Topic: Microsoft wants own C++ ISO standard.

[Nemesis]

Link to full article

In response to document ISO/IEC JTC1 N8037, the UK objects to Fast Track Ballot ECMA-372 1st Edition C++/CLI Language Specification, on the grounds that there is a contradiction with an existing JTC1 standard. ISO/IEC 14882:2003 is the standard for the C++ programming language. Adopting a second standard under the proposed name of C++/CLI will cause unnecessary and harmful confusion in the marketplace.

We consider that C++/CLI is a new language with idioms and usage distinct from C++. Confusion between C++ and C++/CLI is already occurring and is damaging to both vendors and consumers.

A new language needs a new name. We therefore request that Ecma withdraw this document from fast-track voting and if they must re-submit it, do so under a name which will not conflict with Standard C++.

Sounds like they should call it C.Net or MS-C. 

I hope that they are not allowed to hi-jack the C++ name any further than they already have.

[Bonk]

I agree, their recent antics have been a real pain:

http://www.informit.com/guides/content.asp?g=cplusplus&seqNum=259&rl=1

Makes me want to try and move the serverkit over to gcc/qcc...

[Nemesis]

I agree, their recent antics have been a real pain:

http://www.informit.com/guides/content.asp?g=cplusplus&seqNum=259&rl=1

Thanks for the link.  I posted it to Groklaws discussion. 

Makes me want to try and move the serverkit over to gcc/qcc...

I'm slowly making yet another attempt to learn C myself.  This time I think I have everything I need.  An (old) but standards compliant compiler.  Time (while commuting).  A laptop so I can use that time.  Finally little to distract me from it as I seem to have solved my perfume problem (allergic to it) at work though it took semi drastic measures.

I'm slowly going over the basics as a refresher and will sometime over the next month or two reach the point of making "toy" programs.  Hopefully I can eventually carry on to making useful ones at which point I hope to make them using GCC under Linux.

I'd love to see the server kit in GCC and even running on Linux or Mac or someones mainframe or anything else they wish.  Standards compliance makes for portability which is not in Microsofts best interest but is in the consumers interests.

[Bonk]

... Finally little to distract me from it as I seem to have solved my perfume problem (allergic to it) at work though it took semi drastic measures. ...

No scents is good sense.

<sniff, sniff> I think its time for a shower... 

[Nemesis]

... Finally little to distract me from it as I seem to have solved my perfume problem (allergic to it) at work though it took semi drastic measures. ...

No scents is good sense.

<sniff, sniff> I think its time for a shower... 

Some people don't understand that deordorant does not mean pour perfume on until you can't smell the other odour for a 50 yd radius.  Perfume worn properly doesn't cause me issues.  Worn so that I walk down the hallway 10 minutes later and I say "Bonk was here" does.  By bother I don't mean annoy I mean make me physically ill.  How ill depends on the strength and duration of the exposure. 

I spent a year being ill due to one coworkers coat.  The subliminal level of perfume coming off it in the 40 minutes a day I was near it caused the trouble I was avoiding by not being near him and his obvious perfume trails.  Now I have arranged to be isolated from it and the problem is cured.

Have you ever looked up the array of toxic chemicals they put in perfumes?  Chemicals which they then don't tell you about because they are "trade secrets"?  Known carcinogens and allergens are included.  Currently the perfume companies seem to be following the old Tobacco company game plan (which failed) of manufacturing research proving them safe rather than doing research on how to be safe.

Pet peeve. over.