Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Microsoft abandons the C language
337 views
Skip to first unread message
jacob navia
Aug 23, 2012, 2:05:20 PM8/23/12
to
This is a long story. It starts years ago since windows 3.1 and it ends
now, with "Metro".
SO, I downloaded windows 8, and installed it. That went fairly smoothly
but I forgot that windows doesn't come with the remote desktop
connection. I tried by all means to allow it, but couldn't. There is a
client app that lets you connect to OTHER machines, but no server. A few
hours wasted but well, that's OK.
Then, I tried installing the compiler. This small and fast software
takes only 5GB when installed, and the installation process is quite
fast, it took me just half a day.
The problem is that it kept crashing when installing, but (eventually) I
discover the right procedure: When it crashes do as you always have done
under windows:
REBOOT.
That solves many things. I discover that if you try to restart the
installer without rebooting it will crash in a few seconds. I tried for
hours until I discovered that you have just to reboot and when you do
that, the installer goes on automatically, skipping the problem
apparently.
Great! after hours of waiting I started Visual studio 2012. The
interface is great. It has a very similar flat look like in the old days
of windows 3.0. Everything is flat, the "buttons" the window borders,
everything, even lcc-win...
I remember all those interface guidelines that recommended us to use the
3D controls, avoid a "flat" look, whatever, fad is fad and the current
fad is the best, of course.
Then, I started looking at the documentation of the SDK. And then I
noticed that C is no longer mentioned ANYWHERE. The only reference is to
"managed C++" That is the Microsoft version of C++ stock full with
__gc_class, ref class etc.
In the reference to C++ I found this:
) The concept of a current working directory doesn't apply to Metro
style apps and there is no current drive.
Also, corresponding APIs such as GetCurrentDirectory and
SetCurrentDirectory are not available in the MSDK.
Say goodbye to:
chdir chdir chdrive wchdir getcwd getcwd getdcwd getdcwd_nolock
wgetcwd _wgetdcwd wgetdcwd_nolock
2) Say goodbye to the console. Metro style apps are GUI only; they don't
support console. Goodbye stdin, stderr, stdout.
3) Pipe functionality is not available to Metro style apps.
4) Environment variables are not available to Metro style apps. Goodbye
to getenv, putenv, etc.
5) A Metro style app cannot invoke another Metro style app or a
desktop app. Goodbye to system, spawnxxx execxxx etc.
6) C strings are out. Goodbye strcpy strlwr strlen, etc.
7) Low level I/O functions: fopen fwrite etc. These functions are
synchronous, which is not recommended for Metro style apps. In your
Metro style apps, use asynchronous APIs to open, read from, and
write to files to prevent locking of the UI thread. Examples of such
APIs are the ones in the Windows::Storage::FileIO class.
Great. Welcome to the future. This means that lcc-win will never be able
to generate any "Metro" applications since all interfaces with the
system go through a COM interface that would be feasible to adapt but
what a pain!
I just do not have the resources nor the will to follow Microsoft any
more in that direction.
The controls we are used to since windows 3.0 have disappeared (the
famous group box, for instance)... Many others are different, anyway
you have to rewrite absolutely EVERYTHING AGAIN, as well as you have to
learn windows again. The famous "start" button has disappeared, the
interface is completely different, all the reflexes are now WRONG,
you have to look for a few minutes after you find how to TURN OFF windows
But I eventually find that button.
Phew!
now, with "Metro".
SO, I downloaded windows 8, and installed it. That went fairly smoothly
but I forgot that windows doesn't come with the remote desktop
connection. I tried by all means to allow it, but couldn't. There is a
client app that lets you connect to OTHER machines, but no server. A few
hours wasted but well, that's OK.
Then, I tried installing the compiler. This small and fast software
takes only 5GB when installed, and the installation process is quite
fast, it took me just half a day.
The problem is that it kept crashing when installing, but (eventually) I
discover the right procedure: When it crashes do as you always have done
under windows:
REBOOT.
That solves many things. I discover that if you try to restart the
installer without rebooting it will crash in a few seconds. I tried for
hours until I discovered that you have just to reboot and when you do
that, the installer goes on automatically, skipping the problem
apparently.
Great! after hours of waiting I started Visual studio 2012. The
interface is great. It has a very similar flat look like in the old days
of windows 3.0. Everything is flat, the "buttons" the window borders,
everything, even lcc-win...
I remember all those interface guidelines that recommended us to use the
3D controls, avoid a "flat" look, whatever, fad is fad and the current
fad is the best, of course.
Then, I started looking at the documentation of the SDK. And then I
noticed that C is no longer mentioned ANYWHERE. The only reference is to
"managed C++" That is the Microsoft version of C++ stock full with
__gc_class, ref class etc.
In the reference to C++ I found this:
) The concept of a current working directory doesn't apply to Metro
style apps and there is no current drive.
Also, corresponding APIs such as GetCurrentDirectory and
SetCurrentDirectory are not available in the MSDK.
Say goodbye to:
chdir chdir chdrive wchdir getcwd getcwd getdcwd getdcwd_nolock
wgetcwd _wgetdcwd wgetdcwd_nolock
2) Say goodbye to the console. Metro style apps are GUI only; they don't
support console. Goodbye stdin, stderr, stdout.
3) Pipe functionality is not available to Metro style apps.
4) Environment variables are not available to Metro style apps. Goodbye
to getenv, putenv, etc.
5) A Metro style app cannot invoke another Metro style app or a
desktop app. Goodbye to system, spawnxxx execxxx etc.
6) C strings are out. Goodbye strcpy strlwr strlen, etc.
7) Low level I/O functions: fopen fwrite etc. These functions are
synchronous, which is not recommended for Metro style apps. In your
Metro style apps, use asynchronous APIs to open, read from, and
write to files to prevent locking of the UI thread. Examples of such
APIs are the ones in the Windows::Storage::FileIO class.
Great. Welcome to the future. This means that lcc-win will never be able
to generate any "Metro" applications since all interfaces with the
system go through a COM interface that would be feasible to adapt but
what a pain!
I just do not have the resources nor the will to follow Microsoft any
more in that direction.
The controls we are used to since windows 3.0 have disappeared (the
famous group box, for instance)... Many others are different, anyway
you have to rewrite absolutely EVERYTHING AGAIN, as well as you have to
learn windows again. The famous "start" button has disappeared, the
interface is completely different, all the reflexes are now WRONG,
you have to look for a few minutes after you find how to TURN OFF windows
But I eventually find that button.
Phew!
Jens Gustedt
Aug 23, 2012, 2:28:27 PM8/23/12
to
Am 23.08.2012 20:05, schrieb jacob navia:
> This is a long story. It starts years ago since windows 3.1 and it ends
> now, with "Metro".
[snip]
> This is a long story. It starts years ago since windows 3.1 and it ends
> now, with "Metro".
They never supported any of the newer versions of the C standard with
their own compilers. So this only makes things official so to say.
Hopefully this will free the C language from this burden that the
non-support from MS has been all the years.
Jens
Rui Maciel
Aug 23, 2012, 4:06:49 PM8/23/12
to
Jens Gustedt wrote:
> They never supported any of the newer versions of the C standard with
> their own compilers. So this only makes things official so to say.
Wasn't it due to Microsoft that pthreads weren't added to the C11 standard,
> They never supported any of the newer versions of the C standard with
> their own compilers. So this only makes things official so to say.
instead replacing it with a kluge of a wrapper?
Rui Maciel
Melzzzzz
Aug 23, 2012, 4:07:02 PM8/23/12
to
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 20:05:20 +0200
jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:
>
> The controls we are used to since windows 3.0 have disappeared (the
> famous group box, for instance)... Many others are different, anyway
> you have to rewrite absolutely EVERYTHING AGAIN, as well as you have
> to learn windows again. The famous "start" button has disappeared,
> the interface is completely different, all the reflexes are now WRONG,
> you have to look for a few minutes after you find how to TURN OFF
> windows
>
>
> But I eventually find that button.
>
> Phew!
>
Perhaps that's a good thing. Windows is getting better and better ;)
jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:
>
> The controls we are used to since windows 3.0 have disappeared (the
> famous group box, for instance)... Many others are different, anyway
> you have to rewrite absolutely EVERYTHING AGAIN, as well as you have
> to learn windows again. The famous "start" button has disappeared,
> the interface is completely different, all the reflexes are now WRONG,
> you have to look for a few minutes after you find how to TURN OFF
> windows
>
>
> But I eventually find that button.
>
> Phew!
>
>
>
>
Paul
Aug 23, 2012, 4:20:05 PM8/23/12
to
jacob navia wrote:
<<snip>>
try this as an add-on. You'll find it makes things
look a little more familiar.
http://classicshell.sourceforge.net/features.html
Conventional applications still run under Windows 8 desktop.
I tried Firefox and Thunderbird in there, and a four
year old game, and all installed properly and run OK.
Where the interface likely goes awry, is on Win8 RT,
the ARM version for portable devices. That's likely
to be entirely different. X86 apps won't run there
(although if Microsoft had wanted, they could have
found a way - they're not Apple after all).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_RT
Paul
<<snip>>
> The famous "start" button has disappeared, the
> interface is completely different, all the reflexes are now WRONG,
> you have to look for a few minutes after you find how to TURN OFF windows
If you install Windows 8, like Release Preview, you can
> interface is completely different, all the reflexes are now WRONG,
> you have to look for a few minutes after you find how to TURN OFF windows
try this as an add-on. You'll find it makes things
look a little more familiar.
http://classicshell.sourceforge.net/features.html
Conventional applications still run under Windows 8 desktop.
I tried Firefox and Thunderbird in there, and a four
year old game, and all installed properly and run OK.
Where the interface likely goes awry, is on Win8 RT,
the ARM version for portable devices. That's likely
to be entirely different. X86 apps won't run there
(although if Microsoft had wanted, they could have
found a way - they're not Apple after all).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_RT
Paul
jacob navia
Aug 23, 2012, 4:51:21 PM8/23/12
to
Le 23/08/12 22:20, Paul a �crit :
interface is no longer maintained so in a few years those application
will be as obsolete as MSDOS is today since all NEW features will not be
ported to the C interface you see?
> Conventional applications still run under Windows 8 desktop.
> I tried Firefox and Thunderbird in there, and a four
> year old game, and all installed properly and run OK.
Of course. But the new interface is no longer available, and the C
> I tried Firefox and Thunderbird in there, and a four
> year old game, and all installed properly and run OK.
interface is no longer maintained so in a few years those application
will be as obsolete as MSDOS is today since all NEW features will not be
ported to the C interface you see?
Message has been deleted
CRNG
Aug 23, 2012, 5:57:53 PM8/23/12
to
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 20:05:20 +0200, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net>
wrote in <k15rct$jli$1...@speranza.aioe.org> Re Microsoft abandons the C
language:
>I just do not have the resources nor the will to follow Microsoft any
>more in that direction.
Let's hope many more millions feel the same way.
Next step: Uninstall Win 8 and stick with WinXP until something
reasonable comes along.
wrote in <k15rct$jli$1...@speranza.aioe.org> Re Microsoft abandons the C
language:
>I just do not have the resources nor the will to follow Microsoft any
>more in that direction.
Next step: Uninstall Win 8 and stick with WinXP until something
reasonable comes along.
James Kuyper
Aug 23, 2012, 6:01:28 PM8/23/12
to
On 08/23/2012 05:57 PM, CRNG wrote:
...
reasonable, you could be waiting a very long time - probably the entire
rest of your life.
...
> Next step: Uninstall Win 8 and stick with WinXP until something
> reasonable comes along.
If you don't consider any of your currently available alternatives
> reasonable comes along.
reasonable, you could be waiting a very long time - probably the entire
rest of your life.
William Ahern
Aug 23, 2012, 7:04:46 PM8/23/12
to
jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:
> Le 23/08/12 22:20, Paul a écrit :
Microsoft's Metro diversion is likely to be as longlived as their commitment
to C#, "managed" C++, Silverlight, etc.
Backwards (and forward) compatibility is the only redeeming quality of
Windows. As soon as management realizes Metro doesn't do anything to staunch
their market share decline with newer devices, well... you'll see. In
absolute terms Microsoft is raking in just as much money as ever, and no
sane company would risk such a sizeable installed base for future growth
prospects. It's the paradox that ultimately leads companies to disappear,
but until their final demise it's invariable rational and profitable to
cater to their installed base. Microsoft has too many MBAs to do any
different.
Don't let the marketing hype give you too much consternation.
> Le 23/08/12 22:20, Paul a écrit :
to C#, "managed" C++, Silverlight, etc.
Backwards (and forward) compatibility is the only redeeming quality of
Windows. As soon as management realizes Metro doesn't do anything to staunch
their market share decline with newer devices, well... you'll see. In
absolute terms Microsoft is raking in just as much money as ever, and no
sane company would risk such a sizeable installed base for future growth
prospects. It's the paradox that ultimately leads companies to disappear,
but until their final demise it's invariable rational and profitable to
cater to their installed base. Microsoft has too many MBAs to do any
different.
Don't let the marketing hype give you too much consternation.
Robert Wessel
Aug 23, 2012, 8:14:37 PM8/23/12
to
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 20:05:20 +0200, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net>
wrote:
As for C applications in Metro, well, writing iOS apps in anything
other than Objective-C is a right pain too. Or Android apps in
something other than Java (yes, it's possible in all of these cases,
but certainly not the easiest choice).
But I do have more than a few mixed feeling about the whole Metro
thing. On the one hand, the old Windows style interface simply does
not work well on mobile devices, so if they're going to have to make a
break, make it a big one, since the opportunities to do that happen so
rarely. On the other hand, it's a freaking PITA for developers with
existing applications...
FWIW, Apple is no joy to work with either.
Leo Havmøller
Aug 24, 2012, 12:52:48 AM8/24/12
to
> SO, I downloaded windows 8, and installed it. That went fairly smoothly
> but I forgot that windows doesn't come with the remote desktop connection.
Remote desktop is included from W8 pro and up (I'm using W8 enterprise,
> but I forgot that windows doesn't come with the remote desktop connection.
since i'm on a domain).
Google "windows 8 editions" for comparsion.
<snip a lot about VS2012 and metro>
It seems that you downloaded VS2012 express for metro.
What you want is VS2012 expess for desktop, which will be released later.
Any of the VS2012 paid versions include both, and also the corresponding
docs.
Leo Havm�ller.
Ansel
Aug 24, 2012, 1:16:56 AM8/24/12
to
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
poison. You seem to be flailing wildly for no apparent reason. Every
whiz-bang UI paradigm is not obligated to support the C programming model.
Separate UI code from application (reuseable) code. The serious stuff gets
done in modules separate from the UI (in any significant, well-designed
application program).
Ansel
Aug 24, 2012, 1:26:14 AM8/24/12
to
CRNG wrote:
> Next step: Uninstall Win 8 and stick with WinXP until something
> reasonable comes along.
Win 7 (with Aero turned off). I've been using virtually the same desktop
> Next step: Uninstall Win 8 and stick with WinXP until something
> reasonable comes along.
style since Win 95, so I don't see any value in major GUI changes on the
desktop. I do admit that I hate the Win 7 Explorer (file manager) and search
integration. I think they really f'd up with the emphasis on search over
organization. Overall though, I find Win 7 a worthwhile improvement over Win
XP for reasons other than the GUI.
jacob navia
Aug 24, 2012, 3:00:45 AM8/24/12
to
Le 24/08/12 06:52, Leo Havm�ller a �crit :
expensive MSDN subscription) it would not be recognized.
No way out. MSDN France didn't know what to do either.
> <snip a lot about VS2012 and metro>
>
> It seems that you downloaded VS2012 express for metro.
No, I downloaded VS Professional.
> What you want is VS2012 expess for desktop, which will be released later.
> Any of the VS2012 paid versions include both, and also the corresponding
> docs.
>
> Leo Havm�ller.
Visual Studio 2012 does allow to compile applications for C with the
same limitations as for VS 2010.
>> SO, I downloaded windows 8, and installed it. That went fairly smoothly
>> but I forgot that windows doesn't come with the remote desktop
>> connection.
>
> Remote desktop is included from W8 pro and up (I'm using W8 enterprise,
> since i'm on a domain).
> Google "windows 8 editions" for comparsion.
>
I know but when I downloaded it, I got my product key ( I have bought an
>> but I forgot that windows doesn't come with the remote desktop
>> connection.
>
> Remote desktop is included from W8 pro and up (I'm using W8 enterprise,
> since i'm on a domain).
> Google "windows 8 editions" for comparsion.
>
expensive MSDN subscription) it would not be recognized.
No way out. MSDN France didn't know what to do either.
> <snip a lot about VS2012 and metro>
>
> It seems that you downloaded VS2012 express for metro.
> What you want is VS2012 expess for desktop, which will be released later.
> Any of the VS2012 paid versions include both, and also the corresponding
> docs.
>
> Leo Havm�ller.
same limitations as for VS 2010.
Message has been deleted
jacob navia
Aug 24, 2012, 3:18:52 AM8/24/12
to
Le 24/08/12 09:06, Don't make my brown eyes China Blue a écrit :
> (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.)
>
Look, I develop in a Mac (0S X 10.8) and you can OF COURSE develop GUI
applications that use the full Unix/Mac libraries. Of course you have to
sandbox them to be able to put them into an iPhone but for the Mac
Desktop there are no such restrictions.
That is the problem here. Microsoft doesn't make the distinction between
a sandboxed application and a desktop application apparently and the
whole Metro sdk is designed for a subset of languages all
exclusively running in a Microsoft platform: Managed C++, C#, Java
script, and all .net languages.
C doesn't fit there.
This is the end of a development that was announced with the refusal to
support C99 at all, the marking of the whole C library as obsolete by
Visual Studio, and other developments: the last SDK released was several
years ago, all develoment of the C interfaces stopped, etc.
> (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.)
>
Look, I develop in a Mac (0S X 10.8) and you can OF COURSE develop GUI
applications that use the full Unix/Mac libraries. Of course you have to
sandbox them to be able to put them into an iPhone but for the Mac
Desktop there are no such restrictions.
That is the problem here. Microsoft doesn't make the distinction between
a sandboxed application and a desktop application apparently and the
whole Metro sdk is designed for a subset of languages all
exclusively running in a Microsoft platform: Managed C++, C#, Java
script, and all .net languages.
C doesn't fit there.
This is the end of a development that was announced with the refusal to
support C99 at all, the marking of the whole C library as obsolete by
Visual Studio, and other developments: the last SDK released was several
years ago, all develoment of the C interfaces stopped, etc.
Leo Havmøller
Aug 24, 2012, 3:22:57 AM8/24/12
to
> That is the problem here. Microsoft doesn't make the distinction between a
> sandboxed application and a desktop application apparently and the whole
> Metro sdk is designed for a subset of languages all
> exclusively running in a Microsoft platform: Managed C++, C#, Java script,
> and all .net languages.
> C doesn't fit there.
The real question is: Why would you want to develop a metro style
> sandboxed application and a desktop application apparently and the whole
> Metro sdk is designed for a subset of languages all
> exclusively running in a Microsoft platform: Managed C++, C#, Java script,
> and all .net languages.
> C doesn't fit there.
application at all?
Leo Havmøller.
Daniel Weber
Aug 24, 2012, 3:33:04 AM8/24/12
to
Am 23.08.2012 22:51, schrieb jacob navia:
> Of course. But the new interface is no longer available, and the C
> interface is no longer maintained
Of course it is available and still maintained. The server editions of
> Of course. But the new interface is no longer available, and the C
> interface is no longer maintained
windows require those features, the business customers require those
features, ...
Maybe you just downloaded the wrong Visual Studio Express Edition?
Bye,
Daniel
Nick Keighley
Aug 24, 2012, 3:45:47 AM8/24/12
to
On Aug 23, 7:05 pm, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:
> This is a long story. It starts years ago since windows 3.1 and it ends
> now, with "Metro".
<snip>
> This is a long story. It starts years ago since windows 3.1 and it ends
> now, with "Metro".
> Then, I started looking at the documentation of the SDK. And then I
> noticed that C is no longer mentioned ANYWHERE. The only reference is to
> "managed C++" That is the Microsoft version of C++ stock full with
> __gc_class, ref class etc.
[to be honest i could live without C (my C usuallly goes through a C++
compiler without much hassle). But no C++ either!]
> In the reference to C++ I found this:
>
> ) The concept of a current working directory doesn't apply to Metro
> style apps and there is no current drive.
>
> Also, corresponding APIs such as GetCurrentDirectory and
> SetCurrentDirectory are not available in the MSDK.
>
> Say goodbye to:
> chdir chdir chdrive wchdir getcwd getcwd getdcwd getdcwd_nolock
> wgetcwd _wgetdcwd wgetdcwd_nolock
>
> 2) Say goodbye to the console. Metro style apps are GUI only; they don't
> support console. Goodbye stdin, stderr, stdout.
I write console applications all the time to try things out! Little
utilities launched from the desktop etc.
all.
jacob navia
Aug 24, 2012, 3:53:18 AM8/24/12
to
Le 24/08/12 09:22, Leo Havmøller a écrit :
Because is the interface that Microsoft will maintain, i.e. will develop
further.
The old interface will be maintained for some years but it will no
longer be supported, and will decay slowly as new features are added to
"metro style" applications but not to the older interface paradigm.
By the way I do not want to develop any phone application but desktop
applications. If the SDK doesn't have any C interface you are
forced to develop in one of the proposed languages:
o Visual Basic
o Java script
o Managed C++
o C#
further.
The old interface will be maintained for some years but it will no
longer be supported, and will decay slowly as new features are added to
"metro style" applications but not to the older interface paradigm.
By the way I do not want to develop any phone application but desktop
applications. If the SDK doesn't have any C interface you are
forced to develop in one of the proposed languages:
o Visual Basic
o Java script
o Managed C++
o C#
Ansel
Aug 24, 2012, 5:48:37 AM8/24/12
to
jacob navia wrote:
> Le 24/08/12 09:22, Leo Havmøller a écrit :
>>> That is the problem here. Microsoft doesn't make the distinction
>>> between a sandboxed application and a desktop application apparently
>>> and the whole Metro sdk is designed for a subset of languages all
>>> exclusively running in a Microsoft platform: Managed C++, C#, Java
>>> script, and all .net languages.
>>> C doesn't fit there.
>>
>> The real question is: Why would you want to develop a metro style
>> application at all?
>>
>> Leo Havmøller.
> Because is the interface that Microsoft will maintain, i.e. will
> develop further.
>
> The old interface will be maintained for some years but it will no
> longer be supported, and will decay slowly as new features are added
> to "metro style" applications but not to the older interface paradigm.
>
You mean that after 25+ years of the desktop GUI paradigm, Metro will
> Le 24/08/12 09:22, Leo Havmøller a écrit :
>>> That is the problem here. Microsoft doesn't make the distinction
>>> between a sandboxed application and a desktop application apparently
>>> and the whole Metro sdk is designed for a subset of languages all
>>> exclusively running in a Microsoft platform: Managed C++, C#, Java
>>> script, and all .net languages.
>>> C doesn't fit there.
>>
>> The real question is: Why would you want to develop a metro style
>> application at all?
>>
>> Leo Havmøller.
> Because is the interface that Microsoft will maintain, i.e. will
> develop further.
>
> The old interface will be maintained for some years but it will no
> longer be supported, and will decay slowly as new features are added
> to "metro style" applications but not to the older interface paradigm.
>
obsolete it? Why do you make such wild assertions?
> By the way I do not want to develop any phone application but desktop
> applications. If the SDK doesn't have any C interface you are
> forced to develop in one of the proposed languages:
>
> o Visual Basic
> o Java script
> o Managed C++
> o C#
to the Win32 API (or better, his own wrapper around it)??
Ansel
Aug 24, 2012, 6:17:28 AM8/24/12
to
Nick Keighley wrote:
> On Aug 23, 7:05 pm, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:
>> 2) Say goodbye to the console. Metro style apps are GUI only; they
>> don't support console. Goodbye stdin, stderr, stdout.
>
> ;-( :-(
>
> I write console applications all the time to try things out! Little
> utilities launched from the desktop etc.
You can still write console apps in Win8.
> On Aug 23, 7:05 pm, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:
>> 2) Say goodbye to the console. Metro style apps are GUI only; they
>> don't support console. Goodbye stdin, stderr, stdout.
>
> ;-( :-(
>
> I write console applications all the time to try things out! Little
> utilities launched from the desktop etc.
>
>
> no Win32 interface at all? Maybe I will have to switch to Linux after
> all.
I really don't see the hullabuloo about Metro apps. Some
applications/platforms fit the model, others don't. I haven't investigated
it much, but Metro seems to be a smart phone GUI put on the desktop, which
sounds like a very dumb idea. On a phone, or tablet maybe, but on a desktop?
Surely that showing of that coffee table interface where one could move
stuff around with their hands because the surface was a touch screen has
something to do with this (read, Bill Gate's ego). MS seems to be just a
bunch of propeller heads after the Win 8 UI fiasco.
But then again, the first thing I do after installing the latest and
"greatest" version of Windows and after playing around with the "new and
improved" GUI for a bit, is go looking for the same classic GUI I've been
using since Win 95, so it may be just me. Heck, maybe y'all have abandoned
your desktops for your smartphone ages ago, or don't even know what one of
those desktop (computer) things is! I don't even have a smartphone. The last
thing I want when I'm away from my computer, is to be away WITH another
computer!
I got off the MS bandwagon of "new-and-improved" technologies early. The
first incling I had of their strategy is when they came out with DDE and
then everything in their arsenal had to have 'DDE' in the name. Then it was
OLE. COM. MFC, .Net, WinRT, Metro... it never ends. I feel very lucky that I
haven't spent much time on learning MS-proprietary technologies.
Ansel
Aug 24, 2012, 6:20:25 AM8/24/12
to
Ansel
Aug 24, 2012, 6:47:44 AM8/24/12
to
Ansel wrote:
> I really don't see the hullabuloo about Metro apps. Some
> applications/platforms fit the model, others don't. I haven't
> investigated it much, but Metro seems to be a smart phone GUI put on
> the desktop, which sounds like a very dumb idea. On a phone, or
> tablet maybe, but on a desktop?
Further, if one has an operating system product line, and they have a
> I really don't see the hullabuloo about Metro apps. Some
> applications/platforms fit the model, others don't. I haven't
> investigated it much, but Metro seems to be a smart phone GUI put on
> the desktop, which sounds like a very dumb idea. On a phone, or
> tablet maybe, but on a desktop?
paradigm they call "deskop apps" and another called "Metro-style apps",
shouldn't users conclude that "desktop apps" are for desktop computers and
that "Metro-style" apps are for some other type of computer and that an OS
that presents itself in "Metro-style" is not an OS meant for a desktop
computer? Does MS employ any analysts? If so, they should try using
consultants instead!
Les Cargill
Aug 24, 2012, 7:33:23 AM8/24/12
to
--
Les Cargill
BGB
Aug 24, 2012, 12:35:20 PM8/24/12
to
be Metro-only, but from what I heard they backed down due mostly to
severe developer backlash.
as-is, I have been seeing if ever MS would do something so incredibly
stupid as to sway the cost/benefit tradeoffs generally in favor of
Linux, but this hasn't happened yet, as most of their more extreme(-ly
bad) ideas have tended to go over poorly and they have backed off.
will see about the future though...
jacob navia
Aug 24, 2012, 3:03:53 PM8/24/12
to
Le 24/08/12 18:35, BGB a �crit :
1995 was a fairly easy porting job. All the calls and structure of
windows remained the same, the languages remained the same, and the
overall design of the API remained the same.
We face now a complete rewrite of everything Win32 programmers have
developed over those 15 years. Everything: all the code, resources
design application design everything. You start from scratch.
Hi Guys!
Here is Microsoft. You have trusted us with your code, well... bad luck.
Just start again. Learn our new proprietary technology XYZ, the best
that you have ever know. All your code is now "legacy", and you can
forget it: there is no need for that since XYZ is the best of the best.
Some people think that they will only be forced to rewrite the UI in
Metro but can keep the rest. Maybe, but since pipes are banned, and
Metro applications can start an application or a new thread how are they
going to communicate with the rest of the application?
Of course: by writing files!
:-)
But maybe there will be a huge market for people that do not want
Metro and want to go on using Win32...
> AFAIK, MS was originally going to make the Windows 8 development tools
> be Metro-only, but from what I heard they backed down due mostly to
> severe developer backlash.
You understand that the transition from windows 16 bits to windows 32 in
> be Metro-only, but from what I heard they backed down due mostly to
> severe developer backlash.
1995 was a fairly easy porting job. All the calls and structure of
windows remained the same, the languages remained the same, and the
overall design of the API remained the same.
We face now a complete rewrite of everything Win32 programmers have
developed over those 15 years. Everything: all the code, resources
design application design everything. You start from scratch.
Hi Guys!
Here is Microsoft. You have trusted us with your code, well... bad luck.
Just start again. Learn our new proprietary technology XYZ, the best
that you have ever know. All your code is now "legacy", and you can
forget it: there is no need for that since XYZ is the best of the best.
Some people think that they will only be forced to rewrite the UI in
Metro but can keep the rest. Maybe, but since pipes are banned, and
Metro applications can start an application or a new thread how are they
going to communicate with the rest of the application?
Of course: by writing files!
:-)
But maybe there will be a huge market for people that do not want
Metro and want to go on using Win32...
BGB
Aug 24, 2012, 7:46:11 PM8/24/12
to
On 8/24/2012 2:03 PM, jacob navia wrote:
> Le 24/08/12 18:35, BGB a écrit :
well, there *was* a reason for the backlash...
otherwise, besides pipes, loopback sockets would probably still be
around, and people can more-or-less fake pipes via sockets.
> Le 24/08/12 18:35, BGB a écrit :
otherwise, besides pipes, loopback sockets would probably still be
around, and people can more-or-less fake pipes via sockets.
Ansel
Aug 24, 2012, 11:08:45 PM8/24/12
to
BGB wrote:
> AFAIK, MS was originally going to make the Windows 8 development tools
> be Metro-only, but from what I heard they backed down due mostly to
> severe developer backlash.
That is ludicrous to think that. Think about it a minute. Do you really
> AFAIK, MS was originally going to make the Windows 8 development tools
> be Metro-only, but from what I heard they backed down due mostly to
> severe developer backlash.
think that MS would throw away everything they ever did up until now because
of a touch UI? C'mon. Really now, c'mon. There was some rumor about the free
versions of the tools being Metro-only, but we'll never know what was
planned because now they are making the free tools for desktop development
available. Has this group all taken sensationalism drugs or what?
Ansel
Aug 24, 2012, 11:13:25 PM8/24/12
to
jacob navia wrote:
> We face now a complete rewrite of everything Win32 programmers have
> developed over those 15 years. Everything: all the code, resources
> design application design everything. You start from scratch.
>
> Hi Guys!
>
> Here is Microsoft. You have trusted us with your code, well... bad
> luck. Just start again. Learn our new proprietary technology XYZ, the
> best that you have ever know. All your code is now "legacy", and you
> can forget it: there is no need for that since XYZ is the best of the
> best.
> Some people think that they will only be forced to rewrite the UI in
> Metro but can keep the rest. Maybe, but since pipes are banned, and
> Metro applications can start an application or a new thread how are
> they going to communicate with the rest of the application?
>
> Of course: by writing files!
>
> :-)
>
> But maybe there will be a huge market for people that do not want
> Metro and want to go on using Win32...
More wild flailing from you.
> We face now a complete rewrite of everything Win32 programmers have
> developed over those 15 years. Everything: all the code, resources
> design application design everything. You start from scratch.
>
> Hi Guys!
>
> Here is Microsoft. You have trusted us with your code, well... bad
> luck. Just start again. Learn our new proprietary technology XYZ, the
> best that you have ever know. All your code is now "legacy", and you
> can forget it: there is no need for that since XYZ is the best of the
> best.
> Some people think that they will only be forced to rewrite the UI in
> Metro but can keep the rest. Maybe, but since pipes are banned, and
> Metro applications can start an application or a new thread how are
> they going to communicate with the rest of the application?
>
> Of course: by writing files!
>
> :-)
>
> But maybe there will be a huge market for people that do not want
> Metro and want to go on using Win32...
Rui Maciel
Aug 25, 2012, 5:16:17 AM8/25/12
to
Ansel wrote:
> You seem to be flailing wildly for no apparent reason.
It appears that the changes mentioned by Jacob Navia have the nasty
> You seem to be flailing wildly for no apparent reason.
consequence of making it impossible to use standard C and C++ to develop
apps for Windows 8. This being true, this reason might not be apparent but
it certainly has serious implications, more than enough to justify some
amount of wild faliling.
Rui Maciel
Rui Maciel
Aug 25, 2012, 5:20:50 AM8/25/12
to
Leo Havmøller wrote:
> The real question is: Why would you want to develop a metro style
> application at all?
If a client asks for a metro style application then it is in your best
> The real question is: Why would you want to develop a metro style
> application at all?
interests to develop a metro style application. If not, it might just be
enough to put you out of business.
Rui Maciel
Nick Keighley
Aug 25, 2012, 9:47:46 AM8/25/12
to
On Aug 24, 11:17 am, "Ansel" <tinker...@trytospammenowloser.com>
wrote:
yeah I skipped most of them too. I've recently had to do a bit of COM.
Not too bad if you wrap up well
wrote:
Not too bad if you wrap up well
BGB
Aug 25, 2012, 11:41:35 AM8/25/12
to
On 8/24/2012 10:08 PM, Ansel wrote:
> BGB wrote:
>
>> AFAIK, MS was originally going to make the Windows 8 development tools
>> be Metro-only, but from what I heard they backed down due mostly to
>> severe developer backlash.
>
> That is ludicrous to think that. Think about it a minute. Do you really
> think that MS would throw away everything they ever did up until now because
> of a touch UI? C'mon. Really now, c'mon. There was some rumor about the free
> versions of the tools being Metro-only, but we'll never know what was
> planned because now they are making the free tools for desktop development
> available. Has this group all taken sensationalism drugs or what?
>
actually, MS does this a lot, though usually it is more like:
> BGB wrote:
>
>> AFAIK, MS was originally going to make the Windows 8 development tools
>> be Metro-only, but from what I heard they backed down due mostly to
>> severe developer backlash.
>
> That is ludicrous to think that. Think about it a minute. Do you really
> think that MS would throw away everything they ever did up until now because
> of a touch UI? C'mon. Really now, c'mon. There was some rumor about the free
> versions of the tools being Metro-only, but we'll never know what was
> planned because now they are making the free tools for desktop development
> available. Has this group all taken sensationalism drugs or what?
>
they have their new fancy stuff, and they want everyone to use it;
people continue doing stuff the old way;
MS realizes maybe it wasn't so great after all.
from what I had heard the idea was that they were planning on basically
making any new development on the platform have to use their new stuff
(presumably older software and third-party tools would still work though).
it was at this point that there was backlash, and their changed their
position, and decided to allow traditional software to still be
developed with the new tools as well.
granted, most of what I heard about it came from various online forums
though...
rashid
Aug 25, 2012, 5:09:02 PM8/25/12
to
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".
[cut]
> This is a long story. It starts years ago since windows 3.1 and it ends
> now, with "Metro".
Dude you are a crazy.
MS is a great friend of C. 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++.
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!
Jens Gustedt
Aug 25, 2012, 7:40:03 PM8/25/12
to
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".
> 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
> 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++.
> 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!
Jens
Keith Thompson
Aug 25, 2012, 7:48:40 PM8/25/12
to
distinct, but closely related, languages.
As for Microsoft's support for them, yes, they have a C compiler, but it
doesn't support the C99 or C11 standard. I believe that they use much
more C++ than C in implementing their own software (Windows, etc.).
I'm not going to say that they've "abandoned" C, but they certainly
aren't showing much enthusiasm for it these days.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
ozbear
Aug 25, 2012, 10:22:05 PM8/25/12
to
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 22:51:21 +0200, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net>
wrote:
>Le 23/08/12 22:20, Paul a écrit :
>> Conventional applications still run under Windows 8 desktop.
>> I tried Firefox and Thunderbird in there, and a four
>> year old game, and all installed properly and run OK.
>will be as obsolete as MSDOS is today since all NEW features will not be
>ported to the C interface you see?
>
>
And what's wrong with that?
Nothing lasts forever, nor should it.
The C language has no place on tablets.
Oz
--
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
wrote:
>Le 23/08/12 22:20, Paul a écrit :
>> Conventional applications still run under Windows 8 desktop.
>> I tried Firefox and Thunderbird in there, and a four
>> year old game, and all installed properly and run OK.
>
>Of course. But the new interface is no longer available, and the C
>interface is no longer maintained so in a few years those application
>Of course. But the new interface is no longer available, and the C
>will be as obsolete as MSDOS is today since all NEW features will not be
>ported to the C interface you see?
>
>
And what's wrong with that?
Nothing lasts forever, nor should it.
The C language has no place on tablets.
Oz
--
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
timprince
Aug 25, 2012, 11:20:23 PM8/25/12
to
On 8/25/2012 7:48 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>
> What exactly is "C/C++"? There no such language. C and C++ are two
> distinct, but closely related, languages.
>
> As for Microsoft's support for them, yes, they have a C compiler, but it
> doesn't support the C99 or C11 standard. I believe that they use much
> more C++ than C in implementing their own software (Windows, etc.).
>
> I'm not going to say that they've "abandoned" C, but they certainly
> aren't showing much enthusiasm for it these days.
>
Speculation that one day Microsoft might support the intersection of C99
>
> What exactly is "C/C++"? There no such language. C and C++ are two
> distinct, but closely related, languages.
>
> As for Microsoft's support for them, yes, they have a C compiler, but it
> doesn't support the C99 or C11 standard. I believe that they use much
> more C++ than C in implementing their own software (Windows, etc.).
>
> I'm not going to say that they've "abandoned" C, but they certainly
> aren't showing much enthusiasm for it these days.
>
and C++ isn't holding up with my new (today) installation of VS2012. No
restrict, not even with the documented proprietary alternative, no
for(int i;.....
Besides, no interoperable Fortran (yet).
For the first time, there's auto-vectorization (only for SSE2 and AVX
architectures).
--
Tim Prince
Keith Thompson
Aug 25, 2012, 11:55:06 PM8/25/12
to
timprince <tpr...@computer.org> writes:
[...]
The lack of "for (int i;, ...)" is a little surprising, but I think I
read somewhere that they're planning to support it later.
[...]
[...]
> Speculation that one day Microsoft might support the intersection of C99
> and C++ isn't holding up with my new (today) installation of VS2012. No
> restrict, not even with the documented proprietary alternative, no
> for(int i;.....
C++ doesn't have "restrict".
> and C++ isn't holding up with my new (today) installation of VS2012. No
> restrict, not even with the documented proprietary alternative, no
> for(int i;.....
The lack of "for (int i;, ...)" is a little surprising, but I think I
read somewhere that they're planning to support it later.
[...]
Ansel
Aug 26, 2012, 12:35:43 AM8/26/12
to
BGB wrote:
> On 8/24/2012 10:08 PM, Ansel wrote:
>> BGB wrote:
>>
>>> AFAIK, MS was originally going to make the Windows 8 development
>>> tools be Metro-only, but from what I heard they backed down due
>>> mostly to severe developer backlash.
>>
>> That is ludicrous to think that. Think about it a minute. Do you
>> really think that MS would throw away everything they ever did up
>> until now because of a touch UI? C'mon. Really now, c'mon. There was
>> some rumor about the free versions of the tools being Metro-only,
>> but we'll never know what was planned because now they are making
>> the free tools for desktop development available. Has this group all
>> taken sensationalism drugs or what?
>
> actually, MS does this a lot, though usually it is more like:
> they have their new fancy stuff, and they want everyone to use it;
> people continue doing stuff the old way;
> MS realizes maybe it wasn't so great after all.
>
>
> from what I had heard the idea was that they were planning on
> basically making any new development on the platform have to use
> their new stuff (presumably older software and third-party tools
> would still work though).
> it was at this point that there was backlash, and their changed their
> position, and decided to allow traditional software to still be
> developed with the new tools as well.
Like I said, that is a ludicrous thought. Overnight, just go and dump
> On 8/24/2012 10:08 PM, Ansel wrote:
>> BGB wrote:
>>
>>> AFAIK, MS was originally going to make the Windows 8 development
>>> tools be Metro-only, but from what I heard they backed down due
>>> mostly to severe developer backlash.
>>
>> That is ludicrous to think that. Think about it a minute. Do you
>> really think that MS would throw away everything they ever did up
>> until now because of a touch UI? C'mon. Really now, c'mon. There was
>> some rumor about the free versions of the tools being Metro-only,
>> but we'll never know what was planned because now they are making
>> the free tools for desktop development available. Has this group all
>> taken sensationalism drugs or what?
>
> actually, MS does this a lot, though usually it is more like:
> they have their new fancy stuff, and they want everyone to use it;
> people continue doing stuff the old way;
> MS realizes maybe it wasn't so great after all.
>
>
> from what I had heard the idea was that they were planning on
> basically making any new development on the platform have to use
> their new stuff (presumably older software and third-party tools
> would still work though).
> it was at this point that there was backlash, and their changed their
> position, and decided to allow traditional software to still be
> developed with the new tools as well.
decades of product technology evolution and mindshare for a stupid-little
touch UI paradigm? C'mon!
>
> granted, most of what I heard about it came from various online forums
> though...
>
Les Cargill
Aug 26, 2012, 1:19:40 AM8/26/12
to
ozbear wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 22:51:21 +0200, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Le 23/08/12 22:20, Paul a écrit :
>>> Conventional applications still run under Windows 8 desktop.
>>> I tried Firefox and Thunderbird in there, and a four
>>> year old game, and all installed properly and run OK.
>>
>> Of course. But the new interface is no longer available, and the C
>> interface is no longer maintained so in a few years those application
>> will be as obsolete as MSDOS is today since all NEW features will not be
>> ported to the C interface you see?
>>
>>
>
> And what's wrong with that?
> Nothing lasts forever, nor should it.
>
Of course some things should (and do) last forever. It's arguably
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 22:51:21 +0200, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Le 23/08/12 22:20, Paul a écrit :
>>> Conventional applications still run under Windows 8 desktop.
>>> I tried Firefox and Thunderbird in there, and a four
>>> year old game, and all installed properly and run OK.
>>
>> Of course. But the new interface is no longer available, and the C
>> interface is no longer maintained so in a few years those application
>> will be as obsolete as MSDOS is today since all NEW features will not be
>> ported to the C interface you see?
>>
>>
>
> And what's wrong with that?
> Nothing lasts forever, nor should it.
>
easier, for example, to get a 6V6 tube than it's ever been.
> The C language has no place on tablets.
>
> Oz
>
That's pretty much tablets to me.
--
Les Cargill
Ansel
Aug 26, 2012, 1:58:15 AM8/26/12
to
it a few times out of curiosity, I have never programmed to it. I was never
at a position to package and offer components for Windows that would be
useable to those using any Windows-supported language. I dismissed COM as
being for the development of cross-language Windows components. I just don't
find it any fun working with MS technologies either. I prefer to write the
things that get wrapped-up with those things (until I create my own
you-wrap-it-up-in-this technologies?)--that is *real* code! I'm "sure" COM
is still a lower-level technology upon which even Metro underpinnings are
built.
Ansel
Aug 26, 2012, 2:13:53 AM8/26/12
to
rashid wrote:
> 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".
> [cut]
>
> Dude you are a crazy.
>
> MS is a great friend of C. They have put C/C++ at the center of
> Windows development for 25 years.
No, they were on a full-force path away from C++ for quite awhile and
> 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".
> [cut]
>
> Dude you are a crazy.
>
> MS is a great friend of C. They have put C/C++ at the center of
> Windows development for 25 years.
anticipating C# (Java all grown up and on steroids) to be be-all, end-all
language on Windows. They have been confirming their commitment to C++ in
the past few years and admit that they were out of touch with C++
developers' wants. Their developers have publicly explicitly stated this.
Surely they just did a lot of learning as we all have and do and realized
that C++/CLI (aka, "managed C++") was an alienating technology (remnants
survive, however).
> 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++.
>
> C would not
> have survived as a successful language without the great support of
> MS across many years!
I do not see that as a feather in MS's hat. Windows would have been better
> have survived as a successful language without the great support of
> MS across many years!
if it had come after C++ was invented. Much better. C, as a matter of fact,
is much of the reason why Windows's underpinnings are so convoluted. There
is no denying that. They did the best they could with what they had at the
time.
Ansel
Aug 26, 2012, 2:35:28 AM8/26/12
to
Keith Thompson wrote:
> What exactly is "C/C++"?
Take the slash as meaning "or". It's a quick way of addressing users of C
> What exactly is "C/C++"?
and C++ recognizing that you can do whatever in either language, but that
the language isn't really that important to the overall thought. E.g., "Well
if you don't want to use C#, you can use C/C++". Also, using just the C
subset of C++ is akin to writing something in C.
> There no such language. C and C++ are two
> distinct, but closely related, languages.
>
> As for Microsoft's support for them, yes, they have a C compiler, but
> it doesn't support the C99 or C11 standard. I believe that they use
> much more C++ than C in implementing their own software (Windows,
> etc.).
>
assembly.
> I'm not going to say that they've "abandoned" C, but they certainly
> aren't showing much enthusiasm for it these days.
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?
I think of C as a kind of least common denominator. 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. C++ code
(even much of C code) from projects, I consider to be pretty much "write
once, can't reuse" code. IOW, mostly C++ ends up being great for abstracting
within a project, but too big of a pill to reuse in another project. Library
development is much harder than application program development and only a
few know how to do it well (and some of those throw in a bunch of extraneous
crap to obfuscate the key elements). YMMV.
BGB
Aug 26, 2012, 3:17:58 AM8/26/12
to
just stick with VS2008 or VS2010 or something?...
they did apparently want people to give up C and C++ and adopt .NET and
C# though, but people like myself were just like "whatever" and
continued using languages like C and C++...
(partly a notable reason I didn't use C# for much of anything serious
was, ironically, because Mono kind of sucked and its C++/CLI support was
broken, so it would have left things mostly as Windows-only).
>>
>> granted, most of what I heard about it came from various online forums
>> though...
>>
>
> Have a link?
>
not terribly inclined to go try to look it up at the moment.
BGB
Aug 26, 2012, 3:24:58 AM8/26/12
to
On 8/25/2012 10:55 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> timprince <tpr...@computer.org> writes:
> [...]
>> Speculation that one day Microsoft might support the intersection of C99
>> and C++ isn't holding up with my new (today) installation of VS2012. No
>> restrict, not even with the documented proprietary alternative, no
>> for(int i;.....
>
> C++ doesn't have "restrict".
>
> The lack of "for (int i;, ...)" is a little surprising, but I think I
> read somewhere that they're planning to support it later.
>
well, at least they have "long long"...
> timprince <tpr...@computer.org> writes:
> [...]
>> Speculation that one day Microsoft might support the intersection of C99
>> and C++ isn't holding up with my new (today) installation of VS2012. No
>> restrict, not even with the documented proprietary alternative, no
>> for(int i;.....
>
> C++ doesn't have "restrict".
>
> The lack of "for (int i;, ...)" is a little surprising, but I think I
> read somewhere that they're planning to support it later.
>
jacob navia
Aug 26, 2012, 4:45:38 AM8/26/12
to
Le 26/08/12 05:55, Keith Thompson a �crit :
changes nothing on the fact that they still have,'t implemented the C
standard, 12 years after its publication.
> I think I
> read somewhere that they're planning to support it later.
You have been telling this too many times. And even if it was true that
> read somewhere that they're planning to support it later.
changes nothing on the fact that they still have,'t implemented the C
standard, 12 years after its publication.
Ansel
Aug 26, 2012, 4:58:58 AM8/26/12
to
meeting at MS, and I think it is preposterous for anyone to think so.
>
> they did apparently want people to give up C and C++ and adopt .NET
> and C# though,
> but people like myself were just like "whatever" and
> continued using languages like C and C++...
top-dog C++ afficionados (Herb Sutter?)?
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? 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. A programming language
NG may be the wrong place to ask this.
>
> (partly a notable reason I didn't use C# for much of anything serious
> was, ironically, because Mono kind of sucked and its C++/CLI support
> was broken, so it would have left things mostly as Windows-only).
>
>
>>>
>>> granted, most of what I heard about it came from various online
>>> forums though...
>>>
>>
>> Have a link?
>>
>
> not off-hand.
jacob navia
Aug 26, 2012, 5:00:18 AM8/26/12
to
Le 26/08/12 08:35, Ansel a �crit :
I would just ask you then what the F*CK are you doing in a C interest
group?
Just trolling?
Ahh ok. Go on then, now we know.
> 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?
That's fine with me, many people have the same opinion.
> 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?
I would just ask you then what the F*CK are you doing in a C interest
group?
Just trolling?
Ahh ok. Go on then, now we know.
Ansel
Aug 26, 2012, 5:13:37 AM8/26/12
to
who do use the C subset available through C++ and find it adequate? What
features of the C standard are missing and who wants to *use* them? It's
one thing to criticize that the standard is not implemented while there is
great need by developers for the features, but quite another to criticize
just "for standards sake", as if ISO decree were more important than actual
developer needs/desires. Statistics please. What C features are developers
targeting Windows clamouring for and which developers and how many
developers? C standard compliance just for compliance sake is wasted effort?
Ansel
Aug 26, 2012, 5:16:14 AM8/26/12
to
jacob navia wrote:
> Le 26/08/12 08:35, Ansel a écrit :
> Le 26/08/12 08:35, Ansel a écrit :
>> 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?
>
> That's fine with me, many people have the same opinion.
>
> I would just ask you then what the F*CK are you doing in a C interest
> group?
>
I'm a developer. Not just a *fan-boy* like you.
>> 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?
>
> That's fine with me, many people have the same opinion.
>
> I would just ask you then what the F*CK are you doing in a C interest
> group?
>
BartC
Aug 26, 2012, 6:06:53 AM8/26/12
to
"Ansel" <tink...@trytospammenowloser.com> wrote in message
news:k1cg2e$824$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> 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?
...
interface. That's why it's important.
> Why bother worrying about the lonely C standard when C++ is almost a
> superset of it and you're using a C++ compiler anyway?
Suppose you're developing another language (Pascal for example, or just
ASM); making it talk with foreign functions and interfaces specified in C is
trivial, once you've figured out whether 'long' is 32 bits or 64. Dealing
with a C++ interface (and all that COM and DCOM stuff, whatever the hell
that's all about) isn't.
It's a bit like the difference between using TXT format to create a document
(a human-readable format that can be read and written universally), and
having to use DOCX instead (a format so complex, the specification needs
nearly 5000 pages of documentation -- probably in DOCX format itself!).
--
Bartc
news:k1cg2e$824$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> 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?
> I think of C as a kind of least common denominator.
Using C would be the nearest thing to having a binary (ie. language-neutral)
interface. That's why it's important.
> Why bother worrying about the lonely C standard when C++ is almost a
> superset of it and you're using a C++ compiler anyway?
ASM); making it talk with foreign functions and interfaces specified in C is
trivial, once you've figured out whether 'long' is 32 bits or 64. Dealing
with a C++ interface (and all that COM and DCOM stuff, whatever the hell
that's all about) isn't.
It's a bit like the difference between using TXT format to create a document
(a human-readable format that can be read and written universally), and
having to use DOCX instead (a format so complex, the specification needs
nearly 5000 pages of documentation -- probably in DOCX format itself!).
--
Bartc
Ansel
Aug 26, 2012, 7:02:25 AM8/26/12
to
BartC wrote:
> "Ansel" <tink...@trytospammenowloser.com> wrote in message
> news:k1cg2e$824$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>> 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? ... I think of C as a kind of least common denominator.
>
> Using C would be the nearest thing to having a binary (ie.
> language-neutral) interface. That's why it's important.
That's such a small part though. C can be used as a wrapper around C++ just
> "Ansel" <tink...@trytospammenowloser.com> wrote in message
> news:k1cg2e$824$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>> 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? ... I think of C as a kind of least common denominator.
>
> Using C would be the nearest thing to having a binary (ie.
> language-neutral) interface. That's why it's important.
for that binary interface. Indeed, it is used like that a lot. DLLs, of
course. You snipped the rest of my post, but alluded to the merits of
"paltry C" being a boon to temper the zeal of programmers who go wild when
they have a bunch of features at their disposal. (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".
(And that's just the "Hello World!" program!)).
>
>> Why bother worrying about the lonely C standard when C++ is almost a
>> superset of it and you're using a C++ compiler anyway?
using C++ but needs only the level of functionality that C provides. Again,
it's stable and old news--nothing to get excited about.
>
> Suppose you're developing another language (Pascal for example, or
> just ASM); making it talk with foreign functions and interfaces
> specified in C is trivial, once you've figured out whether 'long' is
> 32 bits or 64. Dealing with a C++ interface (and all that COM and
> DCOM stuff, whatever the hell that's all about) isn't.
cross-language interaction--can't let B. Gates' pet VB die, you know. The
low-level interfacing you are talking about was decidedly at too low of a
level to meet the requirements at a more abstract level. Indeed, aren't all
the new languages these days loaded-up with "metadata" and "attributes" and
such so that the all-important "reflection" capabilities can be had? It
depends on what level of cross-language support you need. If all you need is
the capability to call a C function, fine. That's inter-library and
intra-program stuff. C doesn't have a thing to say about a higher level
cross-language capability. I don't think you want to limit yourself to just
that functionality though and thereby limit all the other possibilities. I
still create DLLs that use the C binary interface. They may be passing back
an interface pointer to a C++ object though! Which begs the question, "Is C
the interface, or the C++ object passed to the program the interface?".
>
> It's a bit like the difference between using TXT format to create a
> document (a human-readable format that can be read and written
> universally), and having to use DOCX instead (a format so complex,
> the specification needs nearly 5000 pages of documentation --
> probably in DOCX format itself!).
still wrongly used. If you don't trust your computer software to make a text
document for you, maybe you should go back to pencil and paper. ;)
jacob navia
Aug 26, 2012, 9:14:06 AM8/26/12
to
Le 26/08/12 13:02, Ansel a écrit :
"We all" know what that means.
Just go on trolling dude.
> 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?
> 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"
"We all" know what that means.
Just go on trolling dude.
superpollo
Aug 26, 2012, 9:22:41 AM8/26/12
to
jacob navia ha scritto:
> Le 26/08/12 13:02, Ansel a écrit :
>> 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
http://search.dilbert.com/comic/Unix%20Programmer
>> 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
Tim Prince
Aug 26, 2012, 11:01:04 AM8/26/12
to
operating systems (or at least the non-portabilities can be localized),
when there are standard-compliant compilers available.
Perhaps you don't consider portable use of C99 features useful in OpenMP
(and in certain other threading models, such as Cilk) to be a suitable
standard C topic.
Fortunately, others on this forum are open to considering Windows as an
eligible platform to support C.
Stephen Sprunk
Aug 26, 2012, 12:17:33 PM8/26/12
to
On 26-Aug-12 01:13, Ansel wrote:
> rashid wrote:
>> [Microsoft] sold more C/C++ compilers than anyone. They produce
> C, as a matter of fact, is much of the reason why Windows's
> underpinnings are so convoluted. There is no denying that. They did
> the best they could> with what they had at the time.
I deny that.
The Windows API is convoluted mostly because it was developed by
hundreds of different groups across three decades, and each group did
things its own way based on what they thought was best at the time,
rather that stick to a consistent model--and they never went back and
"fixed" the imperfect parts because that would have broken backwards
compatibility. If you look at each piece of the API in isolation, as
Microsoft's developers do, they make sense; it's only when you try to
use them _together_ that you realize it's such a mess.
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.
Also, don't forget that Microsoft only has two profitable products,
Windows and Office, and both are written in C. Every other MS product
exists only to generate more demand for Windows and/or Office.
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.
Most of the "incompetence" people bash Microsoft for is actually very
shrewd marketing. Bad news for customers, good news for Microsoft's
shareholders.
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
> rashid wrote:
>> [Microsoft] 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++.
>>
>> C would not have survived as a successful language without the great
>> support of MS across many years!
>
> I do not see that as a feather in MS's hat. Windows would have been
> better if it had come after C++ was invented. Much better.
Judging by the quality of MFC, I doubt it.
>> on top of C/C++.
>>
>> C would not have survived as a successful language without the great
>> support of MS across many years!
>
> I do not see that as a feather in MS's hat. Windows would have been
> better if it had come after C++ was invented. Much better.
> C, as a matter of fact, is much of the reason why Windows's
> underpinnings are so convoluted. There is no denying that. They did
> the best they could> with what they had at the time.
The Windows API is convoluted mostly because it was developed by
hundreds of different groups across three decades, and each group did
things its own way based on what they thought was best at the time,
rather that stick to a consistent model--and they never went back and
"fixed" the imperfect parts because that would have broken backwards
compatibility. If you look at each piece of the API in isolation, as
Microsoft's developers do, they make sense; it's only when you try to
use them _together_ that you realize it's such a mess.
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.
Also, don't forget that Microsoft only has two profitable products,
Windows and Office, and both are written in C. Every other MS product
exists only to generate more demand for Windows and/or Office.
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.
Most of the "incompetence" people bash Microsoft for is actually very
shrewd marketing. Bad news for customers, good news for Microsoft's
shareholders.
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
Les Cargill
Aug 26, 2012, 3:22:40 PM8/26/12
to
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
<snip>
"Developers! Developers! Developers!". VB was (is?) the everyman's
development platform, biased towards domain expertise
and away from the specializations of computer science departments.
And still I use Windows, because there are apps for it
that no other platform quite has. I could hypothetically
switch to some Mac variant, but it would be quite difficult.
Given that the die was cast decades ago with Bill Gates letter,
it's really appropriate that they became a leader.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists
> S
>
--
Les Cargill
<snip>
>
> Most of the "incompetence" people bash Microsoft for is actually very
> shrewd marketing. Bad news for customers, good news for Microsoft's
> shareholders.
>
At one point, there was footage of a manic Ballmer screaming
> Most of the "incompetence" people bash Microsoft for is actually very
> shrewd marketing. Bad news for customers, good news for Microsoft's
> shareholders.
>
"Developers! Developers! Developers!". VB was (is?) the everyman's
development platform, biased towards domain expertise
and away from the specializations of computer science departments.
And still I use Windows, because there are apps for it
that no other platform quite has. I could hypothetically
switch to some Mac variant, but it would be quite difficult.
Given that the die was cast decades ago with Bill Gates letter,
it's really appropriate that they became a leader.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists
> S
>
--
Les Cargill
Stephen Sprunk
Aug 26, 2012, 4:32:54 PM8/26/12
to
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.
> 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?
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.
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.
Keith Thompson
Aug 26, 2012, 4:53:19 PM8/26/12
to
Tim Prince <tpr...@nospamcomputer.org> writes:
> On 08/26/2012 05:13 AM, Ansel wrote:
>> jacob navia wrote:
>>> Le 26/08/12 05:55, Keith Thompson a écrit :
> On 08/26/2012 05:13 AM, Ansel wrote:
>> jacob navia wrote:
>>>> I think I
>>>> read somewhere that they're planning to support it later.
>>>
>>> You have been telling this too many times. And even if it was true
>>> that changes nothing on the fact that they still have,'t implemented
>>> the C standard, 12 years after its publication.
As far as I know, I have made this particular statement (that
>>>> read somewhere that they're planning to support it later.
>>>
>>> You have been telling this too many times. And even if it was true
>>> that changes nothing on the fact that they still have,'t implemented
>>> the C standard, 12 years after its publication.
Microsoft is planning to support "for (int i;, ...)" in C; jacob
snipped the relevant part) just once, or perhaps twice. I fail to
see how this is "too many times".
As for Microsoft not implementing the (now officially obsolete)
C99 standard 12+ years after its publication, that's absolutely
correct, and I've never stated or implied otherwise.
jacob apparently has decided that he knows what I think, and will
not change his mind in the face of direct evidence that he's wrong.
Which is why I don't respond to him directly in this newsgroup,
but I felt that this particular nonsense called for a correction.
[snip]
> We have plenty of applications which don't need to be "ported" between
> operating systems (or at least the non-portabilities can be localized),
> when there are standard-compliant compilers available.
> Perhaps you don't consider portable use of C99 features useful in OpenMP
> (and in certain other threading models, such as Cilk) to be a suitable
> standard C topic.
> Fortunately, others on this forum are open to considering Windows as an
> eligible platform to support C.
more difficult (not impossible, just more difficult) to write
portable modern C that will run on a wide variety of systems.
(Yes, there are Windows C compilers other than Microsoft's; not
everyone is willing and/or able to use them.) Thus Microsoft's
decision not to support C past C90 have an impact on the entire C
programming community. Mentioning that does not constitute support
for Microsoft or opposition to C99 or C11.
ozbear
Aug 26, 2012, 8:25:19 PM8/26/12
to
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 00:19:40 -0500, Les Cargill
<lcarg...@comcast.com> wrote:
>ozbear wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 22:51:21 +0200, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Le 23/08/12 22:20, Paul a écrit :
>>>> Conventional applications still run under Windows 8 desktop.
>>>> I tried Firefox and Thunderbird in there, and a four
>>>> year old game, and all installed properly and run OK.
>>>
>>> Of course. But the new interface is no longer available, and the C
>>> interface is no longer maintained so in a few years those application
>>> will be as obsolete as MSDOS is today since all NEW features will not be
>>> ported to the C interface you see?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> And what's wrong with that?
>> Nothing lasts forever, nor should it.
>>
>
>Of course some things should (and do) last forever. It's arguably
>easier, for example, to get a 6V6 tube than it's ever been.
>
<snip>
<lcarg...@comcast.com> wrote:
>ozbear wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 22:51:21 +0200, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Le 23/08/12 22:20, Paul a écrit :
>>>> Conventional applications still run under Windows 8 desktop.
>>>> I tried Firefox and Thunderbird in there, and a four
>>>> year old game, and all installed properly and run OK.
>>>
>>> Of course. But the new interface is no longer available, and the C
>>> interface is no longer maintained so in a few years those application
>>> will be as obsolete as MSDOS is today since all NEW features will not be
>>> ported to the C interface you see?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> And what's wrong with that?
>> Nothing lasts forever, nor should it.
>>
>
>Of course some things should (and do) last forever. It's arguably
>easier, for example, to get a 6V6 tube than it's ever been.
>
Nonsense.
Jens Stuckelberger
Aug 26, 2012, 8:48:21 PM8/26/12
to
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 20:05:20 +0200, jacob navia wrote:
> This is a long story.
C language: Good riddance, Microsoft.
> This is a long story.
Ansel
Aug 26, 2012, 11:54:05 PM8/26/12
to
Keith Thompson wrote:
> Exactly. Microsoft's lack of support for C99 and C11 makes it
> more difficult (not impossible, just more difficult) to write
> portable modern C that will run on a wide variety of systems.
> (Yes, there are Windows C compilers other than Microsoft's; not
> everyone is willing and/or able to use them.) Thus Microsoft's
> decision not to support C past C90 have an impact on the entire C
> programming community. Mentioning that does not constitute support
> for Microsoft or opposition to C99 or C11.
That is a very weak stance. Maybe *you* know the statistics that I called
> Exactly. Microsoft's lack of support for C99 and C11 makes it
> more difficult (not impossible, just more difficult) to write
> portable modern C that will run on a wide variety of systems.
> (Yes, there are Windows C compilers other than Microsoft's; not
> everyone is willing and/or able to use them.) Thus Microsoft's
> decision not to support C past C90 have an impact on the entire C
> programming community. Mentioning that does not constitute support
> for Microsoft or opposition to C99 or C11.
for in a prior post, but if you don't give them (a link is adequate), then
you little to squawk about. All I hear is "has to completely support the
standard". Where is the list of functionalities that is so sorely lacking,
along with a quantification and qualification of the need for them? Anything
less is just hot air.
Ansel
Aug 27, 2012, 12:30:14 AM8/27/12
to
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
> 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.
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.
>
> Also, don't forget that Microsoft only has two profitable products,
> Windows and Office,
> and both are written in C.
> Every other MS product
> exists only to generate more demand for Windows and/or Office.
>
> 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.
>
Windows-specific technologies because they are all "flash in the pan" and
it's a waste of time renting out my mind for things destined for
obsolescence. That said, those who do focus on them and move with them in a
never-ending procession, can get a job doing that buzzword tech stuff pretty
easily (I assume).
> Most of the "incompetence" people bash Microsoft for is actually very
> shrewd marketing. Bad news for customers, good news for Microsoft's
> shareholders.
>
surprises "them" as much as it surprises me.
Ansel
Aug 27, 2012, 12:35:20 AM8/27/12
to
jacob navia wrote:
> Le 26/08/12 13:02, Ansel a �crit :
http://www.metamucil.com/).
> 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?
>
Humor: get yourself a sense of it. (This may help you:
>> 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?
>
http://www.metamucil.com/).
Ansel
Aug 27, 2012, 12:46:52 AM8/27/12
to
different people have presented nothing but fan-boyism. List the things that
are missing, qualify and quantify the need for them, stick it in MS's face.
By their analysis (I *assume* that they do that), they seem to have decided
they are not important. Just wailing "ISO standard, ISO standard! Hail to
the ISO standard!" lacks substance.
Jens Gustedt
Aug 27, 2012, 2:52:34 AM8/27/12
to
Am 27.08.2012 06:46, schrieb Ansel:
> Just wailing "ISO standard, ISO standard! Hail to
> the ISO standard!" lacks substance.
Standards are there to ease portability between platforms. This is
> Just wailing "ISO standard, ISO standard! Hail to
> the ISO standard!" lacks substance.
their main use, otherwise a good specification of the compiler you are
working with would be completely sufficient. You wouldn't need a
standards body at all for the specification.
A compiler vendor that cherry-picks features that are declared
mandatory by a standard undermines that portability goal, so it
undermines the usefulness of the whole standard.
This is not a question, if I/we need that and that feature. This is
the question of reducing the complexity of decisions I have to take
during a development.
What was implied by some of the posts here, was that people suspect MS
to do this willingly. All that I can see is they didn't work much to
avoid such a suspicion.
Jens
Ansel
Aug 27, 2012, 3:16:28 AM8/27/12
to
"Absolute power corrupts absolutely". 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?
I think MS might (read, I wouldn't put it past them, but then again, I'm not
a trusting person, especially when money and/or power is involved so it's
not just MS, but everyone) sabotage others via what they implement, but as I
have no examples, I refrain from making such an accusation. The way you
stated your "suspicion" was: "Well, no I don't have an example where a
feature left out directly compromised <whatever>, but the fact that they did
not implement it surely means those craft devils are doing something bad!".
It's like you, and others here, are warriors for ISO. WWIII: ISO fan-boys
vs. MS.
I think it is nothing but hot air unless someone(s) examine(s) the issues
and report(s) their findings. "Hail to thee ISO Standard" has no merit.
Nick Keighley
Aug 27, 2012, 4:26:13 AM8/27/12
to
Ansel
Aug 27, 2012, 4:53:27 AM8/27/12
to
Nick Keighley wrote:
>
> I avoid C99 features largely because Microsoft doesn't support them.
I've have implemented some missing things (C++ 11) myself in the past. E.g.,
>
> I avoid C99 features largely because Microsoft doesn't support them.
strongly-typed enums.
Jens Gustedt
Aug 27, 2012, 5:24:54 AM8/27/12
to
Am 27.08.2012 09:16, schrieb Ansel:
problem with that if they are just marked as such.
> "Absolute power corrupts absolutely". 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?
Clearly it is a vendors choice to decide whether or not they want to
implement a standard. They just shouldn't call it C (or C++, POSIX,
whatever) if they don't implement it completely. Unfortunately there is
no trademark on the word C as a programming language. (There might be on
ISO C by the way, so anybody claiming to be ISO C should actually comply
to C11 nowadays.)
- snip -
> I think it is nothing but hot air unless someone(s) examine(s) the issues
> and report(s) their findings. "Hail to thee ISO Standard" has no merit.
I find it quite unfortunate that you only try to read in my post what
you like to read. This makes discussions difficult.
Jens
> Jens Gustedt wrote:
> Well if vendors just bowed to ISO, then there would be no check-n-balance.
nobody is asking for that. other compilers have a lot of extensions, no
> Well if vendors just bowed to ISO, then there would be no check-n-balance.
problem with that if they are just marked as such.
> "Absolute power corrupts absolutely". 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?
implement a standard. They just shouldn't call it C (or C++, POSIX,
whatever) if they don't implement it completely. Unfortunately there is
no trademark on the word C as a programming language. (There might be on
ISO C by the way, so anybody claiming to be ISO C should actually comply
to C11 nowadays.)
- snip -
> I think it is nothing but hot air unless someone(s) examine(s) the issues
> and report(s) their findings. "Hail to thee ISO Standard" has no merit.
you like to read. This makes discussions difficult.
Jens
Ansel
Aug 27, 2012, 6:07:55 AM8/27/12
to
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
> 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.
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?
I am curious to know, that is why I asked. If you take the stance, "Well
they didn't implement the entire standard, so there is nothing more to
discuss", well, then indeed, there is nothing more to discuss for that is
fan-boy stance!
> other compilers have a lot of extensions,
> no problem with that if they are just marked as such.
>
>> "Absolute power corrupts absolutely". 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?
>
> Clearly it is a vendors choice to decide whether or not they want to
> implement a standard.
the ISO C standard>, yes? So, you have all these vendors in a room to agree
on a standard, you have their captive attention, and then don't close the
sale. Maybe, just maybe, sales is not your strong suit?
I'm sure I'll be enlightened now about how all this standards stuff works,
which I welcome for I am now curious about it.
