Who's who ?


Ad

Advertisements

J

James Kanze

Both the C++ commitee and Boost satisfy most of these bullet points..

Really. I'm having a hard time finding any of the bulleted
points that the C++ committee satisfies. (I don't know Boost as
well, but I can't see many there.)
except for the tour bus perhaps ...;-)
Whos sponsors them ?

The C++ committee is organized under ISO, and doesn't have any
sponsors. (That's one of the reasons why standards were so
expensive for so long.)

Neither the C++ committee nor Boost do any advertising, which is
where most of the money in a front organization goes.

I'd say that associating the C++ committee or Boost with front
organizations (as presented on the page you cite) is little more
than slander.
 
J

James Kanze

On 9/14/2010 6:38 AM, kwikius wrote:
C++ Committee is probably sponsored by "member organizations"
(see ISO or ANSI).

The ISO C++ committee is made up of "national bodies", and only
national bodies. Each national body has its own policies; the
largest (at least in the C++ committee) is ANSI, where anyone
can become a member, just by paying the membership fees (which
are the same for every company). To vote, you do have to attend
the meeting, and the committee doesn't pay for that. (The
meetings are "sponsered", but the cost isn't excessive for that,
either. Sun and Microsoft have been sponsers, but so have
companies like Plum Hall, Dinkumware, and even the non-profit
ACCU.)
Individual persons in addition are often sponsored by their
respective companies.

Most corporate members do have employees spending a certain
amount of corporate time on committee work, and do pay travel
expenses for these people to go to the meetings. Still, I've
known a number of people who participate on a personal level,
paying everything out of their own pocket.
 
K

kwikius

Really.  I'm having a hard time finding any of the bulleted
points that the C++ committee satisfies.  (I don't know Boost as
well, but I can't see many there.)


The C++ committee is organized under ISO, and doesn't have any
sponsors.  (That's one of the reasons why standards were so
expensive for so long.)

Neither the C++ committee nor Boost do any advertising, which is
where most of the money in a front organization goes.

I'd say that associating the C++ committee or Boost with front
organizations (as presented on the page you cite) is little more
than slander.

Roughly how much per year does it cost to be a member of the commitee?

As a commitee member, can you legally be paid on commitee business or
get expenses paid by your employer?

Most places seem to be taken by employees of quite well off companies.
Is there a connection ?

regards
Andy Little
 
J

James Kanze

Roughly how much per year does it cost to be a member of the commitee?

It depends on your national body. (Formally, only national
bodies are members; you are a member of a national body.) AFNOR
costs nothing. ANSI is (or was) well under $1000.
As a commitee member, can you legally be paid on commitee
business or get expenses paid by your employer?

That's up to your employer. If the employer is a member,
however, it generally does allow you to do committee work on
company time, and it may pay your travel expenses for meetings.
Most places seem to be taken by employees of quite well off
companies.

Really? That's news to me. Some well off companies do
participate, but some of the most significant work has been done
by companies like EDG or Dinkumware. Hardly monsters.
Universities also provide some contribution (Texas A&M, for
example). whether the university is a member, or the professors
are members individually.
Is there a connection ?

A connection between what? (There's no connection between your
conspiracy theory and reality.)
 
Ad

Advertisements

J

James Kanze

On 2010-09-14 12:13:51 -0400, kwikius said:

[...]
If the intended implication is that big companies somehow subvert the
C++ standards committee so that they can promote their own agendas,
that's simply false. For example, Microsoft really, really, really
wanted resumable exceptions back in the 90s, but didn't get them.

It's probably worth pointing out that within ANSI, each member
has a single vote. And that if your employer is a member, you
cannot be a member as an individual (which prevents large
companies from "stuffing" the ballot box). The result is that
you probably have more impact as an individual member than as an
employee of a large company. (But a lot depends on the
individual. Herb Sutter obviously has a lot of influence. But
because of the books he wrote, not because he works for
Microsoft.)

It's also worth pointing out that writing a proposal, even
a small one, takes time and effort. The companies or people who
are willing to invest that effort obviously have more influence
than those that don't. And while some of the companies willing
to make the effort are large, others, like EDG, Dinkumware or
Roundhouse Consulting are very small.
 
G

Gennaro Prota

On 2010-09-14 12:13:51 -0400, kwikius said:
[...]
If the intended implication is that big companies somehow subvert the
C++ standards committee so that they can promote their own agendas,
that's simply false. For example, Microsoft really, really, really
wanted resumable exceptions back in the 90s, but didn't get them.

It's probably worth pointing out that within ANSI, each member
has a single vote. And that if your employer is a member, you
cannot be a member as an individual (which prevents large
companies from "stuffing" the ballot box). The result is that
you probably have more impact as an individual member than as an
employee of a large company. (But a lot depends on the
individual. Herb Sutter obviously has a lot of influence. But
because of the books he wrote, not because he works for
Microsoft.)

Well, he is very capable but if the reason why he is "followed"
is that he wrote books... (I don't think that's the case, but if
you really noticed that then I guess there's a lot of members
who just shouldn't be there).
It's also worth pointing out that writing a proposal, even
a small one, takes time and effort. The companies or people who
are willing to invest that effort obviously have more influence
than those that don't. And while some of the companies willing
to make the effort are large, others, like EDG, Dinkumware or
Roundhouse Consulting are very small.

My impression is also that they are a very closed group.

I've suggested =auto, in the past, for asking the compiler to
generate a default constructor etc.; the "response" was that
overloading the meaning of a keyword is confusing (as if C and
C++ cared about these sorts of things). The solution, now, is to
use =default (which is a poorer choice in this regard) and auto
is overloaded anyway, with another (useful, fortunately)
meaning. A similar opposition existed for 0p (null pointer
literal), etc. etc. etc.

About user-defined literals, just to pick another example, have
you seen how much trouble they've got into with the
specification (overload set, variadic templates...)? That's all
time that could have been spent on useful things (not to talk of
the time that will be spent on related DRs). Unless it is useful
to put "cool" stuff in a language, to attract users.

"Standardizing" such things without existing practice is
irresponsible, IMHO. A lot of the new things in C++0x are
"creative", at best. The fun part is that if someone from
outside proposes something of that kind then the "no previous
existing practice", "no proven usefulness" etc. excuses
immediately pop out. To translate an Italian way of saying: "Do
as we say, not as we do".

In the end, I don't know what kind of weird mechanisms take
place in the committee, if it's "influence" of some people or
what, but the result is strange. Really strange.
 
J

James Kanze

On 2010-09-14 12:13:51 -0400, kwikius said:
[...]
If the intended implication is that big companies somehow subvert the
C++ standards committee so that they can promote their own agendas,
that's simply false. For example, Microsoft really, really, really
wanted resumable exceptions back in the 90s, but didn't get them.
It's probably worth pointing out that within ANSI, each member
has a single vote. And that if your employer is a member, you
cannot be a member as an individual (which prevents large
companies from "stuffing" the ballot box). The result is that
you probably have more impact as an individual member than as an
employee of a large company. (But a lot depends on the
individual. Herb Sutter obviously has a lot of influence. But
because of the books he wrote, not because he works for
Microsoft.)
Well, he is very capable but if the reason why he is "followed"
is that he wrote books...

Not just that he wrote books, but because of the books he wrote.
(Schildt also wrote a lot of books, but his influence, even if
he tried to exercise it, wouldn't be the same.)
(I don't think that's the case, but if you really noticed that
then I guess there's a lot of members who just shouldn't be
there).

I've not noticed it, at least not at the meetings I've attended.
My impression is also that they are a very closed group.

The committee is open to anyone who chooses to participate.
I've suggested =auto, in the past, for asking the compiler to
generate a default constructor etc.; the "response" was that
overloading the meaning of a keyword is confusing (as if C and
C++ cared about these sorts of things). The solution, now, is to
use =default (which is a poorer choice in this regard) and auto
is overloaded anyway, with another (useful, fortunately)
meaning. A similar opposition existed for 0p (null pointer
literal), etc. etc. etc.

Do you have the document number of your proposal(s)? The
committee does need something concrete before they can discuss
it.
About user-defined literals, just to pick another example, have
you seen how much trouble they've got into with the
specification (overload set, variadic templates...)? That's all
time that could have been spent on useful things (not to talk of
the time that will be spent on related DRs). Unless it is useful
to put "cool" stuff in a language, to attract users.

So you disagree with some of the decisions. I do to. But that
doesn't mean that the committee isn't open. Just the opposite,
practically.
"Standardizing" such things without existing practice is
irresponsible, IMHO.

That was a problem in the past (pre C++98). The committee
sometimes seems to go to the opposite extreme today.
A lot of the new things in C++0x are
"creative", at best. The fun part is that if someone from
outside proposes something of that kind then the "no previous
existing practice", "no proven usefulness" etc. excuses
immediately pop out. To translate an Italian way of saying: "Do
as we say, not as we do".
In the end, I don't know what kind of weird mechanisms take
place in the committee, if it's "influence" of some people or
what, but the result is strange. Really strange.

It's a committee. A fairly large one. And consensus building
sometimes does result in things that seem strange when viewed
from a single, restricted point of view.
 
G

Gennaro Prota

On 2010-09-14 12:13:51 -0400, kwikius said:
[...]
If the intended implication is that big companies somehow subvert the
C++ standards committee so that they can promote their own agendas,
that's simply false. For example, Microsoft really, really, really
wanted resumable exceptions back in the 90s, but didn't get them.
It's probably worth pointing out that within ANSI, each member
has a single vote. And that if your employer is a member, you
cannot be a member as an individual (which prevents large
companies from "stuffing" the ballot box). The result is that
you probably have more impact as an individual member than as an
employee of a large company. (But a lot depends on the
individual. Herb Sutter obviously has a lot of influence. But
because of the books he wrote, not because he works for
Microsoft.)
Well, he is very capable but if the reason why he is "followed"
is that he wrote books...

Not just that he wrote books, but because of the books he wrote.
(Schildt also wrote a lot of books, but his influence, even if
he tried to exercise it, wouldn't be the same.)

Ah, the kind of books, you meant (their quality). Not sure if
your sentence was really ambiguous or my bad English stroke
again.

[...]
Do you have the document number of your proposal(s)?

No. It was several years ago, when I had just started with C++,
and it must have been on one of the newsgroups. At the time, the
replies from people who were in the committee discouraged me and
I didn't make any proposal (note that I put "response" in
quotes, above). But that's bad, because --as I've had a chance
to see later-- it might have gone on anyway.

A similar issue concerned a keyword to denote null pointers. It
seemed that you were a fool just because you were proposing to
add one (hence the 0p tradeoff I mentioned earlier). But now we
have nullptr. Really? Did we say it's a bad thing to add
keywords? :) (Not to talk of consistency, spelling out names in
full --such as null_pointer-- etc. But then, don't we have
showmanyc(), epptr() and all that?). So, you see: do as we say,
not as we do.
So you disagree with some of the decisions. I do to. But that
doesn't mean that the committee isn't open. Just the opposite,
practically.


That was a problem in the past (pre C++98). The committee
sometimes seems to go to the opposite extreme today.

I haven't noticed.
It's a committee. A fairly large one.

Except that, when it's convenient, they'll say that they can't
work on this or that because they are a "small group", lacking
massive resources.

In the end, I think they just standardize what they like/get
enough interest in.
And consensus building
sometimes does result in things that seem strange when viewed
from a single, restricted point of view.

In what way you find my point of view "restricted"?
 
J

James Kanze

On 15/09/2010 10.49, James Kanze wrote:
On 2010-09-14 12:13:51 -0400, kwikius said:
[...]
If the intended implication is that big companies somehow subvert the
C++ standards committee so that they can promote their own agendas,
that's simply false. For example, Microsoft really, really, really
wanted resumable exceptions back in the 90s, but didn't get them.
It's probably worth pointing out that within ANSI, each member
has a single vote. And that if your employer is a member, you
cannot be a member as an individual (which prevents large
companies from "stuffing" the ballot box). The result is that
you probably have more impact as an individual member than as an
employee of a large company. (But a lot depends on the
individual. Herb Sutter obviously has a lot of influence. But
because of the books he wrote, not because he works for
Microsoft.)
Well, he is very capable but if the reason why he is "followed"
is that he wrote books...
Not just that he wrote books, but because of the books he wrote.
(Schildt also wrote a lot of books, but his influence, even if
he tried to exercise it, wouldn't be the same.)
Ah, the kind of books, you meant (their quality). Not sure if
your sentence was really ambiguous or my bad English stroke
again.

I wouldn't call it bad English: it's a subtle issue. But
"because of the books he wrote" is not the same thing as
"because he has written (many) books". It's the quality of the
books which makes him respected, not the fact that he's written
many.

Wouldn't Italian have the same distinction: "a causa dei libri
che ha scritto", rather than "perche ha scritto libri". (Not
sure: my Italian isn't that good. Although if I think about it,
the French is somewhat more ambiguous than the English. And the
English isn't totally unambiguous: "because of the quality of
the books he wrote" would be much clearer.)
[...]
Do you have the document number of your proposal(s)?
No. It was several years ago, when I had just started with C++,
and it must have been on one of the newsgroups. At the time, the
replies from people who were in the committee discouraged me and
I didn't make any proposal (note that I put "response" in
quotes, above). But that's bad, because --as I've had a chance
to see later-- it might have gone on anyway.

So someone criticized the proposal in a newsgroup, and you
consider that a rejection by the committee. That's not the way
it works, and the most influential members of the committee
rarely post or comment here.
A similar issue concerned a keyword to denote null pointers. It
seemed that you were a fool just because you were proposing to
add one (hence the 0p tradeoff I mentioned earlier). But now we
have nullptr. Really? Did we say it's a bad thing to add
keywords? :) (Not to talk of consistency, spelling out names in
full --such as null_pointer-- etc. But then, don't we have
showmanyc(), epptr() and all that?). So, you see: do as we say,
not as we do.

The problem was more or less officially recognized in the
response to a proposal I made for C++98. The committee's
response at the time was that my proposal didn't go far enough
(it was a halfway measure), that it was too late to consider
a more complete proposal (which was true at the time, which was
why I only made a halfway proposal), and that the issue should
be addressed in a future version.

In other words, the committee had more or less decided that
nullptr (or something similar) would be present in the future.
(Note that it took several revisions to get nullptr working.
It's far from trivial.)
I haven't noticed.

You've not been to many of the meetings, and heard the
discussions. I don't think that there's anything in the draft
that wasn't actually implemented first.
Except that, when it's convenient, they'll say that they can't
work on this or that because they are a "small group", lacking
massive resources.

:). There are a lot of members of the committee. They all can
vote (if they attend the meetings). But each member works as
much or as little as he wants on it, and there are very, very
few people who are willing (or able) to invest a large amount of
work. It's a curious situation: the large number can (and
sometimes does) prevent useful additions, but it doesn't help
advance anything, even if they're in favor of it. Regardless of
what people want, until there's a concrete proposal, addressing
all of the issues, the committee really can't act on it.
In the end, I think they just standardize what they like/get
enough interest in.

Obviously. Those who do the work get to choose what they do
(since it's all volentary). The need for something like nullptr
was recognized as far back as 1995, but it wasn't until much
later that someone was actually willing (or able) to do the
work.
In what way you find my point of view "restricted"?

It's *your* point of view. A consensus cannot be the view of
a single person.
 
Ad

Advertisements

K

kwikius

It's probably worth pointing out that within ANSI, each member
has a single vote.  And that if your employer is a member, you
cannot be a member as an individual (which prevents large
companies from "stuffing" the ballot box).  The result is that
you probably have more impact as an individual member than as an
employee of a large company.  (But a lot depends on the
individual.  Herb Sutter obviously has a lot of influence.  But
because of the books he wrote, not because he works for
Microsoft.)

