Purchasing The Standard

Discussion in 'C++' started by DaKoadMunky, Jun 22, 2004.

  1. DaKoadMunky

    DaKoadMunky Guest

    After having fancied myself a C++ programmer for the last nine years I figured
    it was about time that I actually obtain a copy of the standard rather than
    relying on other sources that claim to accurately represent the standard. Even
    the best intentioned author or newsgroup poster is capable of inaccurately
    representing the standard.

    I followed the FAQ link to http://www.techstreet.com/ and searched for 14882 as
    suggested.

    That brought up the following page...

    http://www.techstreet.com/cgi-bin/new_results?searchText=14882&searchType=
    docno&newSearch=1&sort=rel&submit.x=15&submit.y=16

    Aside from the format in which they are distributed, can anyone tell me the
    difference between the various items presented? I am confused about which one
    would be the most accurate source of information.

    What is the difference between ISO/IEC 14882:2003 and INCITS/ISO/IEC 14882:2003
    ?

    The former can only be purchased as a softcover book for $325. The latter can
    be purchased as a PDF document for $18. My broke and unemployed self likes the
    latter much better, but I want to be aware of what I won't be getting if I
    order it.

    Furthermore, how long will it be until the current standard is superceded? If
    it is only six-months to a year maybe I should wait. And what about all the
    TC's and TR's. Are those freely available or must they also be purchased?

    Any insight would be appreciated.

    Regards,
    Brian F. Seaberg

    P.S. I am also thinking about getting TCPPLSE. If I could only buy either the
    standard document or the Stroustrup book, which would most recommended? On the
    one hand the standard is probably pretty dry reading, but it is authoritative
    and I want to know the whole truth. On the other hand the Stroustrup book
    probably discusses not only the elements of the language but the best practices
    associated with those language elements which may be more appropriate for
    someone who isn't going to be writing compilers and tools. I want to know the
    language very well, but I can't say I want to be a language lawyer. I would
    rather know how to effectively use a subset of the language rather than know
    the language inside and out but not know how to apply it effectively.
    DaKoadMunky, Jun 22, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. DaKoadMunky wrote:

    > After having fancied myself a C++ programmer for the last nine years I figured
    > it was about time that I actually obtain a copy of the standard rather than
    > relying on other sources that claim to accurately represent the standard. Even
    > the best intentioned author or newsgroup poster is capable of inaccurately
    > representing the standard.
    >
    > I followed the FAQ link to http://www.techstreet.com/ and searched for 14882 as
    > suggested.
    >
    > That brought up the following page...
    >
    > http://www.techstreet.com/cgi-bin/new_results?searchText=14882&searchType=
    > docno&newSearch=1&sort=rel&submit.x=15&submit.y=16
    >
    > Aside from the format in which they are distributed, can anyone tell me the
    > difference between the various items presented? I am confused about which one
    > would be the most accurate source of information.
    >
    > What is the difference between ISO/IEC 14882:2003 and INCITS/ISO/IEC 14882:2003
    > ?
    >
    > The former can only be purchased as a softcover book for $325. The latter can
    > be purchased as a PDF document for $18. My broke and unemployed self likes the
    > latter much better, but I want to be aware of what I won't be getting if I
    > order it.




    They are the same.





    >
    > Furthermore, how long will it be until the current standard is superceded? If
    > it is only six-months to a year maybe I should wait.




    Years.


    > And what about all the
    > TC's and TR's. Are those freely available or must they also be purchased?




    The 14882:2003 is the latest official ISO C++ standard (which contains
    fixes of 14882:1998, so it is the 14882:1998 bug-fixed :) ).




    > P.S. I am also thinking about getting TCPPLSE. If I could only buy either the
    > standard document or the Stroustrup book, which would most recommended?




    The *book* of course. The standard is intended for the compiler
    implementers and if you decide to pursue a career as a language lawyer
    in here. :)




    > On the
    > one hand the standard is probably pretty dry reading, but it is authoritative
    > and I want to know the whole truth. On the other hand the Stroustrup book
    > probably discusses not only the elements of the language but the best practices
    > associated with those language elements which may be more appropriate for
    > someone who isn't going to be writing compilers and tools. I want to know the
    > language very well, but I can't say I want to be a language lawyer. I would
    > rather know how to effectively use a subset of the language rather than know
    > the language inside and out but not know how to apply it effectively.



    The book no question. The book will make you not only a better C++
    programmer but a better programmer too. It provides much insight.






    Regards,

    Ioannis Vranos
    Ioannis Vranos, Jun 22, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "DaKoadMunky" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > What is the difference between ISO/IEC 14882:2003 and INCITS/ISO/IEC

    14882:2003
    > ?
    >
    > The former can only be purchased as a softcover book for $325. The latter

    can
    > be purchased as a PDF document for $18. My broke and unemployed self

    likes the
    > latter much better, but I want to be aware of what I won't be getting if I
    > order it.


    You can buy the same text, albeit with a different page layout, as a Wiley
    book for between $55 and $65, depending on where you look. The book is
    called "The C++ Standard", and its ISBN is 0-470-84674-7.
    Andrew Koenig, Jun 22, 2004
    #3
  4. DaKoadMunky

    JKop Guest

    DaKoadMunky posted:

    > After having fancied myself a C++ programmer for the last nine years I
    > figured it was about time that I actually obtain a copy of the standard
    > rather than relying on other sources that claim to accurately represent
    > the standard. Even the best intentioned author or newsgroup poster is
    > capable of inaccurately representing the standard.
    >
    > I followed the FAQ link to http://www.techstreet.com/ and searched for
    > 14882 as suggested.
    >
    > That brought up the following page...
    >
    > http://www.techstreet.com/cgi-bin/new_results?searchText=14882&searchTyp
    > e= docno&newSearch=1&sort=rel&submit.x=15&submit.y=16
    >
    > Aside from the format in which they are distributed, can anyone tell me
    > the difference between the various items presented? I am confused
    > about which one would be the most accurate source of information.
    >
    > What is the difference between ISO/IEC 14882:2003 and INCITS/ISO/IEC
    > 14882:2003 ?
    >
    > The former can only be purchased as a softcover book for $325. The
    > latter can be purchased as a PDF document for $18. My broke and
    > unemployed self likes the latter much better, but I want to be aware of
    > what I won't be getting if I order it.
    >
    > Furthermore, how long will it be until the current standard is
    > superceded? If it is only six-months to a year maybe I should wait.
    > And what about all the TC's and TR's. Are those freely available or
    > must they also be purchased?
    >
    > Any insight would be appreciated.
    >
    > Regards,
    > Brian F. Seaberg
    >
    > P.S. I am also thinking about getting TCPPLSE. If I could only buy
    > either the standard document or the Stroustrup book, which would most
    > recommended? On the one hand the standard is probably pretty dry
    > reading, but it is authoritative and I want to know the whole truth.
    > On the other hand the Stroustrup book probably discusses not only the
    > elements of the language but the best practices associated with those
    > language elements which may be more appropriate for someone who isn't
    > going to be writing compilers and tools. I want to know the language
    > very well, but I can't say I want to be a language lawyer. I would
    > rather know how to effectively use a subset of the language rather than
    > know the language inside and out but not know how to apply it
    > effectively.


    I have the Standard from 1998. If you want it I'll email it to you. Just
    remember to muddle your email address a little, eg.




    Anyone here got the latest Standard and would offer to email it to me?
    Sharing is caring.


    -JKop
    JKop, Jun 22, 2004
    #4
  5. DaKoadMunky

    dumboo Guest

    hi i would be really gratefull if u can email me the standard aswell,

    vasudev + sharma + 1 + at + hot + mail + .com
    dumboo, Jun 22, 2004
    #5
  6. DaKoadMunky

    Pete C. Guest

    JKop wrote:
    <snip>
    >
    > I have the Standard from 1998. If you want it I'll email it to you.
    > Just remember to muddle your email address a little, eg.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Anyone here got the latest Standard and would offer to email it to me?
    > Sharing is caring.


    Absolutly not. Aside from the fact that that would be a blatent copyright
    violation, the PDFs are watermarked with your purchase info to prevent such
    abhorrant things.

    - Pete

    >
    >
    > -JKop
    Pete C., Jun 22, 2004
    #6
  7. DaKoadMunky

    Julie Guest

    "Pete C." wrote:
    >
    > JKop wrote:
    > <snip>
    > >
    > > I have the Standard from 1998. If you want it I'll email it to you.
    > > Just remember to muddle your email address a little, eg.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Anyone here got the latest Standard and would offer to email it to me?
    > > Sharing is caring.

    >
    > Absolutly not. Aside from the fact that that would be a blatent copyright
    > violation, the PDFs are watermarked with your purchase info to prevent such
    > abhorrant things.
    >
    > - Pete
    >
    > >
    > >
    > > -JKop


    Is the PDF protected against printing and/or text-select-copy?
    Julie, Jun 22, 2004
    #7
  8. DaKoadMunky

    karen Guest

    "JKop" <> wrote in message
    news:31_Bc.2886$...
    > Pete C. posted:
    >
    > > JKop wrote:
    > ><snip>
    > >>
    > >> I have the Standard from 1998. If you want it I'll email it to you.
    > >> Just remember to muddle your email address a little, eg.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> Anyone here got the latest Standard and would offer to email it to me?
    > >> Sharing is caring.

    > >
    > > Absolutly not. Aside from the fact that that would be a blatent
    > > copyright violation, the PDFs are watermarked with your purchase info
    > > to prevent such abhorrant things.
    > >
    > > - Pete
    > >
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> -JKop

    > >
    > >
    > >

    >
    > In my day, when you bought something, it was yours. You could set it on
    > fire, throw it off a cliff, give it to a friend, or eat it.
    >
    > -JKop


    And, if you treat it like a book, you can only lend it to one person at a
    time, and you can't use it while it is lent out. You were going to follow
    that at least, right? Copying the book and handing copies out to all your
    friends was always illegal, even if you did buy it.

    -karen
    karen, Jun 22, 2004
    #8
  9. DaKoadMunky

    JKop Guest

    Pete C. posted:

    > JKop wrote:
    ><snip>
    >>
    >> I have the Standard from 1998. If you want it I'll email it to you.
    >> Just remember to muddle your email address a little, eg.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Anyone here got the latest Standard and would offer to email it to me?
    >> Sharing is caring.

    >
    > Absolutly not. Aside from the fact that that would be a blatent
    > copyright violation, the PDFs are watermarked with your purchase info
    > to prevent such abhorrant things.
    >
    > - Pete
    >
    >>
    >>
    >> -JKop

    >
    >
    >


    In my day, when you bought something, it was yours. You could set it on
    fire, throw it off a cliff, give it to a friend, or eat it.

    -JKop
    JKop, Jun 22, 2004
    #9
  10. DaKoadMunky

    JKop Guest

    dumboo posted:

    > hi i would be really gratefull if u can email me the standard aswell,
    >
    > vasudev + sharma + 1 + at + hot + mail + .com
    >
    >


    The 1998 version?


    -JKop
    JKop, Jun 22, 2004
    #10
  11. DaKoadMunky

    JKop Guest

    karen posted:

    > And, if you treat it like a book, you can only lend it to one person at
    > a time, and you can't use it while it is lent out. You were going to
    > follow that at least, right? Copying the book and handing copies out
    > to all your friends was always illegal, even if you did buy it.
    >
    > -karen


    I don't care.

    -JKop
    JKop, Jun 22, 2004
    #11
  12. karen wrote:
    [...]
    > And, if you treat it like a book, you can only lend it to one person at a
    > time, and you can't use it while it is lent out. You were going to follow
    > that at least, right?


    http://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/dmca_executive.html

    <quote>

    The first sale doctrine is primarily a limitation on the copyright
    owner's exclusive right of distribution. It does not limit the
    exclusive right of reproduction. While disposition of a work
    downloaded to a floppy disk would only implicate the distribution
    right, the transmission of a work from one person to another over
    the Internet results in a reproduction on the recipient's computer,
    even if the sender subsequently deletes the original copy of the
    work. This activity therefore entails an exercise of an exclusive
    right that is not covered by section 109.

    Proponents of expansion of the scope of section 109 to include the
    transmission and deletion of a digital file argue that this
    activity is essentially identical to the transfer of a physical
    copy and that the similarities outweigh the differences. While it
    is true that there are similarities, we find the analogy to the
    physical world to be flawed and unconvincing.

    </quote>

    In the totally perverse view of Red Hat, Inc. ("digital first
    sale" almost completely nullifies the GPL), Time Warner, Inc.,
    etc., teleportation

    http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation

    would be illigal.

    regards,
    alexander.
    Alexander Terekhov, Jun 22, 2004
    #12
  13. DaKoadMunky

    JKop Guest

    Alexander Terekhov posted:

    ><quote>
    >
    > The first sale doctrine is primarily a limitation on the copyright
    > owner's exclusive right of distribution. It does not limit the
    > exclusive right of reproduction. While disposition of a work
    > downloaded to a floppy disk would only implicate the distribution
    > right, the transmission of a work from one person to another over
    > the Internet results in a reproduction on the recipient's computer,
    > even if the sender subsequently deletes the original copy of the
    > work. This activity therefore entails an exercise of an exclusive
    > right that is not covered by section 109.
    >
    > Proponents of expansion of the scope of section 109 to include the
    > transmission and deletion of a digital file argue that this
    > activity is essentially identical to the transfer of a physical
    > copy and that the similarities outweigh the differences. While it
    > is true that there are similarities, we find the analogy to the
    > physical world to be flawed and unconvincing.
    >
    ></quote>


    So let's go out to international waters with a laptop, copy it onto a
    floppy, and come back.

    -JKop
    JKop, Jun 22, 2004
    #13
  14. JKop wrote:
    [...]
    > So let's go out to international waters with a laptop, copy it onto a
    > floppy, and come back.


    Yeah.

    < quotes from dmca/sec-104-report-vol-<2|3>.pdf >

    Red Hat, Inc.:

    Let me just clarify that I don't think anyone today intends to
    impact our licensing practices. I haven't seen anything in the
    comments, nor have I heard anything today that makes me think
    someone does have that intention. What we're concerned about
    are unintended consequences of any amendments to Section 109.
    The primary difference between digital and nondigital products
    with respect to Section 109 is that the former are frequently
    licensed. ... product is also available for free downloaded
    from the Internet without the printed documentation, without
    the box, and without the installation service. Many open source
    and free software products also embody the concept of copyleft.
    ... We are asking that amendments not be recommended that would
    jeopardize the ability of open source and free software
    licensor to require [blah blah]

    Time Warner, Inc.:

    We note that the initial downloading of a copy, from an
    authorized source to a purchaser's computer, can result in
    lawful ownership of a copy stored in a tangible medium.

    Library Associations:

    First, as conceded by Time Warner, digital transmissions can
    result in the fixation of a tangible copy. By intentionally
    engaging in digital transmissions with the awareness that a
    tangible copy is made on the recipient's computer, copyright
    owners are indeed transferring ownership of a copy of the work
    to lawful recipients. Second, the position advanced by Time
    Warner and the Copyright Industry Organizations is premised
    on a formalistic reading of a particular codification of the
    first sale doctrine. When technological change renders the
    literal meaning of a statutory provision ambiguous, that
    provision "must be construed in light of its basic purpose"
    and "should not be so narrowly construed as to permit evasion
    because of changing habits due to new inventions and
    discoveries." Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S.
    151, 156-158 (1975). The basic purpose of the first sale
    doctrine is to facilitate the continued flow of property
    throughout society.

    regards,
    alexander.
    Alexander Terekhov, Jun 22, 2004
    #14
  15. DaKoadMunky

    Alan Johnson Guest

    Julie wrote:
    > "Pete C." wrote:
    >
    >>JKop wrote:
    >><snip>
    >>
    >>>I have the Standard from 1998. If you want it I'll email it to you.
    >>>Just remember to muddle your email address a little, eg.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Anyone here got the latest Standard and would offer to email it to me?
    >>>Sharing is caring.

    >>
    >>Absolutly not. Aside from the fact that that would be a blatent copyright
    >>violation, the PDFs are watermarked with your purchase info to prevent such
    >>abhorrant things.
    >>
    >>- Pete
    >>
    >>
    >>>
    >>>-JKop

    >
    >
    > Is the PDF protected against printing and/or text-select-copy?


    INCITS/ISO/IEC 14882:2003 is not. I can't comment on other versions.

    Alan
    Alan Johnson, Jun 22, 2004
    #15
  16. DaKoadMunky

    dumboo Guest

    > The 1998 version?

    yeah at,
    vthe2 + @ + yahoo +.com
    dumboo, Jun 23, 2004
    #16
  17. DaKoadMunky

    Mats Weber Guest

    I think the standard should be available for free in electronic form, as
    is the case for the Ada standard, which is an ISO standard just as C++
    is. If it can be done for Ada, why can it not be done for C++ ?

    $65, or $18 payable by credit card for a download, puts it out of reach
    for schools in many poor countries.
    Mats Weber, Jun 23, 2004
    #17
  18. Mats Weber wrote:
    >
    > I think the standard should be available for free in electronic form, as
    > is the case for the Ada standard, which is an ISO standard just as C++


    Or something like http://www.unix.org/version3/iso_std.html would also
    work nicely. C#/CLI is also free in spite of ISO label.

    > is. If it can be done for Ada, why can it not be done for C++ ?


    Lack of independent from ISO standard development, I guess.

    http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9foo2o$

    regards,
    alexander.
    Alexander Terekhov, Jun 23, 2004
    #18
  19. DaKoadMunky

    JKop Guest

    Mats Weber posted:

    > I think the standard should be available for free in electronic form, as
    > is the case for the Ada standard, which is an ISO standard just as C++
    > is. If it can be done for Ada, why can it not be done for C++ ?
    >
    > $65, or $18 payable by credit card for a download, puts it out of reach
    > for schools in many poor countries.


    And I think that's a disgrace. Sure I'm even in a 1st World country and I'm
    not about to fork over $18 for the thing.

    Some-one please email it to me at:

    jkop + @ + eircom.net


    -JKop
    JKop, Jun 23, 2004
    #19
  20. DaKoadMunky

    JKop Guest

    Mats Weber posted:

    > I think the standard should be available for free in electronic form, as
    > is the case for the Ada standard, which is an ISO standard just as C++
    > is. If it can be done for Ada, why can it not be done for C++ ?
    >
    > $65, or $18 payable by credit card for a download, puts it out of reach
    > for schools in many poor countries.


    If you've got the latest Standard, I'd be grateful if you could please email
    it to me at:

    JKop + @ + eircom + . + net


    -JKop
    JKop, Jun 23, 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. Danno
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    547
    Darryl L. Pierce
    Apr 26, 2006
  2. steve.leach

    How standard is the standard library?

    steve.leach, Apr 18, 2005, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    370
    Christos TZOTZIOY Georgiou
    Apr 18, 2005
  3. funkyj
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,106
    funkyj
    Jan 20, 2006
  4. arnuld

    purchasing C FAQs book is a good idea ?

    arnuld, Mar 8, 2007, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    442
    Default User
    Mar 9, 2007
  5. JJ
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    99
Loading...

Share This Page