Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C++ > C++ standard committee censor different opinions

Reply
Thread Tools

C++ standard committee censor different opinions

 
 
David Eng
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-08-2004
In replying to P.J. Plauger (
http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&...252B.moderated
) who responded my post in comp.long.c++ moderated neww group
regarding "C++ standard and C++/CLI" topic, I worte the following post
which was sensor by comp.lang.c++.moderated:

-----------------------------------------------------------------
> > It is time to wake up for C++
> > community and say no to Microsoft's effect to pollute C++.

>
> Perhaps. But you might be interested to learn that Andy Koenig
> woke up a few years ago and gave a talk proposing changes to
> Standard C++ that are remarkably close to what Microsoft had
> already begun and has now become C++/CLI.


Really? CLI mainly has three parts that C++ is lack of: VM, garbage
collection, and middleware platform. For the VM and garbage
collection, it is not in the spirit of C++. Would Andy Koenig prefer
those?

However, if C++ is evolving toward CLI or likes, i.e. interface first
following by implementation without changing C++ language, I have no
object to this process. The C++/CLI stuff is coming from
implementation first following by changing C++ in order to fit the
interface. It is not revolutionary but revolting (thanks for teaching
me some English).

>
> Conservation and conservatism evolved from the same root word,
> as did revolutionary and revolting. A lot depends upon your
> point of view.
>


OH,yea! You are the one who vigorously promote C++/CLI. It is
certain that you can sell more C++/CLI libraries to Microsoft. For
C++ programmers, we get more ugly syntax and confusion, and less
spirit of C++. I think you have created a perfect shoe for yourself
to wear.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The reason for rejection was flame. But why they never reject P.J.
Plauger's flame posting? Certainly, I just tell the truth: P.J.
Plauger and his company sell C++/CLI libraries to Microsoft and that's
why he supports Microsoft to pollute C++.

We all see C++ is declining. However, if someone criticizes C++
standard committee, they either censor different opinions or shut up
criticism by saying "no participate and no voice". As one poster
stated, it was waste time to participate C++ standard process since
the C++ standard committee never achieved anything after C++ was
standardized in 1999. I concur! The reason of C++ declining, IMO, is
C++ is lack of libraries in a standard way for common programming
tasks into applications, such as thread library. The committee
responded to this criticism was they didn't have time or no one
participated. But there are plenty good open source libraries, for
example, ACE has a nice thread implementation. If they are
incompetent to create one, why do they just accept one from open
source? If you put open source technology QT/KDE for desktop, ACE for
run-time environment, TAO for CORBA middleware implementation, Apache
C++ implementation for XML and Web Services together under C++ roof,
IMO, it is far superior to J2EE and .NET. Why they have to tie C++ to
..NET instead of standardizing the above technologies so that C++ can
compete with Java and .NET?

The reason I am againt C++/CLI is very simple. If C++ binds to CLI,
C++ shouldn't be changed. The binding should be through library
instead of changing C++ syntax. CLI is just like CORBA. The binding
between C++ and CORBA never requires C++ change. Why does the binding
between C++ and CLI require C++ change? Certainly, it is Microsoft,
the bigot. People praise CLI, calling it platform independent.
Please hold your breath. Since Windows is a proprietary OS, there is
always one single vendor. Even if CLI becomes standard, no one can
implement it in Windows. If Microsoft doesn't like some features in
CLI, she could have no implementation in Windows so that the features
would be useless. Also, if CLI standard committee is full of
Microsoft and her sycophants, how could you make CLI vendor and
platform independent? Tying C++ to .NET by changing C++ syntax would
lead to the ultimate death of C++, IMO. The reason for some C++
standard committee to help Microsoft to pollute C++, as I can see, is
about money. You have the chairman of the committee Herb Sutter who
works for Microsoft, and member P.J. Plauger who sell libraries to
Microsoft.

