|
|
| Another MS ECMA-approved "standard" - C++/CLI |
 |
|
Monday, January 30 2006 @ 10:18 AM EST
|
Here's the latest on Massachusetts and ODF/MS XML from Andy Updegrove, and someone pointed me to this reference on OSNews to UK objections [PDF] to another Microsoft "standard" approved by ECMA and now trying for acceptance as a fast-tracked ISO standard:Microsoft's C++/CLI Language Specification is an ECMA Standard (ECMA-372) and they are trying to fast track this document to be an ISO standard. The problem is that the language specified is very different from C++ and so is likely to create a great deal of confusion. Details can be found in the UK objections, which suggest that a name distinct from C++ be used for the proposed language. The UK objections Summary:
In response to document ISO/IEC JTC1 N8037, the UK objects to Fast Track Ballot ECMA-372 1st Edition C++/CLI Language Specification, on the grounds that there is a contradiction with an existing JTC1 standard. ISO/IEC 14882:2003 is the standard for the C++ programming language. Adopting a second standard under the proposed name of C++/CLI will cause unnecessary and harmful confusion in the marketplace. We consider that C++/CLI is a new language with idioms and usage distinct from C++. Confusion between C++ and C++/CLI is already occurring and is damaging to both vendors and consumers. A new language needs a new name. We therefore request that Ecma withdraw this document from fast-track voting and if they must re-submit it, do so under a name which will not conflict with Standard C++. What difference does it make and why do it? The UK objections speak to that directly and pointedly, and I hope folks in Massachusetts will read it, so they know what to watch for, if ECMA rubber stamps Microsoft's version of XML with "extensions".
Here's the part, from Section III on what's wrong with having two competing standards: III. Damaging confusion is already evident
Standard C++ is maintained by WG21, the largest and most active working group in SC22. WG21 meetings, twice a year lasting a week at a time, draw regular attendance by delegates from a number of national bodies and nearly all the important vendors of C++ compilers and libraries, plus a number of people who use the language in their work. By contrast, this Ecma draft was developed by a small handful of people -- awesomely competent ones, undoubtedly, but who do not represent the interests of the broad market of vendors and users.
variant will inevitably grow wider over time. The document proposes no mechanism for resolving future differences as these two versions of C++ evolve. For JTC1 to sanction two standards called C++ for what are really two different languages would cause permanent confusion among employers and working programmers. There is clear evidence that this confusion already exists now, even though C++/CLI has only recently been adopted as an Ecma standard and is commercially available from only one source. Currently Microsoft is the only current vendor of a C++/CLI compiler, and also a leading vendor of a Standard C++ compiler. And yet Microsoft’s online documentation consistently confuses the syntax and semantics of C++/CLI with those of Standard C++. Documentation for Microsoft's Visual C++ product contains many code examples identified as "C++" -- not "C++/CLI" or even "C++.Net" -- which will fail to compile in a Standard C++ environment. See, for example, http://msdn.microsoft.com/visualc/default.aspx?pull=/library/enus/dndotnet/html/NetFramework.asp, which has many examples showing parallel code for "C#", "Visual Basic", and "C++" (without the “/CLI” qualifier). An article on "New C++ Language Features" at http://msdn2.microsoft.com/enus/library/xey702bw.aspx contains this paragraph: "The following table lists new keywords that have been added to the C++ language. Note that some keywords consist of two words separated by white space." The page goes on to list what are officially context dependent identifiers, but it refers to them baldly as new keywords also, ignoring the subtle difference buried in the draft standard. Note the statement that keywords have been "added to the C++ language" (no mention that it only applies to this new variant). There is no indication that using any of these new keywords renders code completely non-portable to other environments. Further pages with information on single keywords leave an even stronger impression that C++ is the language under discussion, not the C++/CLI extensions to it: These pages consistently fail to distinguish clearly between Standard C++ syntax and extensions/adaptations for the CLI environment. Microsoft is not the only source of articles in which C++ and C++/CLI are considered equivalent, but they invented this new language and if they cannot tell them apart, it does not create confidence that average programmers will be able to maintain a clear idea of the many differences between them. Possibly the largest faction of C++ programmers in the world are working mainly with Microsoft’s compiler and platform. To them, Standard C++ is what Visual C++ does. If they develop expectations that “C++” now has these new features, whether or not those expectations are accurate, it will place at a disadvantage all competing products which offer conformance merely with Standard C++. Portable programs will be disparaged for not taking advantage of platform-specific extensions available only in the Windows environment. (There is an open source implementation of CLI for other systems, called Mono, but to our knowledge currently no other compiler in the market supports C++/CLI.) The objective of using Standard C++ to achieve portable programs will be completely undermined. Ah! "It will place at a disadvantage all competing products which offer conformance merely with Standard C++"... The last two paragraphs are interesting too: The UK request that Ecma withdraw this document from fast-track voting and if they must re-submit it to JTC1, do so under a name which does not include “C++”. This paper should not in any way be taken as suggesting that there is a sinister plot by Microsoft or anyone else to usurp or subvert the C++ Standard. Microsoft is an active participant in and a strong contributor to WG21. We accept that the people involved in this project are sincere in what they are trying to accomplish and do have persuasive (to them) reasons why they think these are good ideas. However, we also think they misunderstand what is important to other people. OK. No plot. Well. Shall we just call it a pattern, then? Dear Massachusetts, please notice what the tech community is trying to tell you. One can learn a lot from patterns.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: feldegast on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 10:28 AM EST |
So PJ can find them
---
IANAL
The above post is (C)Copyright 2005 and released under the Creative Commons
License Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: feldegast on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 10:31 AM EST |
Please make links clickable
---
IANAL
The above post is (C)Copyright 2005 and released under the Creative Commons
License Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Unexpected speaker - Authored by: amhagp on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 11:19 AM EST
- "EU Had Warned Microsoft that Source Code Release Wouldn't Be Enough" - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 11:57 AM EST
- LOOK EVERYONE...Microsoft is upset...Awww - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 12:25 PM EST
- Europe v Microsoft What the press are saying - Authored by: Chris Lingard on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 12:40 PM EST
- A new language need a new name... - Authored by: dahnielson on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 12:40 PM EST
- Cspan and the Broadcast Flag Hearings - Authored by: pfusco on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 12:56 PM EST
- SUN kicks SCO's butt?! - Authored by: IMANAL on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 01:35 PM EST
- OT: On-Topic! UserFriendly... - Authored by: PSaltyDS on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 02:20 PM EST
- Peter Quinn interview on Computerworld - Authored by: PolR on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 02:28 PM EST
- SCO submits a new trademark application for SCOSOURCE - Stats on the SCOX board. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 02:39 PM EST
- A Thai take on medical procdures patents . . . - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 02:54 PM EST
- Senate Bill 2198 - PACE-Education Act - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 03:24 PM EST
- "Patent spat forces businesses to upgrade Office" - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 03:31 PM EST
- RIM wins a battle over patent troll - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 04:18 PM EST
- "IBM sets DB2 database free" - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 06:18 PM EST
- "Microsoft admits slow start for Xbox 360 in Japan" - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 06:31 PM EST
- If You Can't Beat 'Em.... - Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 07:11 PM EST
- "NEW MASSACHUSETTS CIO" - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 07:30 PM EST
- Why doesn't my RSS feed for Groklaw work in Firefox (1.5) any more - Authored by: Crocodile_Dundee on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 08:26 PM EST
- More M$ sneakiness to the detriment of the rest of us - Authored by: qu1j0t3 on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 10:40 PM EST
- What's "indemnification" really worth? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 31 2006 @ 10:42 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: phantom21 on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 10:50 AM EST |
If it quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, walks like a
duck, then it's a duck.
Remember, MS is known for their EEE: embrace, extend,
extinguish.
Embrace a standard, extend the standard, extinguish the
old standard.
So, if MS is involved with extending a C++, and trying to
get it recognized as a standard, then isn't it, with the
confusion it's trying to create, trying to extinguish the
standard?
Just asking.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 10:56 AM EST |
| "Possibly the largest faction of C++ programmers in the world are working
mainly with Microsoft’s compiler and platform. To them, Standard C++ is what
Visual C++ does. If they develop expectations that “C++” now has these new
features, whether or not those expectations are accurate, it will place at a
disadvantage all competing products which offer conformance merely with Standard
C++."
