.


    > >> Thanks a lot

    >
    > >> // file1.cpp
    > >> #include <stdio.h>
    > >> static void trace() { printf("File 1\n"); }
    > >> export template<class T> T const& min(T const&, T const&);
    > >> int main() {
    > >> trace();
    > >> return min(2, 3);}

    >
    > >> // file2.cpp
    > >> #include <stdio.h>
    > >> static void trace() { printf("File 2\n"); }
    > >> export template<class T> T const& min(T const &a, T const &b) {
    > >> trace();
    > >> return a<b? a: b;

    >
    > >> }

    >
    > > Did you check with Intel first?
    > > This newsgroup doesn't cover specific compilers.
    > > [OT]
    > > The syntax looks correct, you do need the -export/-export_dir options.
    > > [/OT]


    > Yes I am aware of that, but according to strostroup there
    > should not be an export in file1.cpp. So the question was, is
    > the syntax correct? Hence, it belongs in this news group ;-)


    I seem to recall that the wording finally adopted into the
    standard didn't actually correspond to the intent. I think the
    code you show corresponds to the intent---it seems logical,
    anyway. Stroustrup probably wrote his book before having an
    actual implementation at hand, and based himself soley on the
    text in the standard.

    Your code is conform with the latest draft. What Stroustrup
    seems to be saying corresponds to the text in C++98 (which says
    that "A template shall be exported only once in a program", and
    that the definition must be exported).

    --
    James Kanze (GABI Software) mailto:
    Conseils en informatique orient�e objet/
    Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
    9 place S�mard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'�cole, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34
     
    James Kanze, Jan 7, 2008
    #4
  5. ciccio

    Salt_Peter Guest

    On Jan 7, 7:33 am, ciccio <> wrote:
    > Salt_Peter wrote:
    > > On Jan 7, 5:11 am, ciccio <> wrote:
    > >> Hi all,

    >
    > >> The intel c++ compiler supports exported templates but I was wondering a
    > >> bit about their used syntax. If I compare the syntax written in
    > >> strostroup's book then there is a difference. So I was wondering if the
    > >> following syntax proposed by intel is correct.

    >
    > >> Thanks a lot

    >
    > >> // file1.cpp
    > >> #include <stdio.h>
    > >> static void trace() { printf("File 1\n"); }
    > >> export template<class T> T const& min(T const&, T const&);
    > >> int main() {
    > >> trace();
    > >> return min(2, 3);}

    >
    > >> // file2.cpp
    > >> #include <stdio.h>
    > >> static void trace() { printf("File 2\n"); }
    > >> export template<class T> T const& min(T const &a, T const &b) {
    > >> trace();
    > >> return a<b? a: b;

    >
    > >> }

    >
    > > Did you check with Intel first?
    > > This newsgroup doesn't cover specific compilers.
    > > [OT]
    > > The syntax looks correct, you do need the -export/-export_dir options.
    > > [/OT]

    >
    > Yes I am aware of that, but according to strostroup there should not be
    > an export in file1.cpp. So the question was, is the syntax correct?
    > Hence, it belongs in this news group ;-)



    standard says:
    An exported template need only be declared (not neccessarily defined)
    in a translation unit in which it is instantiated.
    ....
    An *implementation* may require that a translation unit containing the
    definition of an exported template be compiled before any translation
    unit containing an instantiation of that template.

    And mostly because of that last sentence, you want to check with Intel
    first.
     
    Salt_Peter, Jan 7, 2008
    #5
  6. ciccio

    James Kanze Guest

    On Jan 7, 7:06 pm, Salt_Peter <> wrote:
    > On Jan 7, 7:33 am, ciccio <> wrote:
    > > Salt_Peter wrote:
    > > > On Jan 7, 5:11 am, ciccio <> wrote:


    [...]
    > standard says:


    In this case, you'll have to say which version. C++98 said one
    thing, C++03 says another. In this case, what was actually
    written in C++98 wasn't what the authors intended to say (and
    described something that doesn't really make sense, and probably
    isn't implementable). The wording was corrected in C++03.

