Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="assaarpa, post: 1510812"] All of this is secondary, though: the restrictions that, you feel, make In that case I am not very impressed by the language or the library. I think the definition of "working fine" is what what we don't agree on. Your definition is that if it is supposed to work, but doesn't, everything is fine. Mine is the opinion that when I write portable code, I expect it to work on all weathers and doesn't rely on horoscope. You ARE right: the environment is bent. But in the real world developers job is to write applications for Windows, we must take this reality into consideration when we say that code is reusable and portable. This is general programming vs. c++ pedantism ("if it is correct according to the standard it is portable" -- while the reality doesn't agree with that assesment at all! Since this is comp.lang.c++, it is easier to Yield to the Ivory Tower idealistic view of the world, even if the reality disagrees. In practical level, however, I will NEVER write code that is correct ONLY according to the Standard document but also I know myself that it works on all of the platforms I am compiling the sourcecode FOR -- THAT is conflict with your view of what is correct and what is not. Afteral, the goal is NOT to write software or code that works in THEORY on all platforms, but fails on platforms we NEED it to work. Yet you suggest that I don't "grasp" what you are saying, no, you are wrong at all levels. I do, unfortunately, it would be easier to be ignorant of the whole issue but not very professional. Thank you. [/QUOTE]

Verification