That leads to my conclusion. We should dissolve C++ standard
committee and form a C++ Foundation as an open source. Under C++
Foundation, merge some C++ technologies in a standard way consisting
of C++ language, C++ run-time environment and C++ middleware platform.
If we can do it, I see a bright future for C++.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Victor Bazarov
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-08-2004
David Eng wrote:
> In replying to P.J. Plauger (
> http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&...252B.moderated
> ) who responded my post in comp.long.c++ moderated neww group
> regarding "C++ standard and C++/CLI" topic, I worte the following post
> which was sensor by comp.lang.c++.moderated:
> [...]


You've got waaaay too much time on your hands! I strongly believe
that if you have plenty of energy to spare, try not to start a rebellion
but instead participate in governing structures and make changes to the
system from inside. And if you can't find any other ways but flaming
somebody in a newsgroup (moderated or otherwise) and calling for a current
[working] committee's dissolution, then it's just all hot air.

Think of forming your alternative "foundation" on your own and then see
how it fares (and how many followers you get) and whether it will lead to
the committee's eventual decline. Only that will prove that your way is
better.

Just my $0.02...

V

P.S. BTW, the subject of your posting is misleading. Your posting was
censored by a moderator of the moderated newsgroup, and not by the C++
Standard Committee. Such deceit tactics are not welcome here.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ioannis Vranos
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-08-2004
David Eng wrote:
>
> In replying to P.J. Plauger (
> http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&...252B.moderated
> ) who responded my post in comp.long.c++ moderated neww group
> regarding "C++ standard and C++/CLI" topic, I worte the following post
> which was sensor by comp.lang.c++.moderated:



I have set a similar thread here in clc++, under the title C++/CLI
standard. Please reply there so as to be able to talk in one thread!


What do you mean it was censored. My messages take about 12+ hours to
appear in clc++m.


I will answer you for the rest of your message in the C++/CLI thread.






Regards,

Ioannis Vranos
 
Reply With Quote
 
P.J. Plauger
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-08-2004
"David Eng" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...

Uh, where did the Subject line come from? The C++ committee
doesn't have the power to censor opinions, even if it had
the desire to do so. And AFAIK, it has always welcomed
open discussion of many different topics.

> In replying to P.J. Plauger (
>

http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&...252B.moderated
> ) who responded my post in comp.long.c++ moderated neww group
> regarding "C++ standard and C++/CLI" topic, I worte the following post
> which was sensor by comp.lang.c++.moderated:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > It is time to wake up for C++
> > > community and say no to Microsoft's effect to pollute C++.

> >
> > Perhaps. But you might be interested to learn that Andy Koenig
> > woke up a few years ago and gave a talk proposing changes to
> > Standard C++ that are remarkably close to what Microsoft had
> > already begun and has now become C++/CLI.

>
> Really? CLI mainly has three parts that C++ is lack of: VM, garbage
> collection, and middleware platform. For the VM and garbage
> collection, it is not in the spirit of C++. Would Andy Koenig prefer
> those?


Dunno, ask him. But *many* people have experimented with garbage
collection in C++, spirit or no spirit. Lucky for us all, no
single person is in charge of enforcing the "spirit of C++" --
not even BS, who has the best claim for that role.

> However, if C++ is evolving toward CLI or likes, i.e. interface first
> following by implementation without changing C++ language, I have no
> object to this process. The C++/CLI stuff is coming from
> implementation first following by changing C++ in order to fit the
> interface. It is not revolutionary but revolting (thanks for teaching
> me some English).


Welcome. I think.

> > Conservation and conservatism evolved from the same root word,
> > as did revolutionary and revolting. A lot depends upon your
> > point of view.
> >

>
> OH,yea! You are the one who vigorously promote C++/CLI.


Uh, so far I've written one editorial for C/C++ Users Journal,
where I said that I've enjoyed writing in this new dialect.
And I've responded to a few newsgroup postings, mostly to
counter errors of fact. Not my notion of vigorous, but I'll
accept the characterization anyway.

> It is
> certain that you can sell more C++/CLI libraries to Microsoft.


Doubt it. I expect I've sold them all they're likely to buy
from Dinkumware. But I will indeed keep trying.

> For
> C++ programmers, we get more ugly syntax and confusion, and less
> spirit of C++. I think you have created a perfect shoe for yourself
> to wear.


I didn't create the syntax, confusion, or shoe. I just negotiated
a contract between Dinkumware and Microsoft what has, so far, been
mostly fun to carry out.

> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The reason for rejection was flame. But why they never reject P.J.
> Plauger's flame posting?


I assume you're talking about the newsgroup moderators now, not
the C++ committee. They reject my stuff quite often -- usually
because I get vulgar or snarky or a bit too far off topic. Get
used to it.

> Certainly, I just tell the truth:


Well, I try to do that sort of thing myself.
> P.J.
> Plauger and his company sell C++/CLI libraries to Microsoft and that's
> why he supports Microsoft to pollute C++.


I supported Microsoft's effort to improve Managed C++ long before
any hope of a contract dawned. I like to think I'd still support
it even if they hadn't given us a contract. And I have trouble
calling any of this stuff pollution, not after the C++ committee
added exceptions, namespaces, export templates, locale facets,
etc. etc. to what was once just a reasonably simple extension of C.

> We all see C++ is declining.


Not this part of "we".

> However, if someone criticizes C++
> standard committee, they either censor different opinions


As I said earlier, we lack this power. Stop fantasizing, and
stop hyperventilating.

> or shut up
> criticism by saying "no participate and no voice".


Yep. After nearly a quarter century of participating in standards
efforts, I have no problem whatsoever in the "put up or shut up"
response. We're all volunteers, and we all have day jobs. We're
*not* going to carry your water if you don't feel strongly enough
to do some serious work yourself.

> As one poster
> stated, it was waste time to participate C++ standard process since
> the C++ standard committee never achieved anything after C++ was
> standardized in 1999. I concur!


Then why are you so upset that the committee doesn't do what you
want if it's so ineffectual?

> The reason of C++ declining, IMO, is
> C++ is lack of libraries in a standard way for common programming
> tasks into applications, such as thread library. The committee
> responded to this criticism was they didn't have time or no one
> participated. But there are plenty good open source libraries, for
> example, ACE has a nice thread implementation. If they are
> incompetent to create one, why do they just accept one from open
> source?


If there's already a good one out there, why does it have to
be blessed by the C++ standards committee before it can make
a difference? Once upon a time, people developed languages
and libraries, used them for years to find out what was good
and what was bad, and only then saw fit to standardize the
best of the best.

> If you put open source technology QT/KDE for desktop, ACE for
> run-time environment, TAO for CORBA middleware implementation, Apache
> C++ implementation for XML and Web Services together under C++ roof,
> IMO, it is far superior to J2EE and .NET. Why they have to tie C++ to
> .NET instead of standardizing the above technologies so that C++ can
> compete with Java and .NET?


If that combo is as good as you say it is, *someone* ought to
be able to make the next billion dollar company with next to
no investment. I smell opportunity, for someone.

> The reason I am againt C++/CLI is very simple. If C++ binds to CLI,
> C++ shouldn't be changed.


Standard C++ hasn't changed. That's the province of SC22/WG21,
who don't plan to issue a new standard for several years.

> The binding should be through library
> instead of changing C++ syntax. CLI is just like CORBA. The binding
> between C++ and CORBA never requires C++ change. Why does the binding
> between C++ and CLI require C++ change? Certainly, it is Microsoft,
> the bigot. People praise CLI, calling it platform independent.
> Please hold your breath. Since Windows is a proprietary OS, there is
> always one single vendor. Even if CLI becomes standard, no one can
> implement it in Windows. If Microsoft doesn't like some features in
> CLI, she could have no implementation in Windows so that the features
> would be useless. Also, if CLI standard committee is full of
> Microsoft and her sycophants, how could you make CLI vendor and
> platform independent? Tying C++ to .NET by changing C++ syntax would
> lead to the ultimate death of C++, IMO. The reason for some C++
> standard committee to help Microsoft to pollute C++, as I can see, is
> about money. You have the chairman of the committee Herb Sutter who
> works for Microsoft, and member P.J. Plauger who sell libraries to
> Microsoft.


That's quite a rant. (Wish I could get something like that past the
moderators. Or maybe not.) But the information content is low. The
interesting thing about C++/CLI, and other pieces of the .NET
environment, is that Microsoft has ceded control to ECMA committees,
in some cases quite early in the development process. Yes, there's
one major implementation of all this stuff, and one minor one still
playing catch up, but Microsoft's willingness to give up control
should not be underestimated. It greatly increases the chance that
others can join this game and become players, with much less fear
that Microsoft can just change the rules if any competition gets too
serious.

I don't underestimate Microsoft's competitiveness, and I don't for
a moment believe they've fallen prey to excessive altruism. I
simply believe that Microsoft has found an interesting new balance
point; and I for one am happy to have a small part in refining a
well thought out specification.

> That leads to my conclusion. We should dissolve C++ standard
> committee and form a C++ Foundation as an open source. Under C++
> Foundation, merge some C++ technologies in a standard way consisting
> of C++ language, C++ run-time environment and C++ middleware platform.
> If we can do it, I see a bright future for C++.


If you're right, I see no need to dissolve the C++ standards
committee. You'll leave 'em in the dust anyway. Just go for it.

P.J. Plauger
Dinkumware, Ltd.
http://www.dinkumware.com


 
Reply With Quote
 
tom_usenet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-08-2004
On 8 Jul 2004 06:36:16 -0700, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) (David Eng)
wrote:

>In replying to P.J. Plauger (
>http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&...252B.moderated
>) who responded my post in comp.long.c++ moderated neww group
>regarding "C++ standard and C++/CLI" topic, I worte the following post
>which was sensor by comp.lang.c++.moderated:


>OH,yea! You are the one who vigorously promote C++/CLI. It is
>certain that you can sell more C++/CLI libraries to Microsoft. For
>C++ programmers, we get more ugly syntax and confusion, and less
>spirit of C++. I think you have created a perfect shoe for yourself
>to wear.


That'll be the paragraph that got the post rejected. If you tone that
down, I'm sure it will get through. While "For C++ programmers, we get
more ugly syntax and confusion, and less spirit of C++." is fine, the
attacks on PJP's motives are not appropriate to a moderated newsgroup.

Tom
--
C++ FAQ: http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
Andrew Koenig
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-08-2004
"P.J. Plauger" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:ZldHc.30420$(E-Mail Removed)...

> > > Perhaps. But you might be interested to learn that Andy Koenig
> > > woke up a few years ago and gave a talk proposing changes to
> > > Standard C++ that are remarkably close to what Microsoft had
> > > already begun and has now become C++/CLI.

> >
> > Really? CLI mainly has three parts that C++ is lack of: VM, garbage
> > collection, and middleware platform. For the VM and garbage
> > collection, it is not in the spirit of C++. Would Andy Koenig prefer
> > those?

>
> Dunno, ask him. But *many* people have experimented with garbage
> collection in C++, spirit or no spirit. Lucky for us all, no
> single person is in charge of enforcing the "spirit of C++" --
> not even BS, who has the best claim for that role.


I'd like to explain my position, because I don't think Bill Plauger has it
quite right--although I can understand how he, or anyone who sees little of
me outside standards meetings, might have gotten the impression that he did.

First, it's not accurate to say that I "woke up," because that phrase
suggests that I suddenly changed my opinion to consider facts to which I had
previously been oblivious. In fact, the opinions that I presented to the
C++ committee were ones that I had held for many years,. I had not
expressed them to the committe before then only because I felt that they
were outside the committee's purview. Indeed, even when I gave that talk, I
still felt that it was outside their purview, which was why I asked to
present my viewpoint in a "technical session" rather than as part of the
committee's official deliberations.