    > An exported template need only be declared (not neccessarily defined)
    > in a translation unit in which it is instantiated.
    > ...
    > An *implementation* may require that a translation unit containing the
    > definition of an exported template be compiled before any translation
    > unit containing an instantiation of that template.


    None of that addresses the original posters question: where do
    you put the keyword "export". Basically C++98 said that it
    should appear on at most one declaration in program, and that
    that declaration must be in the translation unit where the
    template is defined. Which means that you don't use "export" in
    a header---and that the compiler doesn't know whether a template
    is exported or not when it instantiates it. C++03 basically
    says that a template must be declared "export" in every
    translation unit in which it might be instantiated.

    > And mostly because of that last sentence, you want to check
    > with Intel first.


    That last sentence is nothing but bla-bla, and doesn't mean
    anything. The standard doesn't address the mechanics of how you
    invoke the compiler, and a compiler is perfectly free to require
    all of the source code to be available when compiling. (Quality
    of implementation, of course, makes additional requirements.)
    Basically, anytime you move to a new development environment,
    you have to start by carefully reading the documentation, to
    find out which options you want, but also any restrictions on
    file organisation (particularly when templates are used).

    --
    James Kanze (GABI Software) email:
    Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
    Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
    9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34
     
    James Kanze, Jan 8, 2008
    #6
  7. ciccio

    ciccio Guest

    James Kanze wrote:
    > On Jan 7, 7:06 pm, Salt_Peter <> wrote:
    >> On Jan 7, 7:33 am, ciccio <> wrote:
    >>> Salt_Peter wrote:
    >>>> On Jan 7, 5:11 am, ciccio <> wrote:

    >
    > [...]
    >> standard says:

    >
    > In this case, you'll have to say which version. C++98 said one
    > thing, C++03 says another. In this case, what was actually
    > written in C++98 wasn't what the authors intended to say (and
    > described something that doesn't really make sense, and probably
    > isn't implementable). The wording was corrected in C++03.


    Is there a place where I can get my hands on these standards?

    > --
    > James Kanze (GABI Software) email:
    > Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
    > Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
    > 9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34
     
    ciccio, Jan 8, 2008
    #7
  8. ciccio

    jalina Guest

    ciccio a écrit :
    > James Kanze wrote:
    >> On Jan 7, 7:06 pm, Salt_Peter <> wrote:
    >>> On Jan 7, 7:33 am, ciccio <> wrote:
    >>>> Salt_Peter wrote:
    >>>>> On Jan 7, 5:11 am, ciccio <> wrote:

    >> [...]
    >>> standard says:

    >> In this case, you'll have to say which version. C++98 said one
    >> thing, C++03 says another. In this case, what was actually
    >> written in C++98 wasn't what the authors intended to say (and
    >> described something that doesn't really make sense, and probably
    >> isn't implementable). The wording was corrected in C++03.

    >
    > Is there a place where I can get my hands on these standards?


    I think that if you want the C/C++ standard (any version) you have to
    pay (unlike many other languages including C# and Java). C++ is not a
    community friendly language.

    I wonder gcc is GPL so how do the guys working on g++ handle this ? Just
    wondering......

    >
    >> --
    >> James Kanze (GABI Software) email:
    >> Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
    >> Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
    >> 9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34
     
    jalina, Jan 8, 2008
    #8
  9. On Jan 8, 10:11 am, jalina <> wrote:
    >
    > I think that if you want the C/C++ standard (any version) you have to
    > pay (unlike many other languages including C# and Java). C++ is not a
    > community friendly language.
    >


    Has it occurred to you that perhaps the reason one has to pay for the
    C++ standard is that a lot of very clever people put a lot of hard
    work into producing it without a single mega-corporation bankrolling
    them, unlike the case with C# and Java (although the term "standard"
    is AFAIK inapplicable to Java)?
    Many people consider the absence of aforementioned controlling
    mega-corporation a point in favour of C++.
     
    tragomaskhalos, Jan 8, 2008
    #9
  10. ciccio

    jalina Guest

    tragomaskhalos a écrit :
    > On Jan 8, 10:11 am, jalina <> wrote:
    >> I think that if you want the C/C++ standard (any version) you have to
    >> pay (unlike many other languages including C# and Java). C++ is not a
    >> community friendly language.
    >>

    >
    > Has it occurred to you that perhaps the reason one has to pay for the
    > C++ standard is that a lot of very clever people put a lot of hard
    > work into producing it without a single mega-corporation bankrolling
    > them, unlike the case with C# and Java


    Yes you are right, not one, but many. Most of people working on the
    standard are from large companies - AT&T, Sun Microsystems, IBM, HP, TI,
    Microsoft, Apple, Siemens, Intel, Motorola, Data General, Merrill Lynch,
    Boeing.... And I doubt that they work during their free time on the
    standard.

    For me it means that C++ standard is not made by individuals but by
    companies.

    (although the term "standard"
    > is AFAIK inapplicable to Java)?


    In my mind, standard does not mean it has been approved by one or
    another organization (backup by one or another company)

    Java failed to be approved by any organization for political reasons,
    nevertheless the specification is a standard de facto (and can be
    downloaded freely at http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls)

    > Many people consider the absence of aforementioned controlling
    > mega-corporation a point in favour of C++.
    >
     
    jalina, Jan 8, 2008
    #10
  11. On 2008-01-08 11:11, jalina wrote:
    > ciccio a écrit :
    >> James Kanze wrote:
    >>> On Jan 7, 7:06 pm, Salt_Peter <> wrote:
    >>>> On Jan 7, 7:33 am, ciccio <> wrote:
    >>>>> Salt_Peter wrote:
    >>>>>> On Jan 7, 5:11 am, ciccio <> wrote:
    >>> [...]
    >>>> standard says:
    >>> In this case, you'll have to say which version. C++98 said one
    >>> thing, C++03 says another. In this case, what was actually
    >>> written in C++98 wasn't what the authors intended to say (and
    >>> described something that doesn't really make sense, and probably
    >>> isn't implementable). The wording was corrected in C++03.

    >>
    >> Is there a place where I can get my hands on these standards?

    >
    > I think that if you want the C/C++ standard (any version) you have to
    > pay (unlike many other languages including C# and Java). C++ is not a
    > community friendly language.
    >
    > I wonder gcc is GPL so how do the guys working on g++ handle this ? Just
    > wondering......


    Perhaps they buy a copy of the standard. I do not see what gcc being GPL
    have anything to to with it.

    BTW: Please do not quote signatures (that means you too ciccio).

    --
    Erik Wikström
     
    Erik Wikström, Jan 8, 2008
    #11
  12. On 2008-01-08 10:44, ciccio wrote:
    > James Kanze wrote:
    >> On Jan 7, 7:06 pm, Salt_Peter <> wrote:
    >>> On Jan 7, 7:33 am, ciccio <> wrote:
    >>>> Salt_Peter wrote:
    >>>>> On Jan 7, 5:11 am, ciccio <> wrote:

    >>
    >> [...]
    >>> standard says:

    >>
    >> In this case, you'll have to say which version. C++98 said one
    >> thing, C++03 says another. In this case, what was actually
    >> written in C++98 wasn't what the authors intended to say (and
    >> described something that doesn't really make sense, and probably
    >> isn't implementable). The wording was corrected in C++03.

    >
    > Is there a place where I can get my hands on these standards?


    You can buy them from iso.org, but I think it is cheaper to buy the ANSI
    versions (they are ANSI standards too). Or you can get a draft of them
    that lies as close in time as possible to the date they were
    standardised (from http://www.open-std.org). You can also check with any
    local standardisation organisations.

    --
    Erik Wikström
     
    Erik Wikström, Jan 8, 2008
    #12
  13. ciccio

    Pete Becker Guest

    On 2008-01-08 08:02:05 -0500, jalina <> said:

    >
    > Yes you are right, not one, but many. Most of people working on the
    > standard are from large companies - AT&T, Sun Microsystems, IBM, HP,
    > TI, Microsoft, Apple, Siemens, Intel, Motorola, Data General, Merrill
    > Lynch, Boeing.... And I doubt that they work during their free time on
    > the standard.
    >
    > For me it means that C++ standard is not made by individuals but by companies.
    >
    > (although the term "standard"
    >> is AFAIK inapplicable to Java)?

