> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> And don't kid yourself; Microsoft knows that having an unchanging (if
>> imperfect) API is the key to their market success. The day they
>> abandon Win32 (which, itself, is just an adaptation of Win16) is the
>> day they hand the desktop market to their competitors.
> While it may lead to investigation of other platforms and some may go, it > hardly means, as you said, that everyone would jump ship. Moving to a 100% > new way of developing and delivering software vs. a new way of coding > Windows, is extremely different. Like moving from a US state to another > country vs. moving to another US state.
> This is, of course, as obvious as your post was sensationalistic.
I don't find it sensational; everyone who looks into the business side
of how Microsoft works comes to the same conclusions, and they're common
knowledge in the industry by now.
>> Microsoft _does_ promote other proprietary languages/environments, but
>> largely towards its corporate customers and potential competitors, who
>> they _want_ to see locked into Windows and Microsoft development
>> tools. Most important, by pushing a succession of new languages and
>> SDKs, and then deprecating each a few years later, they force
>> potential competitors to waste time constantly rewriting their code
>> just to stay in the same place, while Microsoft's own products move
>> ahead.
> While I don't know if that is their M.O.,
You can quibble over their motivations for doing so, but their track
record clearly demonstrates that _is_ what they're doing. Once or twice
I could chalk up to a mistake, but their patterns of behavior is
consistent enough to be considered deliberate. They're not idiots; if
they wanted to do something different, they would.
>> Most of the "incompetence" people bash Microsoft for is actually very
>> shrewd marketing. Bad news for customers, good news for Microsoft's
>> shareholders.
> Microsoft is "a leader" because people *follow* them. I wonder if that > surprises "them" as much as it surprises me.
Are you really a "leader" if your "followers" are a chain gang?
S
-- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> Also, don't forget that Microsoft only has two profitable products,
>> Windows and Office,
> Citation needed.
Look at Microsoft's own financial reports, as referenced by others.
>> and both are written in C.
> 100% C?
100%? I doubt it. But that's the primary language, i.e. that of the
core product features. The flowery stuff around the edges, which
changes in every release, may well be in another language.
> Citation needed.
Statements from several current or former employees of Microsoft who
work(ed) on those products.
>> Every other MS product exists only to generate more demand for
>> Windows and/or Office.
> Citation needed.
Explicit statements from both Gates and Ballmer on the topic.
Yes, I know none of the above are specific citations that would be
acceptable in an academic paper, but they are solid enough for me to be
comfortable with my position--especially since I have never seen even an
_unsupported_ claim to the contrary.
S
-- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 01:40:03 +0200, Jens Gustedt wrote:
> Am 25.08.2012 23:09, schrieb rashid:
>> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 20:05:20 +0200, jacob navia wrote:
>>> This is a long story. It starts years ago since windows 3.1 and it
>>> ends now, with "Metro".
>> MS is a great friend of C.
> such a great friend that they refused to support the successive
> standards since 1999
Sorry this is garbage. MSVC supports all C/C++ standards, also extra features (eg C++ style // comments will be accepted in C programs too)
>> They have put C/C++ at the center of Windows development for 25 years.
>> They sold more C/C++ compilers than anyone. They produce their own
>> software in C/C++. All their MFC .NET etc is built right on top of
>> C/C++.
> There is no such thing like C/C++.
??? Are you a crazy? Or you only use JAVA? __Most__ modern software development relies on C/C++.
>> You and all the other crazy MS haters should get a life. C would not
>> have survived as a successful language without the great support of MS
>> across many years!
> Ah, now I see you are joking :)
No you are the joking clown, you and all the MS haters. You want the Linux? Go and use the Linux and be happy. But please do not spread stupid lies about MS.
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 01:40:03 +0200, Jens Gustedt wrote:
>> Am 25.08.2012 23:09, schrieb rashid:
>>> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 20:05:20 +0200, jacob navia wrote:
>>>> This is a long story. It starts years ago since windows 3.1 and it
>>>> ends now, with "Metro".
>>> MS is a great friend of C.
>> such a great friend that they refused to support the successive
>> standards since 1999
> Sorry this is garbage. MSVC supports all C/C++ standards, also extra > features (eg C++ style // comments will be accepted in C programs too)
They've never even fully adopted C99; they've barely even started to
support it, 13 years after original adoption.
>>> They have put C/C++ at the center of Windows development for 25 years.
>>> They sold more C/C++ compilers than anyone. They produce their own
>>> software in C/C++. All their MFC .NET etc is built right on top of
>>> C/C++.
>> There is no such thing like C/C++.
> ??? Are you a crazy? Or you only use JAVA? __Most__ modern software > development relies on C/C++.
No, it does not. A lot of it relies on a language called C, and a lot of
it relies on another language called C++. However, the existence of a
language called C/C++ is a common confusion that has nothing to do with
reality. It often co-exists with the somewhat better-justified, but
still erroneous, belief that C is a subset of C++.
>>> You and all the other crazy MS haters should get a life. C would not
>>> have survived as a successful language without the great support of MS
>>> across many years!
>> Ah, now I see you are joking :)
> No you are the joking clown, you and all the MS haters. You want the > Linux? Go and use the Linux and be happy. But please do not spread stupid > lies about MS.
MS C compilers have never supported more than a tiny sub-set of the
changes that were made in C99. You can call that "support" if you want
to, but I don't see how you could possibly call that "great support".
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 27-Aug-12 06:09, David Brown wrote:
>> Cynics might suggest that Microsoft do this sort of thing
>> intentionally in order to avoid effective standards that would let
>> people choose tools and platforms independently, instead of always
>> using MS products. But I'm sure that is unfair, and the reality is
>> that they are just incompetent and different MS departments and
>> employees are incapable of talking to each other.
> Their own internal memos, both leaked to the press and discovered
> during various anti-trust lawsuits, show that this was (and is) a
> deliberate strategic decision on their part.
> Have you really never heard of "Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish"?
I'll get back to David's post "shortly". The above cliche quotation probably sums up his whole post accurately, and it reaks of the behavior of politicians who have nothing to offer over their opponents: they lack any substance, so they go looking for fault in their opponents. Hello? Does anyone care how bad the others are? They want to know what *YOU* can do.
Is there actually an ISO C group (I don't know what to call it formally) that doesn't include MS as a constituent? Because if not, then y'all should stop singling MS out as not one of your own or take away their membership card or something if you don't want them in your religion.
David Brown wrote:
> On 27/08/2012 12:07, Ansel wrote:
>> Jens Gustedt wrote:
>>> Am 27.08.2012 09:16, schrieb Ansel:
>>>> Jens Gustedt wrote:
>>>> Well if vendors just bowed to ISO, then there would be no
>>>> check-n-balance.
>>> nobody is asking for that.
>> I got/get the impression that the 3 or so of you that I am referring
>> to are indeed on that track. I don't know if what MS left out is the
>> major deficiency Jacob (he was the first to "whine" about C99 in
>> this thread) is making it out to be. So what did I do? I suggested
>> that someone put together the story (and thought maybe someone may
>> even post a link) so it could be known exactly what the situation
>> is. If there are no pain points, then the issue of C99 compliance is
>> moot. Now surely MS has a big presence and influence at the standards
>> meetings, yes? Well, if they didn't get commitment from everyone
>> before declaring the standard finished, there really is nothing to
>> whine about after the fact. The solution is to change the process,
>> or something if it has shown to give inadequate results. Isn't it
>> called "insanity" to keep doing the same thing and expecting to get
>> a different result?
> Let me get this straight - you think that Microsoft took active part
> in the standards committee,
Yes.
> then the committee fixed and
I don't know what you mean by that. Explain.
> published the
> standard without Microsoft's agreement,
I think that the ISO process/managment may be deficient. (?)
> and it is therefore it is the
> standards committee, not Microsoft, that is to blame when Microsoft's
> compiler doesn't follow the standard?
You said "blame". I am still trying to figure out if there is a problem and
if so, what the problem is. No one, though, as of yet, is forthcoming with any relevant information.
> Perhaps you are playing catchup with the world Microsoft lives in,
> but this is the usual way Microsoft treats standards.
> They like to be
> part of lots of standardisation committees, and they like to push and
> pull them in various directions (sometimes for the better, of
> course). But they never consider themselves bound by the standards
> in any way.
So your case against MS is done and now you want to talk about other things? Hello? You have not given any substantive information that I suggested you should if you have a beef with them. (Not *you* specifically--don't take anything I say personally please).
> In the case of C99, MS took part in and agreed on the standards.
"agreed" how? What does that mean? That they said, "oh yeah, that document
looks just fine"? Did they say they were going to use the document as a
requirements specification? Or is it just you that thinks that "sleeping together really means something" (ref: Vanilla Sky)?
> Some
> parts of C99 were included almost entirely at MS's insistence,
Do they get more votes or something because they pay more? Are you saying you went to the casino and the casino "stole" your money?
> despite
> the fact that they never supported them in the compiler
> (unfortunately I can't remember the details or references - so I
> can't object if you give that claim no credit). The main point is
> that MS agreed to the standard, but decided not to implement it.
Definition required: what does "agreed to" mean?
Did they "agree" to use the standard as a requirements document?
> If you want see an even clearer example of this behaviour, look at the
> OOXML farce.
James Kuyper wrote:
> On 08/27/2012 04:58 PM, rashid wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 01:40:03 +0200, Jens Gustedt wrote:
>>> Am 25.08.2012 23:09, schrieb rashid:
>>>> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 20:05:20 +0200, jacob navia wrote:
>>>>> This is a long story. It starts years ago since windows 3.1 and it
>>>>> ends now, with "Metro".
>>>> MS is a great friend of C.
>>> such a great friend that they refused to support the successive
>>> standards since 1999
>> Sorry this is garbage. MSVC supports all C/C++ standards, also extra
>> features (eg C++ style // comments will be accepted in C programs
>> too)
> They've never even fully adopted C99; they've barely even started to
> support it, 13 years after original adoption.
To which I say, and have been saying in this thread: so what?! They went to your church and didn't become <whatever your religion is> and now you are pissed off? Well now, isn't your religion, "nice". Is it that you want MS to bless your holy standard so that it can ride on MS's coattail?
>>>> You and all the other crazy MS haters should get a life. C would
>>>> not have survived as a successful language without the great
>>>> support of MS across many years!
>>> Ah, now I see you are joking :)
>> No you are the joking clown, you and all the MS haters. You want the
>> Linux? Go and use the Linux and be happy. But please do not spread
>> stupid lies about MS.
> MS C compilers have never supported more than a tiny sub-set of the
> changes that were made in C99.
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 26-Aug-12 23:30, Ansel wrote:
>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>> And don't kid yourself; Microsoft knows that having an unchanging
>>> (if imperfect) API is the key to their market success. The day they
>>> abandon Win32 (which, itself, is just an adaptation of Win16) is the
>>> day they hand the desktop market to their competitors.
>> While it may lead to investigation of other platforms and some may
>> go, it hardly means, as you said, that everyone would jump ship.
>> Moving to a 100% new way of developing and delivering software vs. a
>> new way of coding Windows, is extremely different. Like moving from
>> a US state to another country vs. moving to another US state.
>> This is, of course, as obvious as your post was sensationalistic.
> I don't find it sensational;
Well then I am bored, and "disappointed". I'm serious about this stuff, and you're just a bullshitter (or a wanker).
> everyone who looks into the business side
> of how Microsoft works comes to the same conclusions,
Citation required.
> and they're
> common knowledge in the industry by now.
What does that mean? Are you frustrated? Feeling oppressed? Do you hate Microsoft? Jim Gates? What does that mean?!
>>> Microsoft _does_
That is true. Umm, .. did you mean *IT* does, or *THEY* do? Please clarify.
>>> promote other proprietary languages/environments,
"other proprietary"? You're supposed to be programmers and careful at every character typed, yet you write obtuse English? Oh wait, someone in this thread suggested that clc was just a hangout for programmers and nothing should be taken seriously as this is not a place to talk tech or science, but rather to... what? Masturbate? My bad?
>>> but largely towards its corporate customers and potential
>>> competitors, who they _want_ to see locked into Windows and
>>> Microsoft development tools.
"Communism vs. capitalism"? That kind of quip may "place" you in your time.
>>> Most important,
Oh, OK.. ears perked now for this "most important" thought.
>>> by pushing
Who pushed whom?
>>> a
>>> succession of new languages and SDKs,
And wouldn't *that* concept be in opposition to "K&R C is all we or anyone will ever need".
>>> and then deprecating each a
>>> few years later, they force potential competitors to waste time
>>> constantly rewriting their code just to stay in the same place,
>>> while Microsoft's own products move ahead.
"they force potential competitors"? Would you like to think about that some more (I probably don't have that much time left for you to do that, but hey)? As I don't have all the time you have, I will offer some assistance: <lol, I forgot what I was going to write! I must be *senile*!>.
>> While I don't know if that is their M.O.,
> You can quibble
Are you suggesting that I am "quibbling"? With whom? You? Whom? Do tell.
> over their motivations for doing so
You mean that you *wish* I was so that you would have something to do?
>, but their track
> record clearly demonstrates
"clearly". Irrefutably (sp). So let it be written, then, that clearly, not everyone signed "the declaration of independence", but nary that, who gives a shit about that, "the constitution" is much more important (sad to say).
> that _is_ what they're doing.
I missed it, please "reitterate". What are *they* doing? Platform yours, do tell (don't "blow it", this is your big chance!).
> Once or
> twice I could chalk up to a mistake, but their patterns of behavior is
> consistent enough to be considered deliberate. They're not idiots; if
> they wanted to do something different, they would.
You mean, "if they really *wanted* to be in our college fraternity, they would not puke when a gallon of vodka was poured down their throat after being bound and gagged by the "clearly" superior regime"?
>>> Most of the "incompetence" people bash Microsoft for is actually
>>> very shrewd marketing. Bad news for customers, good news for
>>> Microsoft's shareholders.
>> Microsoft is "a leader" because people *follow* them. I wonder if
>> that surprises "them" as much as it surprises me.
> Are you really a "leader" if your "followers" are a chain gang?
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 26-Aug-12 23:30, Ansel wrote:
>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>> Also, don't forget that Microsoft only has two profitable products,
>>> Windows and Office,
>> Citation needed.
> Look at Microsoft's own financial reports, as referenced by others.
No, you said, you provide the link.You said: "Microsoft only has two profitable products".
Are you standing by that or did you f-up royally saying that? (Dude, give it up, you f-d up).
>>> and both are written in C.
>> 100% C?
> 100%? I doubt it.
But you tried to make it look like C more than just historic incident. You were not propagandizing, you were trying to sell snake oil.
> But that's the primary language, i.e. that of the
> core product features.
Citation required.
Do you work for MS as a programmer, developer, architect, designer? Why are you speaking for MS's "coke formula" if you are not the "mixer of the chemicals"? As you are "in the know", tell me, how has the codebase of desktop Windows changed over the years. Explicitly, qualify and quantify the use of C vs C++ iin the raw materials that sits on millions of desktops. I ask, because I "am all ears" to know this (well, not really).
> The flowery stuff around the edges, which
> changes in every release, may well be in another language.
And you assert that from what you have said in the last few posts that you are "smart" rather than "a sheeple"?
>> Citation needed.
> Statements from several current or former employees of Microsoft who
> work(ed) on those products.
Are you sure you want to pursue your masturbatory episodes? You and "disgruntled" MS employees? Waging what war? Tainted and now you have the disease and expect that innocent life would even touch you? You don't have a war. You want everyone else to have a war. Children, across generations you want to perpetuate war. Yes?
(I make it up as I go along. In response to your hot air, fan-boy (adolescent) ism. I actually do come here for technical information. I see that "y'all" may be in the proverbial "rut" (and so many years!))
(Yes, I "folded" when he threatened to post a pic of his wife!)
>>> Every other MS product exists only to generate more demand for
>>> Windows and/or Office.
>> Citation needed.
> Explicit statements from both Gates and Ballmer on the topic.
That is not a citation. You need schooling apparently, if you want to be taken seriously. You are mildly less annoying than Oo Tiib. Of course, it is illegal to "discriminate" upon IQ, for then, how could else any politician be "president"?
> Yes, I know none of the above are specific citations that would be
> acceptable in an academic paper,
You "know", but still you spew? I suggest it differently: if it can't hang on Wikipedia, .. um, then say so!
> but they are solid enough for me to
> be comfortable with my position--especially since I have never seen
> even an _unsupported_ claim to the contrary.
Ahch (sp). Rebellious youth with nothing to do. Why don't you go to space? (As in Mars). Oh, wait, "I know", why don't you sign up to "build" the high-speed railway between Chicago and Detroit!!!
Problem solved! Huh? You have a purpose in life now. (Don't thank me! It was Barrack's idea.)
> David Brown wrote:
>> On 27/08/2012 12:07, Ansel wrote:
>>> Jens Gustedt wrote:
>>>> Am 27.08.2012 09:16, schrieb Ansel:
>>>>> Jens Gustedt wrote:
>>>>> Well if vendors just bowed to ISO, then there would be no
>>>>> check-n-balance.
>>>> nobody is asking for that.
>>> I got/get the impression that the 3 or so of you that I am referring
>>> to are indeed on that track. I don't know if what MS left out is the
>>> major deficiency Jacob (he was the first to "whine" about C99 in
>>> this thread) is making it out to be. So what did I do? I suggested
>>> that someone put together the story (and thought maybe someone may
>>> even post a link) so it could be known exactly what the situation
>>> is. If there are no pain points, then the issue of C99 compliance is
>>> moot. Now surely MS has a big presence and influence at the standards
>>> meetings, yes? Well, if they didn't get commitment from everyone
>>> before declaring the standard finished, there really is nothing to
>>> whine about after the fact. The solution is to change the process,
>>> or something if it has shown to give inadequate results. Isn't it
>>> called "insanity" to keep doing the same thing and expecting to get
>>> a different result?
>> Let me get this straight - you think that Microsoft took active part
>> in the standards committee,
> Yes.
>> then the committee fixed and
> I don't know what you mean by that. Explain.
"Wrote down on paper", "decided upon", "agreed on"
>> published the
>> standard without Microsoft's agreement,
> I think that the ISO process/managment may be deficient. (?)
You are not answering the question.
Do you think that Microsoft agreed to the C99 and other standards, or do you think the standards were formed without Microsoft's agreement?
There is no doubt that MS were heavily involved in the committees and standards formation.
>> and it is therefore it is the
>> standards committee, not Microsoft, that is to blame when Microsoft's
>> compiler doesn't follow the standard?
> You said "blame". I am still trying to figure out if there is a problem and
> if so, what the problem is. No one, though, as of yet, is forthcoming with
> any relevant information.
First off, yes - there /is/ a problem. MS has deliberately chosen not to implement C99 or later standards of C. I say "deliberately" because they have publicly stated that they will not support the standards. It is not a matter of time or money (which I could understand), since the effort involved would be tiny in comparison to the effort they make in developing MSVC.
And it /is/ a problem, because it hinders the use of cross-platform C programming in the desktop PC world. This is a problem for developers who might choose to use C for cross-platform programming, and it is a problem for users and consumers who could have benefited from these programs.
It is /not/ a problem for MS, because it is in their interests to hinder cross-platform programming. (To be fair here, MS is not nearly as bad as Apple in this area.)
So I believe it is a problem, and MS is solely to blame. But you seem to think that it is not a problem (I can see that viewpoint, though I don't agree with it), and that it is the C committee that is to blame for the situation.
