Boost logo

Boost :

From: mwa_at_[hidden]
Date: 2000-08-22 11:42:57

I strongly disagree with this. There are not many 'excellent alternatives'
if you are building applications for Windows 2000, using COM/ATL/WTL. The
Intel Compiler is just as broken as the MS one, but in different ways, as
is the Borland compiler. I've looked at KAI and the last version of the
MetroWerks toolset, but they are also wanting in platform support.

I would prefer to use any number of other platforms for particular jobs -
but the reality is that I have to support Windows at the expense of
everything else, and the safest way to do that is to use MS software.

I have replaced my standard library with the latest Dinkumware tools, and
boost offers a valuable set of extensions to that. If I were to lose those,
I would be sorely disappointed. If they were included in a future version
of the standard, then there would have to be a MS platform implementation
for the standard to be anything other than pie-in-the-sky. 'The real world'
has always been a major consideration for the standards committee (as I
understand it). Otherwise, we'd have a whole host of changes that would
have broken existing code-bases. It is sensible and desirable that the
standard might offer to take a step up from the existing base, but to leave
it behind entirely could be construed as foolhardy.

Furthermore, MS long-term plans are to achieve full ISO compliance. I
guess they will reach compliance in about the same time-frame as Borland,
MetroWerks, GCC et al. The specific route they take to get there may be
different, however.

It is also worth bearing in mind that the MS VisualStudio platform has been
somewhat in flux over the past two years, as they have tried to flesh out
the strategy which became .NET - tying together solutions to many problems,
including the biggies:moving to 64-bit and addressing internet
technologies, without breaking everybody's legacy code. I suspect we will
see more regular releases in the future (like we did in the past), as those
plans stabilize, and they can assess the take-up on C# and managed C++.

Matthew Adams

Development Manager
Digital Healthcare Ltd
Unit 204
Cambridge Science Park
Milton Road
Tel: +44 (0)1223 437407
|        |          "Greg Colvin"|
|        |          <greg_at_colvin.|
|        |          org>         |
|        |                       |
|        |          22/08/2000   |
|        |          16:30        |
|        |          Please       |
|        |          respond to   |
|        |          boost        |
|        |                       |
  |                                                                                                                                             |
  |       To:     <boost_at_[hidden]>                                                                                                           |
  |       cc:                                                                                                                                   |
  |       Subject:     Re: [boost] VC++ 7.0 Challenge                                                                                           |
From: "Beman Dawes" <beman_at_[hidden]>
> I've had an email exchange with a MS VC++ product manager, who confirms
> that they have no plans to improve ISO compliance in 7.0.  So any
> improvements are several years away at best.
If Microsoft refuses to conform to ISO C++ then I strongly recommend
that people stop using their compiler.  There are some excellent
alternatives available.
I also suggest we pick a not-too-distant date to phase out 6.0
support in Boost, and not even try to support 7.0.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at