Re: [boost] Re: BGL example compile failure under VC++

From: Greg Colvin (gcolvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-10-06 10:01:53

From: William Kempf <sirwillard_at_[hidden]>
> --- In boost_at_[hidden], "David Abrahams" <abrahams_at_m...> wrote:
> > From: <jsiek_at_l...>
> > 
> > > P.S. I think VC++ should be used as a prime example in the Justice
> > >   Dept. case against Microsoft. How else (other than monopolistic
> > >   pressure) could such a bad product also be the most popular?
> > 
> > Maybe because idiots like us keep finding ways to coerce it into doing our
> > bidding?

Yep.

> > is-it-better-to-shoot-the-nag-or-call-the-vet-again-ly y'rs,

Or call the vet to put the poor creaure down gently?

> > dave
> 
> Actually, at one point in time, VC++ was one of the best C++ 
> compilers available, especially on the Windows platforms.  So they 
> locked in a lot of businesses which are slow to switch "standard" 
> tools for numerous psychological and economic reasons.
> 
> So, they didn't get a lock because of a monopoly, they got the lock 
> because they were the best.  This may have lead to a monopoly, 
> however, and is certainly a factor in their deplorable stance of slow 
> adoption of the standard.

Actually, the Borland compiler was a much superior product.  The real
winner was the Microsoft Foundation Classes, which encapsulated the
horrors of the Windows API just well enough that shops that couldn't
handle Windows programming in C but were too proud to use Basic moved
to C++.  Borland had a competing product called OWL, and Microsoft
refused to license MFC to Borland unless Borland dropped support for
OWL.  Borland refused to do that to their customers.  Eventually
Borland got an MFC license via a third party but by then it was too
late.