Subject: Re: [boost] [clang][preprocessor] Testing of clang emualting the VC++ preprocessor on Windows
From: Paul Mensonides (pmenso57_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-04-04 19:21:13
On 4/2/2016 2:04 AM, degski wrote:
> On 1 April 2016 at 23:52, Paul Mensonides <pmenso57_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Don't keep going on that it's all crap.
I am not referring to VC++. I am referring to clang intentionally
conforming to VC++ rather than conforming to the Standard. That
decision is crap and the mentality that produced it is also crap. The
same is true for any other intentional nonconformance.
What it says to me is either that clang's popularity is more important
to the clang project than clang doing the right thing (i.e. decisions
based on benefitting clang (popularity/adoption/etc.) not on benefitting
the C++ community) or that the clang project's technical decision-making
is extremely shortsighted--or both.
> Microsoft does not get to decide what C++ is. The C++ standard committee
>> decides that.
> I'm sure Herb Sutter keeps them in the loop on this one.
This is about what clang is doing, not Microsoft. Microsoft has
intentionally disregarded the Standard repeatedly over a long period of
time. They are getting better, slowly. That's old news. Clang,
however, has now made a decision to intentionally disregard the Standard
as well in order to attempt conform to Microsoft's definition of C++.
Microsoft lost my respect a long time ago and has yet to regain it.
Clang has now lost it as well.
>> Where VC++ is good or bad with respect to the conformance should be
>> irrelevant to all other compilers.
> And it could be, but where's libc++ for windows, f.e.?
Indeed (w/conforming C library). But not relevant when vendors are
intentionally non-conforming (e.g. clang).
>> The standard each of them is measured against is not each other but, well,
>> the Standard. That breeds competition rather than lock-in, and it is that
>> competition that provides the motivation that ultimately yields improved
>> time frames.
>>From the links above, the message I get is that M$ has taken op that
> challenge. It seems the mountain is coming to Mohammad. Give W10 and
> vs2015U2 a try, and be honest when giving your feedback.
Microsoft has "taken up the challenge" more times now than I can count.
I will believe it when I see it. That is not to say that VC++ isn't
improving (because it is), but the pace is slow, and I have yet to see
anything that leads me to believe it comes from any sense of ethics
(i.e. that Microsoft's trajectory is trustworthy because the forces that
drive that trajectory are ethical).
WRT W8+: That is a whole other issue. Attempting to artificially turn a
product into a service is not only unethical but also exploitative. It
is the software equivalent of a payday loan. Microsoft is hardly alone
is doing this, but W8 is where it started WRT to Windows itself. I
don't care how technically good it may or may not be at that point.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk