Valentin Bonnard <Bonnard.V@wanadoo.fr> writes:

|>  kanze@gabi-soft.de wrote:

|>  > Valentin Bonnard <Bonnard.V@wanadoo.fr> writes:

|>  > |>  If these standard bodies can't reduce costs, wouldn't it be
|>  > |>  better if standard devellopement was done in some smaller,
|>  > |>  faster, less-costly, more effective structure ?

|>  > You mean like is happening for Java:-)?

|>  I dislike Java, but I don't know the insides of the developement
|>  process so I won't comment. I know of course that successive
|>  versions of teh Java library were very different and based on
|>  incompatible schemes. (The C++ library evolved too, but it was clear
|>  that it wasn't a standard at that time; was it as clear with Java ?)

It was quite clear that the earlier versions *were* a standard:-).

But that wasn't what I was talking about.  Like you, I am very
unsatisfied with the clarity and the precision of certain parts of the
C++ standard.  It is, never the less, several orders of magnitude
superior to the API specificaion of the Java libraries, and without the
ISO process, it would have been significantly worse.

--=20
James Kanze                               mailto:kanze@gabi-soft.de
Conseils en informatique orient=E9e objet/
                   Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
Ziegelh=FCttenweg 17a, 60598 Frankfurt, Germany Tel. +49(069)63198627

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]

kanze@gabi-soft.de wrote:
>
> Valentin Bonnard <Bonnard.V@wanadoo.fr> writes:
>
> |>  If these standard bodies can't reduce costs, wouldn't it be better
> |>  if standard devellopement was done in some smaller, faster,
> |>  less-costly, more effective structure ?
>
> You mean like is happening for Java:-)?

I dislike Java, but I don't know the insides of the developement
process so I won't comment. I know of course that successive versions
of teh Java library were very different and based on incompatible
schemes. (The C++ library evolved too, but it was clear that it
wasn't a standard at that time; was it as clear with Java ?)

> The major contribution of the standard bodies is to make it a standard.
> Without them, you, I and a few other people could just sit down over a
> couple of cups of coffee, and knock out a standard.

Of course these people should take enougth time to polish the
standard. Review every section, ensure that at least one person
who isn't its author understand it (and understand it correctly).

Are you sure it is the case with C++ ?

> I have my
> complaints about the C++ standard, but having had to program against the
> Java specification as well, I can assure you, requiring a large number
> of heads to study the issues over a certain period of time isn't such a
> bad thing.

And in order to have more heads, ISO doesn't allow intermediate drafts
to be release, and ANSI charges 1000$/year for people who whish to
crunch their head.

Time should be spent on making the language better and the specification
more clear, not on administrative issues.

I am not satified by the C++ standard as a _standard_. There are too
much
points subject to interpretation for my taste.

--

Valentin Bonnard

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]