Subject: Re: [boost] C++ announcements coming tomorrow
From: Bo Persson (bop_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-11-06 16:13:51
Edward Diener skrev 2012-11-05 03:19:
> On 11/4/2012 5:41 PM, Paul Mensonides wrote:
>> On 11/4/2012 2:14 PM, Cory Nelson wrote:
>>> On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Paul Mensonides
>>>> The extensions for C++/CX and C++/CLI are even worse because they
>>>> subvert the entire language by forcing the limited .Net runtime
>>>> model on
>>>> the language which is a massive regression.
>>> C++/CX is sugar for building and using Windows RT COM objects. It does
>>> involve .NET _at all_. Not in your code and not hidden in the runtime
>>> background. Furthermore, both of them are intended for use as a bridge
>>> the Windows platforms at the outer edges of otherwise portable,
>>> standards-compliant code. You're not supposed to use them as your
>>> Resume (slightly more informed) venting.
>> I'm not uninformed. I'm generalizing because C++/CX and C++/CLI share
>> some extensions at the syntactic level, and I'm not referring to the
>> details of either except in that they *both* create a new type system,
>> object model, runtime model, etc..
> C++/CLI does not pretend to be C++. It is a dialect of C++ for .Net
> programming but nobody of any experience views this as the official C++
> Your rant against things like C++/CLI and C++/CX is ill-founded IMO.
> Language vendors certainly have the right to create a new language from
> an existing language for their own use and their customer's use. I think
> you are being intolerant to think otherwise. If Microsoft has said
> anywhere that C++/CLI or C++/CX is standard C++ I would like to see it.
The rant is really about them saying that they are "Fully Committed to
C++", and pushing "A C++ Renaissance". Then it turn out they deliver
C++/CLI and C++/CX, but cannot deliver new C++11 feature because of
"lack of resources" and "missing the deadline".
Doesn't sound very committed to me!
> There are probably few serious C++ expert programmers who do not agree
> with you that language vendors should support the C++ standard. But that
> is very different from mandating that language vendors should only be
> allowed to support a language standard and not be allowed to create
> another similar language for their own purposes.
They can do whatever they want, but it would be A LOT prettier if they
were honest about it. Saying one thing and doing another isn't the best
way to impress your customers.
Neither is "Buy our new product now, we will deliver the contents later."
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk