From: Ion Gaztañaga (igaztanaga_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-29 10:09:48
> What do you expect of library vendors that want to sell their
> implementation? There were fears that certain C++ features would make it
> less useful for embedded developers (be it memory bloat or what else) so they
> came up with EC++, which helped them sell to the embedded world.
> It was always funny to see pjp and the dinkum folks defending EC++ on
> comp.languages.c++ :)
I didn't know that EC++ was created without C++ comittee consensus, but
I think achieving a well-defined subset of C++ is good for C++. This
involves analizing performance aspects of C++ and can push C++ forward.
This happens in C and other languages. Obviously you can argue that this
is only to sell libraries, but as a embedded developer I don't see any
problem in defining a subset for embedded systems because C++ is very
extense. Obviously, it would be better to count with C++ comittee.
I didn't want to start a war regarding EC++, so I maybe I should start
talking about "embedded" instead.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk