Subject: Re: [boost] C++ announcements coming tomorrow
From: Paul Mensonides (pmenso57_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-11-04 15:42:06
On 11/4/2012 12:10 PM, Edward Diener wrote:
> On 11/3/2012 5:24 PM, Paul Mensonides wrote:
>> 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.
> Who is "STL" ?
Stephan T. Lavavej. He's a standard library guy at MS. He's around
here from time to time, but also makes C++-related videos for MS's
Channel 9 PDM (propaganda distribution mechanism).
>>> 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.
> Perhaps Herb Sutter does not have the power at Microsoft to determine
> what Microsoft will do in regards to complying with the C++ standard, as
> opposed to being just one perhaps leading voice among many in
> determining such things.
Sure. It is MS in general, not Herb specifically. If Herb wasn't
there, it would be somebody else. However, Herb is the face of C++ at
Microsoft, and he repeatedly refers to MS's supposed commitment to C++.
Actions speak louder than words. Forget all of the careful marketing,
and just implement the d*** language. Doing so would engender a much
larger amount of goodwill towards MS over time.
>> 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
> I disagree in principal that compiler vendors should not provide
> extensions to a computer language. After all gcc has done it for many
> years. Of course I feel that compiler vendors should implement a
> computer language as it is defined by the standard for that language and
> only provide extensions in situations where the extensions can be turned
> off in a clearly defined manner.
For the record, I believe GCC's rampant use of extensions is also
detrimental. Obviously, if all or most compilers implemented the entire
language, extensions can be disabled, and the standard library 100%
works without the extensions, we'd be far better off than we are now.
However, the presence of language extensions cause people who target a
particular compiler to use those extensions. The problem with this is
that C++ development should not target a particular compiler. If C++
development did not *have to* target compilers (as it does currently),
then feature extensions become meaningless, and portability ensues.
Furthermore, compiler extensions tend to be far less thought out than
actual language features, and, even when the basic idea is good, the
presence of the existing extensions interferes with standardization.
E.g. typeof vs decltype.