The extensions have been in VC++ since version 7.0, the first .NET
version. If the de facto standard is what VC++ already does, then what's the
grounds for the complaint? The confusion already exists! The new
standardization won't change anything there, only codify Microsoft's extensions
(where the argument that they are actually a new language based on C++, as C++
is a new language based on C, is a reasonable one).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 11:11 AM EST |
| Both Microsoft links in the article are broken, and just result in a 404 error. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jsusanka on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 11:12 AM EST |
I will call it a plot.
micrsoft has been doing this for years - just so they become the
"defacto" standard and thus the unkowning consumer is taught was is
the wrong standard.
bill and steve are so clever - such "innovation"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cc0028 on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 11:44 AM EST |
| I'm not sure that people quite understand what this is all about.
MS has
already submitted, and had approved, standards for the .NET CLI and the C#
programming language. What MS is trying to get adopted here is its version of
C++ that compiles to MSIL (Microsoft Interface Language).
The UK
objection is sensible, but I think we can make a bit less use of the tin foil
hats.
In the case of C# and the CLI, MS - although we may be suspicious
of their motives - are on the side of the angels. They have done what Sun has
resolutely refused to do, and made the specification into an open standard. As
a result, there are a number of GPL implementations of .NET, notable Mono,
portable.net, .GNU.
There are also versions of many other languages that
compile to .NET intermediate code - Java not least, and PERL to name but two.
None of these has been radically renamed as a result.
The call for
renaming/removal of confusion arises only because MS is submitting an existing
version of C++ that compiles to CIL to the standards process: and the call for
renaming has merit. Something like C++.NET or something should be OK: but let's
not get carried away. The same argument would arise if Larry Wall submitted
PERL.NET to the ECMA. I think.
Of course, I may be mistaken in all
this; but we should be careful of condemning everything just because it has
Microsoft stamped on it. Something I am often guilty of myself, by the
way.
Peter
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 11:53 AM EST |
I'm somewhat familiar with the ISO process - I've contributed to a few. I also
had the good fortune to meet with and learn from some of the tech people now in
control of MS C++ back in early nineties.
I must say I have a LOT more faith in e.g. Stanley Lippman than I have in ISO.
MS marketing, obviously, is a different matter, but I'd suggest that people look
into the tech issues before getting out their tin hats.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 12:11 PM EST |
From the MS site itself:
"For Visual C++ 2005, the C++ language has been expanded to include support
for developing components and applications that run on a virtual machine with
garbage collection. These additions have been approved by the C++/CLI standards
committee."
Please note the following
'The C++ language has been expanded' - no ISO body or similar - just MS.
'These additions have been approved by the C++/CLI standards committee.'
Since MS are the only ones that produce this complier this really does sound
like MS is talking to itself here.
If MS want to introduce a new language thats fine. Call it D or D++ or almost
anything elese. But please dont call it C++/CLI because that way lies horrible
confusion.
--
MadScientist [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jude on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 12:35 PM EST |
Kinda reminds me of what Microsoft did for Java.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 12:36 PM EST |
From Andy's blog:
"Microsoft, on the other hand (which had no development facilities in the
Bay State before acquiring Ray Ozzie's Groove Networks recently), has lately
been running a set of rather odd ads touting its extensive "developer
ecosystem" (i.e., its partner network) in Massachusetts, and trying to
create the impression that somehow this network conveys great value to the
Commonwealth (of course, IBM and Sun, which each have thousands of employees in
Massachusetts, have partner programs as well). Microsoft's ads have been running
in venues such as the Boston Globe's editorial page, and in the Boston Business
Journal."
Ask not about a quid pro quo.
The Globe clearly has it priorities right - shafting Peter Quinn for 30 pieces
of silver.
--
MadScientist
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 12:38 PM EST |
| The ECMA standard being discussed is ECM
A-372.
The countries getting to vote on this proposal are the P
(partipipate) members of SC22.
The ISO C++ committee.
The UK
C+
+
standard committee (BSI are not the most web friendly of
organizations).
The designer of C++,
Bjarne
Stroustrup's, take on the issue.
Microsoft technical point man on this
is Herb Sutter
(scroll down about half way for comments by him).
Derek M. Jones [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Useful links - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 03:23 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 12:44 PM EST |
| The objective of using Standard C++ to achieve portable programs will be
completely undermined.
That's Microsoft corporate policy toward all
standards.
They tried to do it with Java, then found that Sun had looked
one move further ahead. They try to do it all the time with their non-standard
"features" in their browser. The sad thing is that there are a lot of kids out
there who do not know anything about computer science except what Microsoft
tells them, and they tend to fall for this kind of ploy. Microsoft's top
management is not stupid. Evil, yes, but never make the mistake of thinking them
stupid. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 12:47 PM EST |
How did this obvious ploy get past ECMA?
ECMA just lost all
credibility as far as I am concerned. That's a pity because they have done some
good work in the past. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lunarship on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 01:18 PM EST |
by making their C++ implementation more "standard".
And there was me
thinking it meant supporting the existing standards more closely.
Finally, I begin to understand.
Thanks, PJ, for smiting me with the
great sword Cluebringer... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: raynfala on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 01:21 PM EST |
Why are these people giving Microsoft such a hard time about documentation? I
mean, hey, Microsoft's documentation acumen has clearly made the EU their #1
fan.
</sarcasm>
--Raynfala
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: geoff lane on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 01:50 PM EST |
| More and more I come the believe that the book 1984 is the one book anybody needs to know
to understand Microsoft.
Language is important. You can change how people
think by changing the language (see 1984). Computer languages are just the
same. Microsoft and others want people and companies to write code for their
platform only and languages extensions are the means to ensure that they
do.
MS has NO true intent to stick to any standards when there is a
commercial advantage in subverting them.
---
I'm not a Windows user,
consequently I'm not
afraid of receiving email from total strangers.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsmith on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 02:31 PM EST |
Film at 11.
---
Intellectual Property is an oxymoron.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- EEE language - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 05:49 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Zarbo on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 02:46 PM EST |
Anyone else remember all of the frothing at the mouth from TSG (Darl,
actually) about owning C++ and licensing it?
Was that another trial
balloon (double entendre unintentional)? Just strikes me as another potential
brick in the MS/TSG wall. Maybe it is just coincidence that the MS standard
effort on C++ has been in the background.
[Massive Sarcasm Warning]
...
0wning the Internet is hard work these days. All that nasty
resistance from the unwashed (smelly) masses. What's a hard-working monopoly
and its paid proxies to do? Gotta lock down the entire chain from source to
binary to DLL to application to API to OS to data format to transport to network
to server. Forcing customers to use/buy software is a new business model, but
it is capital intensive and takes too much time without standing on the backs,
er, shoulders of others.
No wiggle room, now. Incorporate/claim/extend
everyone else's work (because it achieves total dominance faster) then
spInnovatetm.
++Zarbo--;
P.S.
v. spin·no·vat·ed, spin·no·vat·ing, spin·no·vates
v.
tr.
To market or introduce (something borrowed and hacked) for or as if for
the first time.
v. intr.
To act as if inventing something new and
exciting with fingers crossed behind one's back.
(With
apologies to dictionary.reference.co
m)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 03:18 PM EST |
Why be supprised ? (Sarcasm here)...
Apparently, Microsoft recently sponsored (or at least provided room for) at
least one of the ANSI C++ 2.0 or above standard conferences. I am not sure of
the details or what was discussed. Apparently, this happened in October 2004
and/or April 2004 or earlier. Of course, they still remained the least-standard
of all C++ 2.0 compilers around. I was hoping at the time that they would
finally make their compilers more compatible - but no! With the next release
(C++.NET), not only did they not resolve these issues, but they made the
compiler even less standard-compiliant. And it is not even standardized within
itself (managed vs. unmanaged code syntax) and target runtime platform. Of
course, providing the ISO standard committee with a location for the conference
did allow them to give away cookies and then steal the cookie jar.
I guess that means - if your code does not compile in C++.NET, it is not ANSI
C++ 2.0 Standard compiliant. Yeah - Right!
I would rather right my code in such a way that it compiles in all other C++
compilers - althogh I ceased using C++ quite a while ago.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mushroom on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 03:56 PM EST |
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6032870.html
Maybe they should upgrade to OpenOffice [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 03:57 PM EST |
And it's really not.
It's just Microsoft following their standard corporate business practices.
A "plot" would suggest them doing something they actually know and
understand is wrong and underhanded.
But they passed that point of self-awareness long ago. That's why we need the
likes of the European Commission to whack them with a clue-bat now and then!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: k12linux on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 04:13 PM EST |
Confusion in the marketplace is one of MS's tried and true sales tools. Nobody
has ever claimed MS isn't really good at marketing. In fact I'd argue it's
their biggest strength.
Consider the genious in naming ther SQL-based database product "SQL
Server" as an example. When people, even many programmers, are told that
they should migrate data storage to a database server, they are usually told to
migrate to 'an SQL server'.
'An SQL server' should mean a relational database server that understand
Structured Query Language (SQL) which was accepted by ANSI and ISO in 1986 and
1987 respectively. In theory you can write the same SQL command on one SQL
server and run it with little or no change on another as long as you are
complying with the standards in your code.
In my experience, what most people think of when told they need 'an SQL server',
however, is 'Microsoft SQL Server'. The exception usually is if they already
have experience with other SQL servers like Oracle, MySQL, etc. I usually hear
something like, "We need SQL Server if we go over 'x' users." This
usually means MS SQL Server gets purchased even if another option (even a free
one) might work just as well.
Unfortunately a lot of developers use MS's SQL extensions because they've never
seen anything warning them that they might be breaking compatibility with
ANSI/ISO standards if they use them. Or they consider the vendor lock-in to be
worth some short term productivity gains. In those cases you really are stuck
with using just MS's product. For the more savvy developers, however, you can
often use other servers with minimal work on their part to port.
Whether Gates and company planned it this way, the end result of confusion and
blurring of standards and proprietary extensions is greater market share and
vendor lock in with MS.
---
- SCO is trying to save a sinking ship by drilling holes in it. -- k12linux[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 05:27 PM EST |
Well, it's probably too late, but it's still worth saying.
This is silly.
These are, at the end, technical changes. People making them may or may not be
right, but they deserve respect - AND a discussion on technical merits. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Pseudonym on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 09:17 PM EST |
The really interesting thing about this is that the chair of the ISO C++
standards committee, Herb Sutter, is also Visual C++ architect at Microsoft, and
one of the chief people behind designing C++/CLI.
If anyone here is going
to the S&S on C++ event, would
they be willing to ask some pointed questions about this (there is an "ask us
anything" panel session scheduled) and report back? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lisch on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 11:03 PM EST |
Take off the tinfoil hats. Don't worry. Microsoft cannot kill C++. It cannot
"Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish" C++, no matter how hard it tries.
Millions of lines of C++ code exist, running everything from cars to space
probes to desktop applications. Hundreds of C++ (not C++/CLI) products exist,
from as many vendors. Hundreds of thousands of C++ programmers grind out more
C++ code every day.
The C++ standardization committee has roughly 100 members, from all over the
world. Note that true C++ is standardized through ISO, not ECMA. ISO has a
cumbersome standardization process, and no one country, let alone a company, can
railroad anything through that process.
There is a legitimate question of whether the new langauge should incorporate
C++ as part of its name, but it isn't a big deal.
--
Ray Lischner, author of C++ in a Nutshell[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Zarkov on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 11:21 PM EST |
Q: What do they do in Redmond when a light bulb blows?
A: They redefine Darkness as the new standard!
This is just more of the same.... They can't get their own compiler to play
nicely with other people's - so they try to force the other people to do their
work for them...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Simon G Best on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 11:55 PM EST |
This paper should not in any way be taken as
suggesting that there is a sinister plot by Microsoft or anyone else to usurp or
subvert the C++ Standard. Microsoft is an active participant in and a strong
contributor to WG21. We accept that the people involved in this project are
sincere in what they are trying to accomplish and do have persuasive (to them)
reasons why they think these are good ideas. However, we also think they
misunderstand what is important to other people.
OK.
No plot. Well. Shall we just call it a pattern, then? Dear Massachusetts, please
notice what the tech community is trying to tell you. One can learn a lot from
patterns.
I remember, years ago, seeing a book of puzzles,
and the like, for children. It included join-the-dots things. As you know,
join-the-dots things often have the dots numbered, to tell you the order in
which to join them. But some of these join-the-dots things didn't even need
numbers - you could see the shape of the thing from the pattern of dots anyway!
Microsoft's activities get like that.
Okay, so the authors of the
objections aren't saying there is a plot (which, of course, is not the same as
saying that there isn't a plot (just as not saying that the cat is sitting on
the mat is not the same as saying that the cat is not sitting on the mat)).
Interesting it is, though, that they actually say that they're not saying it.
It really says something when people actually have to emphasise that that's not
the sort of thing they're suggesting.
Hmmm, I wonder what Microsoft's
representatives in WG21 might say about this story?...
---
NO SOFTWARE
PATENTS - AT ALL! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 31 2006 @ 03:15 AM EST |
My life as a deskop Java developer (an *actual* Java developer, not a Microsoft
Windows PC Java-like developer) was made hell by Microsoft's J++ and
"JVM" (later "Microsoft VM" after Sun sued) with its
proprietary extensions and incompatibilities with real Java and Java VMs.
The biggest problem for me was other developers' genuine confusion over the
issue. As far as they were concerned, J++ was a Java compiler and
"Microsoft VM" was a Java virtual machine. I lost count of the number
of times I was given J++ compiled opcodes that barfed on compliant JVMs, and
wild horses couldn't dissuade my co-workers from their opinion that it was the
Sun JVM that was to blame!
I honestly believe that's a significant contributing factor to why Java desktop
apps aren't more common. Microsoft's C++ compilers have always been thoroughly
non-standards compliant, but at least most developers knew it, and knew to cross
compile early and often. But trying to file their CLI implementation as a
*standard* "C++"? That's beyond the pale, even for Microsoft.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 31 2006 @ 09:09 AM EST |
What's the problem? Both C and C++ are separate ISO standards, and C itself has
two standards (C90 & C99). This just adds C++/CLI, which is less confusing
than C90/C99/C++.
And in their documentation, look right near the top, "For more information
on the new syntax, see the C++/CLI Specification."
And from the complaint, "There is no indication that using any of these new
keywords renders code completely non-portable to other environments."
Let's see, you're using one company's extensions to a standard programming
language. Do you think you'd be able to use it anywhere else? People who use SQL
have been dealing with proprietary, non-portable extensions for years.
Microsoft could probably do better in its documentation to clarify the
difference between C++ and C++/CLI, but their documentation isn't what's at
issue, only the standards submission. It's making a big fuss about nothing. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 31 2006 @ 01:44 PM EST |
When I first read Groklaw a few years back - just before the SCO-Linux battle, I
remember all these companies were saying we did not need open software, just
open standards.
The issue of what "open' means is settled.
Now it looks like we need to debate the meaning of "standards."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PrecisionBlogger on Tuesday, January 31 2006 @ 02:27 PM EST |
MSFT added to C++ to support their .net runtime environment.
In particular, some keywords support their ability to build "trusted
computing" programs. The new keywords are not primarily an attempt to
improve the language, but are closely attented to MSFT's idea of how to write
code that can be supported by a secure runtime machine. In some cases the new
syntax looks pretty weird to a C++ person.
There's no good reason to accept this as a "standard." MSFT won't
really accept it either, they'll make further changes in just a few years...
- precision blogger
http://precision-blogging.blogspot.com
---
- Precision Blogger[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 31 2006 @ 04:37 PM EST |
Well, this affair drives another nail into ECMA's coffin. Pity; they
contributed to useful standards in the past. They sure can't do that now that
Microsoft has found a way to use them as a department of M$' marketing
organization.
But maybe they lost the plot a while back. I tried to find
their website. Too lazy to Google, I just banged in www.ecma.org ... must be something like that,
right? Wrong. Try it. It's the European Carton Makers' Association.
Don't
bother to tell us what the right URL is. The wrong one is somehow more
appropriate. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