>> Perhaps you are playing catchup with the world Microsoft lives in,
>> but this is the usual way Microsoft treats standards.
>> They like to be
>> part of lots of standardisation committees, and they like to push and
>> pull them in various directions (sometimes for the better, of
>> course). But they never consider themselves bound by the standards
>> in any way.
> So your case against MS is done and now you want to talk about other things?
> Hello? You have not given any substantive information that I suggested you
> should if you have a beef with them. (Not *you* specifically--don't take
> anything I say personally please).
MS does not support C99 in their tools, despite their users asking for it (google a little if you want to see examples). This is substantive information - and yes, it is enough to rest the case. I could go on about motives (and I have done, at least a little), but that is more speculative and circumstantial.
(I won't take anything you say personally, and hope you won't either.)
>> In the case of C99, MS took part in and agreed on the standards.
> "agreed" how? What does that mean? That they said, "oh yeah, that document
> looks just fine"? Did they say they were going to use the document as a
> requirements specification? Or is it just you that thinks that "sleeping
> together really means something" (ref: Vanilla Sky)?
Your first interpretation is closest - "agreed" means they said "that document looks just fine" and signed on the bottom of the ISO standard.
Agreeing on the standard does not require a commitment to implement it. It just means you agree with the rest of the committee that the standard will form the definition of "C99", and that anyone with tools or code conforming to that standard can work together.
But you really do have to question the motives of a company that forms and agrees to a standard, then fails to implement it in their tools.
>> Some
>> parts of C99 were included almost entirely at MS's insistence,
> Do they get more votes or something because they pay more? Are you saying
> you went to the casino and the casino "stole" your money?
I don't know how many votes they get (or even to what extent the committee uses votes), but being a major toolchain vendor, they get a lot of influence on the committee. That seems only reasonable.
>> despite
>> the fact that they never supported them in the compiler
>> (unfortunately I can't remember the details or references - so I
>> can't object if you give that claim no credit). The main point is
>> that MS agreed to the standard, but decided not to implement it.
> Definition required: what does "agreed to" mean?
> Did they "agree" to use the standard as a requirements document?
To my knowledge, they "agreed" to the standard. You can interpret that to mean they agreed to use the standard as a requirements document - if they ever make a C99 compiler, it will have to follow the standard. But I don't think they ever promised to actually implement the standard. People (including the rest of the committee) may have /expected/ them to implement it, but MS is not obliged to do so.
>> If you want see an even clearer example of this behaviour, look at the
>> OOXML farce.
> Whoa! One "standard" at a time please!
I am just trying to demonstrate a pattern, using an example that was well publicised, showing MS's treatment of standards and standards committees.
> I don't know how many votes they get (or even to what extent the > committee uses votes), but being a major toolchain vendor, they get a > lot of influence on the committee. That seems only reasonable.
As I understand it (any committee members who are reading this feel free
to correct me) the members of the ISO committee are national standards
organizations, one per country, with one vote each. For reasons I'm not
sure of, ANSI (the US member) seems to have influence greatly
disproportional to it's voting power.
Within ANSI, membership is open to foreign citizens, which is why many
people whose own country doesn't have a standards organization sitting
on the ISO committee participate through ANSI instead. Non-voting
membership is free, voting membership costs money and imposes attendance
requirements at meetings, but no organization can purchase more than one
voting membership (except for "Self", the organization that you can
register as representing if you are not actually representing anyone but
yourself). The cost and attendance requirements are trivial for most
companies, but a bit onerous for an individual. Despite that, a large
fraction of the committee's members are individuals who are paying their
own way.
Microsoft may have had a lot of informal influence, but formally, at
least, they could not have had more than one vote.
-- James Kuyper
Ansel wrote:
> Well if vendors just bowed to ISO, then there would be no check-n-balance.
> "Absolute power corrupts absolutely".
Nonsense. The standards are set by those who participate in the standardisation process, and that includes the vendors. In fact, I suspect that the new C standard was set mainly by people who represented these vendors.
> Apparently ISO did not get MS's
> committal sign-off on the standard before it went to the printing press
> (?) that they would implement it in its entirety? Live and learn? Did they
> fair better with C 11 (or whatever the newest C standard is)? ISO in need
> of some management consulting?
Bullshit. Microsoft was heavily involved in the creation of the new standard for C and C++. With C, apparently it has sent a participant to at least all the WG14 meetings where a minute was recorded.
On Aug 26, 7:35 am, "Ansel" <tinker...@trytospammenowloser.com> wrote:
> Keith Thompson wrote:
> > What exactly is "C/C++"?
> Take the slash as meaning "or". It's a quick way of addressing users of C
> and C++ recognizing that you can do whatever in either language,
well no they are very different languages
> but that
> the language isn't really that important to the overall thought.
...and hence thuis is not so
> E.g., "Well if you don't want to use C#, you can use C/C++".
or Java or Fortran or...