    >
    > In my mind, standard does not mean it has been approved by one or
    > another organization (backup by one or another company)
    >
    > Java failed to be approved by any organization for political reasons,
    > nevertheless the specification is a standard de facto (and can be
    > downloaded freely at http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls)
    >


    Fascinating. You don't like the C++ standard because it's "not made by
    individuals but by companies", but you like the Java standard which was
    made by (gasp!) a company!

    The "political reasons" that Java has not been standardized by any of
    the traditional standards organizations is that Sun refused to allow it.

    --
    Pete
    Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. (www.versatilecoding.com) Author of "The
    Standard C++ Library Extensions: a Tutorial and Reference
    (www.petebecker.com/tr1book)
     
    Pete Becker, Jan 8, 2008
    #13
  14. ciccio

    red floyd Guest

    Erik Wikström wrote:
    > On 2008-01-08 10:44, ciccio wrote:
    >> James Kanze wrote:
    >>> On Jan 7, 7:06 pm, Salt_Peter <> wrote:
    >>>> On Jan 7, 7:33 am, ciccio <> wrote:
    >>>>> Salt_Peter wrote:
    >>>>>> On Jan 7, 5:11 am, ciccio <> wrote:
    >>> [...]
    >>>> standard says:
    >>> In this case, you'll have to say which version. C++98 said one
    >>> thing, C++03 says another. In this case, what was actually
    >>> written in C++98 wasn't what the authors intended to say (and
    >>> described something that doesn't really make sense, and probably
    >>> isn't implementable). The wording was corrected in C++03.

    >> Is there a place where I can get my hands on these standards?

    >
    > You can buy them from iso.org, but I think it is cheaper to buy the ANSI
    > versions (they are ANSI standards too). Or you can get a draft of them
    > that lies as close in time as possible to the date they were
    > standardised (from http://www.open-std.org). You can also check with any
    > local standardisation organisations.
    >


    The Dead Tree BSI version is about $65 from Amazon/BN.

    http://www.amazon.com/obidos/dp/0470846747
    http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ISBN=0470846747
     
    red floyd, Jan 8, 2008
    #14
  15. ciccio

    James Kanze Guest

    On Jan 8, 6:28 pm, Erik Wikström <> wrote:
    > On 2008-01-08 11:11, jalina wrote:
    > > ciccio a écrit :
    > >> James Kanze wrote:
    > >>> On Jan 7, 7:06 pm, Salt_Peter <> wrote:
    > >>>> On Jan 7, 7:33 am, ciccio <> wrote:
    > >>>>> Salt_Peter wrote:
    > >>>>>> On Jan 7, 5:11 am, ciccio <> wrote:
    > >>> [...]
    > >>>> standard says:
    > >>> In this case, you'll have to say which version. C++98 said one
    > >>> thing, C++03 says another. In this case, what was actually
    > >>> written in C++98 wasn't what the authors intended to say (and
    > >>> described something that doesn't really make sense, and probably
    > >>> isn't implementable). The wording was corrected in C++03.


    > >> Is there a place where I can get my hands on these standards?


    > > I think that if you want the C/C++ standard (any version)
    > > you have to pay (unlike many other languages including C#
    > > and Java). C++ is not a community friendly language.


    > > I wonder gcc is GPL so how do the guys working on g++ handle
    > > this ? Just wondering......


    > Perhaps they buy a copy of the standard.


    They might. It's certainly not expensive today. (It used to
    be. I paid well over $100 for my copy of the C90 standard.) On
    the other hand, people actually working on the standard
    (accredited "technical experts" of the national bodies of ISO)
    have access to the internal documents, which includes the
    standard, and I suspect that most of the people working on g++
    are also "technical experts" somewhere, or are connected with
    the standard body in some way or another, and have access to the
    internal documents as well.

    FWIW: the money from the sale of the standard goes to ISO and
    the national bodies, and is used to support the organizations.
    The actual standard is written by volenteer effort. But
    organizations do need money to operate as well, and IMHO, ISO
    plays an important role in preventing any one organization from
    "hijacking" the standard. Sun, for example, wanted to make Java
    an ISO standard until they realized that this meant that they'd
    actually have to listen to other people's opinions, rather than
    doing whatever they felt like.