In the case of Herb Sutter.. his use to Microsoft is obvious. His
position on commitee adds him authenticity.. From his homepage..

http://www.gotw.ca/

He's clearly selling concurrency FUD ... though you have to read the
small print to see his sponsor.. Mr Sutter is quite the salesman i
believe..

Oh... We're all in the grip of the concurrent revolution
apparently...yes Mrs user.. You must upgrade to our next more power
hungry monolithic hardware ..heck you must even even stick 32 in the
box side by side to use your new printer...

Etcetera...

There are other views of course...

http://www.kmfms.com/whatsbad.html
http://blog.jimmyr.com/WTF_Microsoft_Office_2007_Bloat_25_2008.php

Unfortunately rest of commitee are stuck way too far up reference
manuals or grovelling for contracts ...

Sad so much energy being wasted in wrong direction due to self
interests of a few

regards
Andy Little
 
K

kwikius

[...]  A consensus cannot be the view of
a single person.

As with many of your other points ( many contradictory just in this
thread) this is clearly logically wrong.

Lets take a statement..

"The earth is flat"

can be "consensus" of C++ commitee AND "view of a single person"...

But... dont worry about these many inconsistencies.. You probably are
well at home with like minds in C++ commitee..

regards
Andy Little
 
Ö

Öö Tiib

In the case of Herb Sutter.. his use to Microsoft is obvious. His
position on commitee adds him authenticity..  From his homepage..

http://www.gotw.ca/

He's clearly selling concurrency FUD ... though you have to read the
small print to see his sponsor.. Mr Sutter is quite the salesman i
believe..

Oh... We're all in the grip of the concurrent revolution
apparently...yes Mrs user.. You must upgrade to our next more power
hungry monolithic hardware ..heck you must even even stick 32 in the
box side by side to use your new printer...

What the FUD you are talking about? Lets take some ordinary desktop PC
specs? Processor has 2 cores, GPU has 48 cores. 50 cores. So about
concurrency we are there already. It happened not because of MS pushed
something. We are there because of FPS (firstpersonshooter) players
demanded more FPS (framespersecond).

Bashing MS indicates something. If you were smart you could hand-pick
cheaply a formidable Linux box. If you were clueless but rich then you
could buy a Mac, Apple has done the job of handpicking but sells it at
triple price. Windows is for average not smart AND not rich, it runs
on all the rest of trash. Since such morons prevail, MS is so wealthy,
no other reasons there.

Again mostly irrelevant nonsense. Most Windows boxes used for working
have 7 years old Windows version on them XP, 32 bits. Open Office runs
fine and is free. But most powergamers who constantly upgrade do not
need that Office 2007 anyway.
Unfortunately rest of commitee are stuck way too far up reference
manuals or grovelling for contracts ...

Sad so much energy being wasted in wrong direction due to  self
interests of a few

Can you say what is your interest and what is the right direction? Are
you simply wasting our time? If you do not like C++ then take
something else that you like (for example Python) and use it. If you
like C++ but do not like concurrency then develop for Android for
example. It is some sort of Linux there, and the multithreading in it
is weak.
 
K

kwikius

On 16 sept, 22:26, kwikius <[email protected]> wrote:
Can you say what is your interest and what is the right direction?

No . I dont do free consultancies. I used to here on comp.lang.c++.

Since then I realised ( as I think Gennaro Prota has found ) that a
lot of people in commitee and Boost are scumbags..

See chrono header for example. The genesis of that work( use of
rational numbers to implement units and type deduction in
expressions ) is my quan library

http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/quan.

One of the authors of chrono and moderators of boost Mr Garland
previously actively censored my words on Boost.org. He therefore knew
me and my work on quan. All other of chrono were active on boost.org
where around 20004 to 7 my quan library was frequently discussed. They
knew my work. The review of my lib was managed by a friend of someone
high in boost hierarchy who stepped up from nowhere despite never
having posted. AFAIK. Result was not in doubt i think! The work was
innovative and I had to fight to justify during a lot of my own time.
Much of work was subsequently poached by boost.units authors who gave
link to my work in an early draft but was then removed.. then one of
them stated they had never looked at my work in depth. later as I have
demonstrated earlier on comp.lang.c++. went very quiet when I showed
post where he admitted looking at my work in depth.

So **** em boost and commitee. I wouldnt trust any as far as I could
throw em!

regards
Andy Little
 
J

James Kanze

In the case of Herb Sutter.. his use to Microsoft is obvious. His
position on commitee adds him authenticity.. From his homepage..

He's clearly selling concurrency FUD ... though you have to read the
small print to see his sponsor.. Mr Sutter is quite the salesman i
believe..
Oh... We're all in the grip of the concurrent revolution
apparently...yes Mrs user.. You must upgrade to our next more power
hungry monolithic hardware ..heck you must even even stick 32 in the
box side by side to use your new printer...

From the above, it's obvious that you've not read (or at least
not understood) what he's written.

Much depends on your application, but if current processor speed
isn't sufficient for your application (it's not for some of the
things we're doing), additional speed only comes through
concurrency.

[...]
Sad so much energy being wasted in wrong direction due to self
interests of a few

Whereas you want everyone to be working strictly for your
interests.
 
Ad

Advertisements

J

Jeff Flinn

kwikius said:
No . I dont do free consultancies. I used to here on comp.lang.c++.

Since then I realised ( as I think Gennaro Prota has found ) that a
lot of people in commitee and Boost are scumbags..

See chrono header for example. The genesis of that work( use of
rational numbers to implement units and type deduction in
expressions ) is my quan library

http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/quan.

One of the authors of chrono and moderators of boost Mr Garland
previously actively censored my words on Boost.org. He therefore knew
me and my work on quan. All other of chrono were active on boost.org
where around 20004 to 7 my quan library was frequently discussed. They
knew my work. The review of my lib was managed by a friend of someone
high in boost hierarchy who stepped up from nowhere despite never
having posted. AFAIK. Result was not in doubt i think! The work was
innovative and I had to fight to justify during a lot of my own time.
Much of work was subsequently poached by boost.units authors who gave
link to my work in an early draft but was then removed.. then one of
them stated they had never looked at my work in depth. later as I have
demonstrated earlier on comp.lang.c++. went very quiet when I showed
post where he admitted looking at my work in depth.

That's not at all how I remember the exchanges on the boost mailing
lists at that time. As an outside observer I found your replies overly
argumentative, and disdainful of reviewer's constructive criticisms.
So **** em boost and commitee. I wouldnt trust any as far as I could
throw em!

Sadly, your loss.

Jeff
 
V

Vladimir Jovic

James said:
From the above, it's obvious that you've not read (or at least
not understood) what he's written.

Much depends on your application, but if current processor speed
isn't sufficient for your application (it's not for some of the
things we're doing), additional speed only comes through
concurrency.

How? Got any link or explanation to backup that claim?
 
M

Michael Doubez

[...]  A consensus cannot be the view of
a single person.

As with many of your other points ( many contradictory just in this
thread) this is clearly logically wrong.

Lets take a statement..

"The earth is flat"

can be "consensus" of C++ commitee AND "view of a single person"...

If there is a logic here, I don't see it. You seem to mix object and
subject.

By definition a consensus is a view reached by a group as a whole. How
could you reach an consensus between you and yourself ?
(even with a bad case of schizophrenia)

[snip]
 
Ad

Advertisements

Ö

Öö Tiib

How? Got any link or explanation to backup that claim?

How else? Current science does not let to overclock the processor
easily to 6 GHz (if 3.3 or what you got is not sufficient). Therefore
what remains is to add processors/cores. You can not exploit the
processing power of system with multiple cores however without
concurrency. Or can you? If you need a link then google for "high
performance computing" or something.
 
Ad

Advertisements


Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top