> Also, using just the C
> subset of C++ is akin to writing something in C.
quite. It doesn't look anything like idiomatic C++
<snip>
> > I'm not going to say that they've "abandoned" C, but they certainly
> > aren't showing much enthusiasm for it these days.
> It's hard to be enthusiastic about boring old C though. Yeah, it may be the
> simplest way to deliver a library of simple functions, but so what? Why
> bother worrying about the lonely C standard when C++ is almost a superset of
> it and you're using a C++ compiler anyway?
C++'s name mangling makes linking to other languages difficult. C++'s
exceptions probably make life difficult as well.
Providing a C interface makes your library highly portable.
> I think of C as a kind of least common denominator.
which is its strength
> While I shun
> "sophisticated" C++ libraries (BOOST comes to mind), I welcome *select* C
> code. *Very* simple C++ classes and such are acceptable to me too.
does the STL qualify? I begin to wonder if you can actually program in
C++.
> C++ code
> (even much of C code) from projects, I consider to be pretty much "write
> once, can't reuse" code.
sounds poorly written
> IOW, mostly C++ ends up being great for abstracting
> within a project, but too big of a pill to reuse in another project.
considering C++ was supposed to be good at this...
> Library
> development is much harder than application program development
> On Aug 26, 7:35 am, "Ansel" <tinker...@trytospammenowloser.com> wrote:
>> Keith Thompson wrote:
...
> C++'s name mangling makes linking to other languages difficult. C++'s
> exceptions probably make life difficult as well.
> Providing a C interface makes your library highly portable.
Keep in mind that a C++ library can provide a C interface, without using
actual C code, just by declaring the interface functions extern "C".
Those interface functions can use any C++-specific feature that doesn't
involve the function signature.
-- James Kuyper
I just noticed a connection (or rather, lack thereof):
On 08/27/2012 04:58 PM, rashid wrote:
...
> Sorry this is garbage. MSVC supports all C/C++ standards, also extra > features (eg C++ style // comments will be accepted in C programs too)
On 08/29/2012 04:00 PM, rashid wrote:
...
> Look, what it is this languages of C11 and C99 what everyone talks about? > I never heard of them. C++, sure of course I know. C11 or C22 or Cff... > hocus pocus!
C90, C99, and C11 are the different versions of the C standard that you
claimed, above, that MSVC supports. If you don't know what the names of
those standard versions are, how could you feel so confident in your
(incorrect) claim that it supports all of them?
-- James Kuyper
James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 08/28/2012 07:14 AM, David Brown wrote:
> ...
> > I don't know how many votes they get (or even to what extent the > > committee uses votes), but being a major toolchain vendor, they get a > > lot of influence on the committee. That seems only reasonable.
> As I understand it (any committee members who are reading this feel free
> to correct me) the members of the ISO committee are national standards
> organizations, one per country, with one vote each. For reasons I'm not
> sure of, ANSI (the US member) seems to have influence greatly
> disproportional to it's voting power.
ANSI has greater influence on some committees simply due to the greater
breadth and depth of expertise on the subject matter that exists in the
US as compared to other countries. It also has greater influence on
committees where it holds the convenorship and/or editorship for
somewhat obvious reasons. In the case of the C committee, all of those
apply.
-- Larry Jones
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 26-Aug-12 03:58, Ansel wrote:
>> What are the applications programs, if any, that are critical to have
>> on Windows from a party other than from MS that would be
>> significantly detrimental to sales of Windows?
> Games.
> If MS dropped support for games, forcing all of those customers to
> switch to Linux or Mac, that would be seriously detrimental to the
> sales of Windows. In fact, one can look at the Xbox as an attempt to
> keep Windows relevant to games developers: they can target two
> platforms for only slightly more than the cost of one. After all,
> there must be a reason they're willing to pour billions of dollars
> into that money pit every year, right? They're not idiots.
> Pretty much everything else is either company- or industry-specific,
> which would not threaten Windows as a whole; competes with Office or
> something included with Windows, which again does not really threaten
> Windows as a whole; or is open source.
>> On my Win 7 + MS Office Pro desktop machine, I can't, off the top of
>> my head, think of any software on it that I actually paid for (and I
>> don't have any pirated software) and same for the Win XP setup I had
>> previously, so that's why I ask.
> I've got some non-MS commercial software on my machine, either
> internal apps my company wrote or stuff we bought to support specific
> business functions. Most of the proprietary "applications" I use
> today are web-based, and that's the real threat MS faces because it
> makes the desktop OS completely irrelevant. Indeed, many of my
> coworkers use Linux or Mac, something that was infeasible just ten
> years ago.
Oooo, yes. Very good answer, very key I think, I don't KNOW this area and its pervasiveness, but I believe you. I would have NEVER considered that (for I can't fathom how so many adolescents (males between the ages of teen to 60?) waste so much time on such useless shit). It's a sad state of affairs. (And I used to like to play arcade games (Space Invaders era, got disinterested when the animated "games" appeared: boring!) in HS and a few years beyond!).
> In article <k172n1$3s...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> "Ansel" <tinker...@trytospammenowloser.com> wrote:
>> What is your confusion? A console app, a desktop app, a metro app,
>> services, are separate paradigms. They are all available on Windows
>> 8. Pick your
> For people from a Unix background, 'apps' and other programs all
> share the same OS interface and descend from start, launchd, sh,
> login, etc which conform to the same shell exec conventions. Programs
> generally don't care or know how they were execked. That means
> developers can use the same shell and software tools for any program,
> then release it into the wild without alteration.
> (MacOSX unfortunately distinguishes loginwindow descended from
> launchd descended and blocks the GPU and some other MacOSX
> functionality from daemons. That's one advantage of Linux.)
Unix is for nerds. Nerds are not engineers. End of story. (I know, you're (someone is going to) come back and say, "well linux is embedded in blah, blah... Guess what? "Enginerd" is in no way related to "Engineer" (Else Torvalds would have actually proved by now that he "had a clue"). What's the point, you ask? That adolescent males (a lot of males in USA will live their whole lives as adolescents) who play video games are wankers. Their primary endeavor is to WANK more.
David Brown wrote:
> On 28/08/2012 06:18, Ansel wrote:
>> David Brown wrote:
>>> On 27/08/2012 12:07, Ansel wrote:
>>>> Jens Gustedt wrote:
>>>>> Am 27.08.2012 09:16, schrieb Ansel:
>>>>>> Jens Gustedt wrote:
>>>>>> Well if vendors just bowed to ISO, then there would be no
>>>>>> check-n-balance.
>>>>> nobody is asking for that.
>>>> I got/get the impression that the 3 or so of you that I am
>>>> referring to are indeed on that track. I don't know if what MS
>>>> left out is the major deficiency Jacob (he was the first to
>>>> "whine" about C99 in this thread) is making it out to be. So what
>>>> did I do? I suggested that someone put together the story (and
>>>> thought maybe someone may even post a link) so it could be known
>>>> exactly what the situation is. If there are no pain points, then
>>>> the issue of C99 compliance is moot. Now surely MS has a big
>>>> presence and influence at the standards meetings, yes? Well, if
>>>> they didn't get commitment from everyone before declaring the
>>>> standard finished, there really is nothing to whine about after
>>>> the fact. The solution is to change the process, or something if
>>>> it has shown to give inadequate results. Isn't it called
>>>> "insanity" to keep doing the same thing and expecting to get a
>>>> different result?
>>> Let me get this straight - you think that Microsoft took active part
>>> in the standards committee,
>> Yes.
>>> then the committee fixed and
>> I don't know what you mean by that. Explain.
> "Wrote down on paper", "decided upon", "agreed on"
No, you use words that are just to advance "your case", and it works in the USA judicial system, but this isn't that <>. No, this is just USENET, and you must answer to me. The "law" of "your country" does not apply here. This is the internet. There is no law except the law of humanity. (That is why I punctured all four tires of your monster truck last Saturday.. remember how "cool" you were to shove yourself in-between me and the girl I was having a good time with at the bar? Yep, I did it. I'll be back there next weekend, FYI.)
(Interjections/or seemingly non-cotexual quips, should not be taken personally.)
>>> published the
>>> standard without Microsoft's agreement,
>> I think that the ISO process/managment may be deficient. (?)
> You are not answering the question.
I don't need to answer any questions. YOU need to substantiate or retract your claims. If you're gonna play stupid with me, I'll give yourself back to you in spades.
> Do you think that Microsoft agreed to the C99 and other standards,
Don't bring "other standards" into this in attempt to gain ground: it weakens your case considerably. I know a little bit about business, and therefore "agreements". You are perhaps taking a "played golf with the Microsoft rep, and we arrived at a "gentleman's agreeement"" stance? Hello? Little idiot man, show me the legal agreement Microsoft signed. You don't have any case otherwise (I think).
Is your fratboy bubble being bursted by "brutal" reality? A you a wanker?
> or
> do you think the standards were formed without Microsoft's agreement?
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think you have any beef justification or legal case. You thought your "best friend" was your friend, but ran away with "your one and only"? What's next? Stallman's "freedom" campaign? Drink your koolaid and shut up.
> There is no doubt that MS were heavily involved in the committees and
> standards formation.
I was "heavily involved" (that probably shouldn't be in quotes) with a few VERY nice "strippers". They raked me over the coals! Those damn strippers!! See my point? ISO C committe was fantasizing just like you are and aren't you ISO C committee? You weren't a boy in the strip club--you can't even get in if you're not a bigshot. You hate Microsoft, I don't hate the strippers (and they don't hate me either, for we had fun, and OK, I owe them more if they can prove they were REALLY virgins!).
(Aside: Has Brandie been around?? Tell her I say hi and please give her my number: 936-328-8684.)
(Oh, and my real name is Stanley). <abashed>
>>> and it is therefore it is the
>>> standards committee, not Microsoft, that is to blame when
>>> Microsoft's compiler doesn't follow the standard?
>> You said "blame". I am still trying to figure out if there is a
>> problem and if so, what the problem is. No one, though, as of yet,
>> is forthcoming with any relevant information.
> First off, yes - there /is/ a problem.
No, I think "first off" you said "blame".
> MS has deliberately chosen not
> to implement C99 or later standards of C.
Welcome to the real world? 99.9% of information a human receives is bullshit and you are promagulating it or are still feeding on it? (Could be rephrased as, "Do you eat shit?").
> I say "deliberately"
> because they have publicly stated that they will not support the
> standards.
No, you said "deliberately" because they bitched you instead of you bitching them.
> It is not a matter of time or money
Oh, but it is that. If you want more than that, well it's gonna cost you more money. (Well, that's what "a stripper" told me once, anyway).
> (which I could
> understand)
I would say that "I don't see you understanding much", but it is evident that you understand YOUR goals, in exclusion of others'.
> , since the effort involved would be tiny in comparison to
> the effort they make in developing MSVC.
"effort"? Since when did that count? 20 years driving a school bus, and replaced for admonishing your unruly kids while driving and replaced by a new driver with the entry wage of $10/hr. "effort"? 20 years of you sperms on a bus? I would call that horror. Meet the homeless.
> And it /is/ a problem, because it hinders the use of cross-platform C
> programming in the desktop PC world.
"It is a problem that Catholicism is not throughout the land, so I declare "the crusades", and all witches will be gathered and burned."
Yes, it is a problem. The definition of "it"?
> This is a problem for developers
Ha! Lofty terminology thrown? You wouldn't know a "developer" from a "programmer", even if he was in a lineup in accusation of raping your mother.
> who might choose to use C for cross-platform programming, and it is a
> problem for users and consumers who could have benefited from these
> programs.
Sounds like the Republican presentation (I saw little of it, but the newsman seem to confirm the lack of substance). Wankers. Wankers wanna be "president". I'm not calling "republicans" wankers. I'm calling wankers wankers. (I am not "a democrat", for the record).
> It is /not/ a problem for MS, because it is in their interests to
> hinder cross-platform programming.
Ya think? Think about it. You just WANT to think that? OK, I give Jim Gates and his merry wankers too much credit. Are you calling for class-action lawsuit? What would be worse, MS having all the money, or USA continuing and expanding their war industry?
See grasshopper, it's not just "I wank my dick untill it cums, and all is good".
> (To be fair here, MS is not
> nearly as bad as Apple in this area.)
Or any other company given blessing and rights as a human by your government's laws? Isn't the nirvana of wanker irresponsibility incorporation, and isn't the biggest wanker on the planet right now Mark Zuckerfuck? Have you tried calling him and offering to suck his dick?
> So I believe it is a problem,
So, you have no case.
> and MS is solely to blame.
Is that an accusation? If so, make it. "MS is solely to blame for..."
> But you seem
> to think that it is not a problem
You know, when I see a problem, I try to fix it. Just "my nature". To perhaps contrary opinion, (especially in this NG where everyone's life teeters on some esoteric notion of ones and zeroes on infintesimally small transistors has any relevance at all), I am not a total idiot. But when you call me one directly, but trying to hone down a bullshit position based on one word (that word being 'it'), I have a hard time regarding you as relevant. (And I said it harshly).
> (I can see that viewpoint, though I
> don't agree with it),
> I don't care that you WANT.
> and that it is the C committee that is to blame
> for the situation.
YOU said 'blame'. You wanna make me a lawyer, push my buttons some more.
>>> Perhaps you are playing catchup with the world Microsoft lives in,
>>> but this is the usual way Microsoft treats standards.
>>> They like to be
>>> part of lots of standardisation committees, and they like to push
>>> and pull them in various directions (sometimes for the better, of
>>> course). But they never consider themselves bound by the standards
>>> in any way.
>> So your case against MS is done and now you want to talk about other
>> things? Hello? You have not given any substantive information that I
>> suggested you should if you have a beef with them. (Not *you*
>> specifically--don't take anything I say personally please).
> MS does not support C99 in their tools,
"Cry me a river".
> despite their users asking for
> it (google a little if you want to see examples).
Nope. I'm not the judge. Are you suggesting I gather facts? Instead of your mouthal spew? What if I charge you back for the work I do? No, I'm not going to do that. You make unsubtantiated statements. What are you waiting for? That "I" find you in an alley and make you prove it, so you can sue me? What if I ignore your tantrum and adolescent wanking?
>This is substantive
Hello. No, wanker, the world does not await your dick. And I can prove it: put it up on UTube. Oh, it's already on
...
jacob navia wrote:
> Le 26/08/12 13:02, Ansel a crit :
>> But alas, a lot of C
>> programmers are Unix programmers and we all know what that
>> means--functions that are 3 pages long and have more branches than
>> you can shake a stick at and all the obscene things that can only be
>> done "at the hardware level"
> Ahhh those Unix programmers. Bunch of morons isn't it?