    --
    James Kanze (GABI Software) email:
    Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
    Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
    9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34
     
    James Kanze, Jan 9, 2008
    #15
  16. ciccio

    jalina Guest

    Pete Becker a écrit :
    > On 2008-01-08 08:02:05 -0500, jalina <> said:
    >
    >>
    >> Yes you are right, not one, but many. Most of people working on the
    >> standard are from large companies - AT&T, Sun Microsystems, IBM, HP,
    >> TI, Microsoft, Apple, Siemens, Intel, Motorola, Data General, Merrill
    >> Lynch, Boeing.... And I doubt that they work during their free time on
    >> the standard.
    >>
    >> For me it means that C++ standard is not made by individuals but by
    >> companies.
    >>
    >> (although the term "standard"
    >>> is AFAIK inapplicable to Java)?

    >>
    >> In my mind, standard does not mean it has been approved by one or
    >> another organization (backup by one or another company)
    >>
    >> Java failed to be approved by any organization for political reasons,
    >> nevertheless the specification is a standard de facto (and can be
    >> downloaded freely at http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls)
    >>

    >
    > Fascinating. You don't like the C++ standard


    Who did say that ? Because I make some remarks concerning the C++
    standard does not mean I like it or don't like it. Please do not tell
    thinks *I* like or don't like (so if I say "I can not see the moon
    tonight" obviously I don't like the moon. Gosh)

    I talk about java because this is the other language I play with and I
    like apart from the C++.

    because it's "not made by
    > individuals but by companies", but you like the Java standard which was
    > made by (gasp!) a company!
    >
    > The "political reasons" that Java has not been standardized by any of
    > the traditional standards organizations is that Sun refused to allow it.
    >

    Sun tried to get certified the java language. See many articles (the
    first I found googling:
    http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/17419/17419.html) ant I
    remember reading a lot about it.
     
    jalina, Jan 9, 2008
    #16
  17. ciccio

    James Kanze Guest

    On Jan 8, 2:02 pm, jalina <> wrote:
    > tragomaskhalos a écrit :


    > > On Jan 8, 10:11 am, jalina <> wrote:
    > >> I think that if you want the C/C++ standard (any version) you have to
    > >> pay (unlike many other languages including C# and Java). C++ is not a
    > >> community friendly language.


    > > Has it occurred to you that perhaps the reason one has to pay for the
    > > C++ standard is that a lot of very clever people put a lot of hard
    > > work into producing it without a single mega-corporation bankrolling
    > > them, unlike the case with C# and Java


    > Yes you are right, not one, but many. Most of people working
    > on the standard are from large companies - AT&T, Sun
    > Microsystems, IBM, HP, TI, Microsoft, Apple, Siemens, Intel,
    > Motorola, Data General, Merrill Lynch, Boeing.... And I doubt
    > that they work during their free time on the standard.


    > For me it means that C++ standard is not made by individuals
    > but by companies.


    Technically, the C++ standard is "made" by the national bodies
    contributing to ISO: ANSI, BSI, AFNOR, DIN... Practically, it's
    made by a lot of individuals working together. Some are
    supported by their companies, others not. And some of the
    companies contributing the most are not monsters: you'll
    regularly find 100% of the technical staff of EDG or Dinkumware
    at a meeting. There are also people from Boost and from g++.

    > > (although the term "standard"
    > > is AFAIK inapplicable to Java)?


    > In my mind, standard does not mean it has been approved by one
    > or another organization (backup by one or another company)


    Legally, it does, at least in some countries. The important
    point here is, however, that the final decision rests in some
    independent organization: it's not a specification of what one
    particular company does, but a standard established
    independently of what one particular company might decide.