Next, it's slightly inaccurate to say that I "proposed changes" to Standard
C++. If I remember correctly, I argued that

1) C++ has some siginificant limitations, which are becoming more
significant as the nature of our software and hardware systems change.

2) I do not see how those limitations can be addressed within the
framework of Standard C++ as it stands today. (Note: when I say that I
don't see how to address them, I am not using that claim as a euphemism for
an opinion that they cannot be addressed--indeed part of the reason for
giving the talk is the hope that someone else will figure out how to address
them)

3) I think that it is inevitable that programming languages similar to
C++ will evolve in response to those limitations. The standards committee
does not have a choice about whether or not that evolution will happen; its
only choice is about whether or not it will be a part of it.

My conclusion that I hoped that someone close to the committee would try
some experiments with other C++-like languages that tried to address some of
these problems, regardless of whether they wound up influencing the
evolution of the C++ standard directly, but that doing so would require more
resources than I could personally control.

I hoped that one possible result might be a language that is similar to, and
strongly interoperable with, C++ that could deal with some of the problems
that would require incompatible changes to C++ to solve.

It was only after that talk that I even learned of the existence of
Microsoft's C++/CLI efforts. Apparently someone at Microsoft looked at the
same facts that I did and independently drew similar conclusions.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Xenos
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-08-2004

"tom_usenet" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >OH,yea! You are the one who vigorously promote C++/CLI. It is
> >certain that you can sell more C++/CLI libraries to Microsoft. For
> >C++ programmers, we get more ugly syntax and confusion, and less
> >spirit of C++. I think you have created a perfect shoe for yourself
> >to wear.


I, for one, would be more impressed with your diatribe if you could as least
spell a simple word like "yeah."

DrX


 
Reply With Quote
 
Gary Labowitz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-08-2004
"Xenos" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:ccjuk7$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "tom_usenet" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > >OH,yea! You are the one who vigorously promote C++/CLI. It is
> > >certain that you can sell more C++/CLI libraries to Microsoft. For
> > >C++ programmers, we get more ugly syntax and confusion, and less
> > >spirit of C++. I think you have created a perfect shoe for yourself
> > >to wear.

>
> I, for one, would be more impressed with your diatribe if you could as

least
> spell a simple word like "yeah."


And here we have a classic example of shifting the discussion away from the
topic and substance, and redirecting to some triviality like spelling or
language choice. Such is the nature of starting a flame war. The use of
"yea" may even be appropriate, if a bit archaic. It would indicate
agreement, however, as in "O yea, O yea, verily" and probably wasn't meant.
Regardless, the post was itself a diatribe and easily ignored. I guess that
"OH,yea!" was too good to pass up. :)
[Who has noticed that I have too much time on my hands?]
--
Gary


 
Reply With Quote
 
Alf P. Steinbach
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-08-2004
* Xenos:
>
> "tom_usenet" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > >OH,yea!


The entity calling itself Tom Usenet did _not_ write that.

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Gary Labowitz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-08-2004
"Alf P. Steinbach" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> * Xenos:
> >
> > "tom_usenet" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > >OH,yea!

>
> The entity calling itself Tom Usenet did _not_ write that.


O yea! I guessed it. I got lost in all the > > > > > > and couldn't figure
out who said what.
There must be a trick to it, but once it gets past three I lose track. Don't
take offence in any case, I meant none to anybody.
--
Gary


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: [SI] The Committee is dead, long live the Committee Robert Coe Digital Photography 0 11-14-2012 02:41 AM
Re: The Committee is dead, long live the Committee otter Digital Photography 0 11-14-2012 12:29 AM
Re: [SI] The Committee is dead, long live the Committee tony cooper Digital Photography 0 11-13-2012 10:19 PM
Re: [SI] The Committee is dead, long live the Committee PeterN Digital Photography 0 11-13-2012 09:59 PM
does AOL censor e-mail? PowerPost2000 Computer Support 13 02-15-2004 09:21 PM



Advertisments