Re: CUJ and Microsoft C++

From: Claudio Puviani (puviani_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 04/12/04 

Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 04:03:03 GMT

"NPC" <euclidonomy@verizon.net> wrote
> Is anyone else seeing a pattern with the frequency
> of Microsoft-related C++ articles (not including
> advertisements) appearing in the 'C/C++ Users
> Journal' over the last 6 months?

I've stopped finding CUJ relevant a fairly long time ago. Strangely, that
coincided almost exactly with the editorial staff's pitiable attempts to
justify coverage of languages other than C or C++.

> It appears that many of the usual columnists are
> pushing hard to have the C++ Standard follow
> several new inventions in the Managed C++ World.
> Mostly, these new inventions appear necessary to
> solve issues .NET is having with using only standard
> C++. Interestingly, it appears that Bjarne Stroustrop
> is helping Microsoft resolve some of these issues now.

Fortunately for us, neither CUJ nor Microsoft has more weight than anyone
else on the standard committee. I'm fully confident that the committee as a
whole will accept only features that will improve the language and flatly
refuse to even consider anything that would make things problematic for the
non-Microsoft world.

> I've never been too convinced of the latest Microsoft
> WhizBang (there are so many dying whizbangs from
> Redmond after all), but to see articles showing Bjarne's
> involvement makes me pause somewhat.

That Bjarne is involved in helping Microsoft should also be encouraging. We
can expect more recommendations on how Microsoft could better conform to the
standard than abdications that lead to a bastardization of the language.

> I personally feel confident that he has only the best
> intentions for Standard C++ in mind. I would like
> to see anything Bjarne has to say about C++/CLI
> - has anyone seen any words of the sort from Bjarne
> directly?

Not I.

> Some may think that I'm just another anti-Microsoft
> kind of guy. I am not. I am a pro-standards kind
> of guy - which is why I choose to use Standard C++.
> My question to anyone interested in answering is: "Are
> you concerned at all about the largest software
> conglomerate, who also now boasts > 98% C++
> Standards Compliance, leading the charge in how
> Standard C++ will change in the future?"

I'm not in the least concerned, and I don't see this as Microsoft leading
anything, much less anyone following Microsoft.

> Also, "Do you believe that one should only boast once
> they have achieved 100% Standards Compliance?"

I'd rather see a company admit that they're x% compliant that to have to
guess.

> Is 98% good enough so many years after the Standardization
> was released?

It's good enough if it supports the subset of the language that a person
uses. The day you encounter code that compiles on another platform that you
use, but not there, then you have something to complain about.

> Should it convince us enough to have Microsoft lead the
> way for us?

Again, you're turning this into an X-File. There's no conspiracy here.
Microsoft does its thing and it hasn't impacted the standard C++ community
where it didn't want to be impacted. Do you see "far" and "near" anywhere in
the standard? Or any other mutilations that Microsoft and Borland and others
have introduced in the past nearly 20 years? Give the folks on the committee
the benefit of the doubt.

> Again, I'm only intersted in 100% Standards Compliance.

You must spend a lot of time on the unemployment line if that's what you're
waiting for. In the real world, if you're mandated to write software for
platform X, you use the tools that are available. You don't get the luxury
of going on strike because your compiler isn't 100% compliant. Even when
there's a choice of compilers, issues like correctness, performance, and
compatibility with existing libraries tend to take precedence over
compliance with the standard.

> I hope others do too.

Not likely, unless they don't have to deal with reality.

Claudio Puviani

Quantcast