    > Java failed to be approved by any organization for political
    > reasons, nevertheless the specification is a standard de facto
    > (and can be downloaded freely
    > athttp://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls)


    It's specification, not a standard. Sun wanted it to be a
    standard, but withdrew it (at least from ISO) because to make it
    a standard, they would have to take opinions of others into
    account. (Obviously, it's not all black and white: an ECMA
    standard may involve more control by a single company than an
    ISO standard, and Sun's process for Java is more open than, say,
    that used to establish the original Windows API. But there is a
    very definite line between the final decisions being made by an
    independent organization, even with intensive collaboration from
    a company, and the final decisions being made by a single
    company, even if it does consult with other companies or
    organizations.)

    --
    James Kanze (GABI Software) email:
    Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
    Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
    9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34
     
    James Kanze, Jan 9, 2008
    #17
  18. ciccio

    Pete Becker Guest

    On 2008-01-09 06:06:29 -0500, jalina <> said:

    > Sun tried to get certified the java language. See many articles (the
    > first I found googling:
    > http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/17419/17419.html) ant I
    > remember reading a lot about it.


    Sun tried to get ISO to rubberstamp Sun's version of a Java standard.
    That's not what standards organizations do.

    Sun also started out supporting ECMA's standardization effort for Java,
    then at the first formal meeting, withdrew their support, leaving a
    dozen attendees (including me) stuck in Raleigh/Durham with nothing to
    do. (Literally stuck: eighteen inches of snow overnight, all
    transportation shut down)

    Neither of these can be accurately characterized as "failed for
    political reasons." Both were the result of Sun wanting to have the
    imprimatur of a standard but not wanting to go through a real
    standardization process.

    --
    Pete
    Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. (www.versatilecoding.com) Author of "The
    Standard C++ Library Extensions: a Tutorial and Reference
    (www.petebecker.com/tr1book)
     
    Pete Becker, Jan 9, 2008
    #18
  19. ciccio

    red floyd Guest

    Pete Becker wrote:
    > On 2008-01-09 06:06:29 -0500, jalina <> said:
    >
    >> Sun tried to get certified the java language. See many articles (the
    >> first I found googling:
    >> http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/17419/17419.html) ant I
    >> remember reading a lot about it.

    >
    > Sun tried to get ISO to rubberstamp Sun's version of a Java standard.
    > That's not what standards organizations do.


    Now if only someone would explain that to Microsoft
    (*cough*MS-OOXML*cough*).
     
    red floyd, Jan 9, 2008
    #19
  20. ciccio

    jalina Guest

    Pete Becker a écrit :
    > On 2008-01-09 06:06:29 -0500, jalina <> said:
    >
    >> Sun tried to get certified the java language. See many articles (the
    >> first I found googling:
    >> http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/17419/17419.html) ant I
    >> remember reading a lot about it.

    >
    > Sun tried to get ISO to rubberstamp Sun's version of a Java standard.
    > That's not what standards organizations do.
    >
    > Sun also started out supporting ECMA's standardization effort for Java,
    > then at the first formal meeting, withdrew their support, leaving a
    > dozen attendees (including me


    I now understand your answers to my remarks when talking about Java (he
    he, ECMA loves Microsoft)

    ) stuck in Raleigh/Durham with nothing to
    > do. (Literally stuck: eighteen inches of snow overnight, all
    > transportation shut down)
    >
    > Neither of these can be accurately characterized as "failed for
    > political reasons." Both were the result of Sun wanting to have the
    > imprimatur of a standard but not wanting to go through a real
    > standardization process.
    >

    So the policy of Sun, according to you, is not going through a real
    standardization process. I said Java was not "standardized" for
    political reasons. You just confirm my sayings, thanks (whether it is
    Sun's fault or others, I am not interested)
     
    jalina, Jan 9, 2008
    #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. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    447
  2. Jerome Lefebvre

    Some work on the ICPC problems.

    Jerome Lefebvre, Aug 21, 2003, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    374
    Jerome Lefebvre
    Aug 21, 2003
  3. Rahul

    templates being exported

    Rahul, Jan 13, 2008, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    329
    James Kanze
    Jan 13, 2008
  4. Biswajyoti Pal
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    339
    Biswajyoti Pal
    Nov 10, 2008
  5. Biswajyoti Pal
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    338
    Biswajyoti Pal
    Nov 10, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page