Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C Programming > Interview with Mr Stroustrup

Reply
Thread Tools

Interview with Mr Stroustrup

 
 
Chris H
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-17-2011
In message <(E-Mail Removed)
s.com>, tm <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>> You may be able to afford to work for free but few people can these
>> days.

>
>You seem to missunderstand. I work as freelancer and I
>am paid for my work. And I really need the money because
>I have a family with three childen. The development for
>Seed7 is done in my free time.


That is your choice. I have other things to do with my free time.

> So I think: When I can
>manage to write open source software for free most
>computer professionals should be able to do so.


Why?

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
jacob navia
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-17-2011
Le 17/01/11 20:31, Rui Maciel a écrit :
>
> Knowing that, if we also take into account the complexity (or bloat,
> whatever you may call it) that this change would impose on the
> specification of the C programming language, essencially to bring nothing
> relevant to the table, then one has to wonder where is the technical
> justification to impose such a fundamental change.


There is no technical justification.

Mcrosoft corp doesn't like pthreads. Period.

The standards committee then, will publish a new standard that could be
accepted by microsoft.

Standards are just politics+money, technical issues are not really
important.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ian Collins
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-17-2011
On 01/18/11 10:39 AM, jacob navia wrote:
> Le 17/01/11 20:31, Rui Maciel a écrit :
>>
>> Knowing that, if we also take into account the complexity (or bloat,
>> whatever you may call it) that this change would impose on the
>> specification of the C programming language, essencially to bring nothing
>> relevant to the table, then one has to wonder where is the technical
>> justification to impose such a fundamental change.

>
> There is no technical justification.
>
> Mcrosoft corp doesn't like pthreads. Period.
>
> The standards committee then, will publish a new standard that could be
> accepted by microsoft.
>
> Standards are just politics+money, technical issues are not really
> important.


That's a very jaded view.

I haven't read the WG14 papers, but that does not appear to be the case
with WG21 (C++).
--
Ian Collins
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ian Collins
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-17-2011
On 01/17/11 09:51 PM, Chris H wrote:
> In message<(E-Mail Removed)>, Uno<(E-Mail Removed)>
> writes
>> On 1/11/2011 4:29 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>
>>> I believe the C and C++ committees are already in close contact.
>>>

>>
>> You'd think by now they may have golfed together or something. Do you
>> know everyone on both committees? In combinatorics, that would be
>> called a politician.

>
> There are quite a few on both ISO panels but C and C++ are separate
> languages and they tend to be used in different markets.


But they do overlap and maintaining compatibility where they do is
sensible. For example see:

http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG...010/n3137.html

"C and C++ Liaison: Compatibility for Atomics"

--
Ian Collins
 
Reply With Quote
 
Rui Maciel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-18-2011
Ian Collins wrote:

>> Standards are just politics+money, technical issues are not really
>> important.

>
> That's a very jaded view.


I don't know if that's the case with the new C standard. Nonetheless,
there is a fair share of standards out there who include absurdities which
were a product of political bickering. In the computing world, the sham
which was OOXML's standardization process along with all the corruption
that went with it is still fresh in many people's minds. In other areas,
such as CEN's Eurocode family of building codes, there are also a hand
full of such examples. For example, EN 1993-1 includes a couple of
versions of the same formula to evaluate the exact same type of structural
resistance that end up doing the exact same thing simply because, if I'm
not mistaken, the German and French representatives refused to adopt a
verification method other than the one they proposed. As a consequence,
EN 1993-1 essencially includes the same formula twice (minus som minor
details) due to nothing more than political bickering.

So, unfortunately this sort of stuff happens too frequently. And then we,
the ones who have an interest in following those standards, get to suffer
the result of those SNAFUs for years to follow.


Rui Maciel
 
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
ASP Interview Questions ASP Interview Questions reema ASP General 0 08-26-2008 11:57 AM
.NET Interview Question, C#, ASP.NET Interview Questions dotnetuncle Javascript 0 10-30-2007 03:08 PM
Interview with Stroustrup, Leaked. Russell Wood C++ 13 05-25-2006 07:45 PM
The Annotated C++ Language Standard by Koenig & Stroustrup???? Steven T. Hatton C++ 6 04-12-2004 06:05 AM
How would Mr. Stroustrup implement his solution to 12.7[2] Oplec C++ 26 10-24-2003 01:39 AM



Advertisments