Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] C++ announcements coming tomorrow
From: Paul Mensonides (pmenso57_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-11-07 19:10:19

On 11/6/2012 1:13 PM, Bo Persson wrote:
> Edward Diener skrev 2012-11-05 03:19:

>> 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!

My rant is actually not specifically about MS and C++11 as much as MS
and C++ generally (including C++11, but also including C++98 facilities
which they have yet to implement or implement correctly). What MS is
doing (and, less frequently, saying) is, "We will implement all of C++
except those things which we don't want to implement, we don't like, or
we don't feel are important." The attitude is like the kid on the
playground that doesn't get his way so he takes his ball and goes home.
  What it shows is a *lack* of commitment to the standardization process
by flouting the standard whenever they disagree with it. I.e.
standardization is important so long as "we" agree with whatever is

All I want from MS WRT C++ is what I said before. A commitment to
implement all of standard C++ (not C++ sans XYZ) and then fulfilling
that commitment in the limit. By that last, I don't mean that I am
demanding that they have all of C++ implemented by tomorrow or by their
next release, but that they are, in each release, improving by a margin
that is reasonable given the length of the release cycle and indicative
of their desire to fulfill the commitment. Specifically, I do *not*
mean avoiding implementing XYZ by improving so lethargically that a new
standard is published along with a new set of "interesting" features
prior to having "time" to implement XYZ. There was a huge amount of
time between C++98 and C++11--enough time to implement XYZ (e.g. the
correct phases of translation, macro replacement, two-phase lookup,
etc., etc.), but they didn't do it. Instead, they focused on
extra-linguistic things (such as C++/CLI and C++/CX).

Paul Mensonides

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at