Re: [boost] C++ announcements coming tomorrow

Subject: Re: [boost] C++ announcements coming tomorrow
From: Paul Mensonides (pmenso57_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-11-03 17:24:32

On 11/3/2012 10:26 AM, Nathan Ridge wrote:
>
>> * Microsoft has released an out-of-band community technical preview
>> (CTP) for their compiler, adding explicit conversion operators, raw
>> string literals, function template default arguments, delegating
>> constructors, uniform initialization, and variatic templates. (See
>> http://channel9.msdn.com/Series/C9-Lectures-Stephan-T-Lavavej-Core-C-/STLCCSeries6
>> for instructions on how to use the CTP). Microsoft is promising more
>> such feature releases during the first half of 2013. This is important
>> for the whole C++ community, since it means that full C++11 support is
>> becoming a reality across all widely used compilers.
>
> Shortly after this talk, Herb held a Q&A session where people had the
> opportunity to ask him questions about these announcements (can't find
> a link at the moment).
>
> Someone asked whether Microsoft intends to implement full 100% support
> for standard C++(11), and Herb answered with a resounding 'yes'.

<rant>

IMO, yet more marketing b***s***.  This has been said before, and Herb 
has long since lost my trust (and the trust of many others).  He is no 
longer a free voice.  The only person on C9 that doesn't come off as an 
MS shill is STL.

> Did anyone tell him about the problems with VC's preprocessor that come
> up on this list again and again and that prevent a powerful preprocessor
> metaprogramming library like Chaos from being usable on VC?

He's been told repeatedly.

--
Not that I'm against a "foundation" or against adding more libraries to 
the standard library, but the only things that C++ programmers need to 
produce portable code are C++ compilers that implement the standard (and 
only the standard--not a bunch of vendor-specific extensions).  As an 
example, paraphrasing, "We're proposing 'await' but if the committee 
doesn't want it we can always add it as an extension."  It is particular 
compiler vendors and their compilers that are getting in the way of 
progress.
Further, we don't need C++/CX (or whatever it is called this iteration). 
  The .Net Framework is a huge pile of typical MS bloatware, and, 
contrary to popular opinion, C# is actually *not* a good language.  It 
actively interferes with abstraction and encourages bloatware 
production.  I am so tired of hearing the "right tool for the job" 
fallacy WRT programming languages especially WRT to C# and Java.
Aside, I'm also sick of hearing the word "app" and constant attempts to 
justify turning productivity into novelty with things like big 
touchscreen monitors and statements having to do with the supposed lack 
of UI innovation--which has now led to anti-productivity UIs such as 
(vanilla) Gnome 3, Unity, and, worst of all, Metro.
</rant>
Regards,
Paul Mensonides