>They just shouldn't call it C (or C++, POSIX,
> whatever) if they don't implement it completely.
calling itself C. The goal of the committees are to codify common practice?
Maybe if MS C didn't implement part of "ISO Standard C" (tm) then those
things should be removed from "The ISO Standard" (tm). (I'm being facetious,
to make the point).
> Unfortunately there
> is no trademark on the word C as a programming language.
"unfortunately", of course, "It is unfortunate that the *ISO* does not have
the trademark on C".
>(There might
> be on ISO C by the way, so anybody claiming to be ISO C should
> actually comply to C11 nowadays.)
>
> - snip -
>
>> I think it is nothing but hot air unless someone(s) examine(s) the
>> issues and report(s) their findings. "Hail to thee ISO Standard" has
>> no merit.
>
> I find it quite unfortunate that you only try to read in my post what
> you like to read. This makes discussions difficult.
>
Hmm?
David Brown
Aug 27, 2012, 7:09:56 AM8/27/12
to
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
> 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?
>
the standards committee, then the committee fixed and published the
standard without Microsoft's agreement, and it is therefore it is the
standards committee, not Microsoft, that is to blame when Microsoft's
compiler doesn't follow the standard?
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.
In the case of C99, MS took part in and agreed on the standards. Some
parts of C99 were included almost entirely at MS's insistence, 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.
If you want see an even clearer example of this behaviour, look at the
OOXML farce. MS created the "standard" in its entirety, corrupted and
bribed standards committees around the world until it eventually got
passed as an ISO standard, and then ignored it and continued to use
their modified non-standard undocumented version of OOXML.
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.
Stephen Sprunk
Aug 27, 2012, 10:17:46 AM8/27/12
to
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
> 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.
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"?
David Brown
Aug 27, 2012, 10:36:54 AM8/27/12
to
On 27/08/2012 16:17, 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"?
>
Sorry if my sarcasm here was too subtle - I guess I should have added
> 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"?
>
some emphasis here and there in that paragraph (it sounded obvious in my
head when I wrote it). For the record, I count myself amongst the
cynics described.
Stephen Sprunk
Aug 27, 2012, 2:45:48 PM8/27/12
to
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; everyone who looks into the business side
> 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.
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.,
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.
Stephen Sprunk
Aug 27, 2012, 2:58:26 PM8/27/12
to
On 26-Aug-12 23:30, Ansel wrote:
> Stephen Sprunk 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.
>> Windows and Office,
>
> Citation needed.
>> and both are written in C.
>
> 100% C?
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.
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.
rashid
Aug 27, 2012, 4:58:11 PM8/27/12
to
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 01:40:03 +0200, Jens Gustedt wrote:
>>> 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
??? 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
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.
Thank you.
> 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
>> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 20:05:20 +0200, jacob navia wrote:
>>
>>> 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++.
>> 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 :)
>> across many years!
>
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.
Thank you.
James Kuyper
Aug 27, 2012, 5:12:02 PM8/27/12
to
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
> 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)
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++.
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.
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".
Ansel
Aug 28, 2012, 12:02:27 AM8/28/12
to
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
> 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"?
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.
Ansel
Aug 28, 2012, 12:18:02 AM8/28/12
to
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.
> 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,
> then the committee fixed and
> published the
> standard without Microsoft's agreement,
> and it is therefore it is the
> standards committee, not Microsoft, that is to blame when Microsoft's
> compiler doesn't follow the standard?
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.
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.
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,
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.
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.
Ansel
Aug 28, 2012, 12:25:12 AM8/28/12
to
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
> 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.
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.
Ansel
Aug 28, 2012, 1:28:23 AM8/28/12
to
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
> 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;
you're just a bullshitter (or a wanker).
> 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? 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.
>>> Most important,
Oh, OK.. ears perked now for this "most important" thought.
>>> by pushing
Who pushed whom?
>>> a
>>> succession of new languages and SDKs,
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.
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
> over their motivations for doing so
>, but their track
> record clearly demonstrates
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.
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.
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?
Ansel
Aug 28, 2012, 2:20:00 AM8/28/12
to
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
> 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.
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.
were not propagandizing, you were trying to sell snake oil.
> But that's the primary language, i.e. that of the
> core product features.
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.
are "smart" rather than "a sheeple"?
>
>> Citation needed.
>
> Statements from several current or former employees of Microsoft who
> work(ed) on those products.
"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.
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,
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.
(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.)
>
> S
David Brown
Aug 28, 2012, 7:14:23 AM8/28/12
to
>> published the
>> standard without Microsoft's agreement,
>
> I think that the ISO process/managment may be deficient. (?)
>
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.
>
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).
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)?
>
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?
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 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!
>
well publicised, showing MS's treatment of standards and standards
committees.
James Kuyper
Aug 28, 2012, 10:03:39 AM8/28/12
to
On 08/28/2012 07:14 AM, David Brown wrote:
...
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
...
> 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
> committee uses votes), but being a major toolchain vendor, they get a
> lot of influence on the committee. That seems only reasonable.
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
Rui Maciel
Aug 28, 2012, 2:47:16 PM8/28/12
to
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
> Well if vendors just bowed to ISO, then there would be no check-n-balance.
> "Absolute power corrupts absolutely".
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?
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.
http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/meetings
Rui Maciel
Nick Keighley
Aug 29, 2012, 4:27:30 AM8/29/12
to
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
cf. Brooks
> and only a
> few know how to do it well (and some of those throw in a bunch of extraneous
> crap to obfuscate the key elements). YMMV.
> 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
cf. Brooks
> and only a
> few know how to do it well (and some of those throw in a bunch of extraneous
> crap to obfuscate the key elements). YMMV.
James Kuyper
Aug 29, 2012, 7:33:07 AM8/29/12
to
On 08/29/2012 04:27 AM, Nick Keighley wrote:
> On Aug 26, 7:35�am, "Ansel" <tinker...@trytospammenowloser.com> wrote:
>> Keith Thompson wrote:
...
> 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
> exceptions probably make life difficult as well.
>
> Providing a C interface makes your library highly portable.
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
James Kuyper
Aug 29, 2012, 10:26:44 PM8/29/12
to
I just noticed a connection (or rather, lack thereof):
On 08/27/2012 04:58 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
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:
> features (eg C++ style // comments will be accepted in C programs too)
...
> 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
lawrenc...@siemens.com
Aug 31, 2012, 5:44:08 PM8/31/12
to
James Kuyper <james...@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
> 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.
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
I don't like these stories with morals. -- Calvin
Anse
Sep 2, 2012, 1:02:58 AM9/2/12
to
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!).
> 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!).
Anse
Sep 2, 2012, 1:10:19 AM9/2/12
to
Don't make my brown eyes China Blue wrote:
> In article <k172n1$3s6$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> "Ansel" <tink...@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.
> In article <k172n1$3s6$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> "Ansel" <tink...@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.
Anse
Sep 2, 2012, 1:11:18 AM9/2/12
to
jacob navia wrote:
>
> Look, I develop in a Mac
A wet dream of tight spaces?
>
> Look, I develop in a Mac
A wet dream of tight spaces?
Anse
Sep 2, 2012, 3:12:49 AM9/2/12
to
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.
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,
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?
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.
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.
> MS has deliberately chosen not
> to implement C99 or later standards of C.
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.
them.
> It is not a matter of time or money
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.
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.
"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
"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.
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.
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.)
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,
> and MS is solely to blame.
> But you seem
> to think that it is not a problem
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),
> 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).
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 there? Nevermind, just call me when
Obama calls you to be his "right hand" man.
> information - and yes, it is enough to rest the case.
> I could go on
Wank, wank.
> about motives (and I have done, at least a little),
yes? Oh, damn, you caught me... yes, I'm the one sending her letters.. but
SHE "found" me online! It's all true, so shut up. Or is it all just, a lie?
(BTW, tell your wife the dialog was fun, but I really never had any
intention of dating her).
> 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.
against you).
>
> Agreeing on the standard does not require a commitment to implement
> it.
> It just means
No, nothing "just" means in legality. It is or it isn't, else new laws are
considered.
What you don't seem to "get" is that the world of money and power are not
fratboy pledges.
> you agree with the rest of the committee that the
> standard will form the definition of "C99",
What you don't WANT to understand is that your "system" is just that:
outside of humanity. Your "system" seeks to CONTROL or CONSTRAIN or <all the
ugly historical things that have happened>. So no, you take your "system",
and shove it up your ass.
> and that anyone with tools
> or code conforming to that standard can work together.
>
> But you really do have to
but get you out of my fucking face, and the next time you get in-between me
and some girl at the bar, I might "really have to" do something. Ya think?
> question the motives of a company
human, it is a crime against humanity. How could it be anything else? You
wanna fight that one, I'll let drive your kids to the war (yeah, I'm a
school bus driver).
> that forms
> and agrees to a standard, then fails to implement it in their tools.
anyone would actually "buy your spew", so I spit in your eye.
>> Definition required: what does "agreed to" mean?
>>
>> Did they "agree" to use the standard as a requirements document?
>>
>
> To my knowledge,
you think you can own or have knowledge, shows that you are a wanker.
> they "agreed" to the standard.
> You can interpret
You are wishing I am a jury? Pfft! ("USA judicial system as a crime against
humanity" is totally a separate thread and in the philosophy NG for sure).
> 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.
like really icky stuff. A stink horn?
> But I don't think they ever promised to actually
> implement the standard.
$30K?
> People (including the rest of the committee)
> may have /expected/ them to implement it, but MS is not obliged to do
> so.
that.
Anse
Sep 2, 2012, 3:36:34 AM9/2/12
to
Nick Keighley wrote:
>
> I avoid C99 features largely because Microsoft doesn't support them.
I think that is a lie Nick.
>
> I avoid C99 features largely because Microsoft doesn't support them.
I think that is a lie Nick.
Anse
Sep 2, 2012, 3:38:22 AM9/2/12
to
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?
>
> "We all" know what that means.
>
> Just go on trolling dude.
Good luck with your presentation, "dude".
> 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?
>
> "We all" know what that means.
>
> Just go on trolling dude.
Good luck with your presentation, "dude".
Nick Keighley
Sep 2, 2012, 6:17:57 AM9/2/12
to
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages