Nathan Myers wrote in message <6l1pjh$pc9$1@shell7.ba.best.com>...
>There is no possible objection to a good de-facto standard for
>high-performance C++.  However, EC++ is not it.  The first criterion
>of the EC++ design is hobbled language features (regardless of
>performance impact), with performance a distant second.

This brings up a good point.  It seems there are in fact two issues being
discussed:

1)  Should there be a standard for high(er) prefomance, low(er) resource
version of C++?
2)  Is EC++ a good standard for a high(er) prefomance, low(er) resource
version of C++?

It might help the discussion to keep in mind that these are two seperate
issues.  Not entirely seperate, since if the answer to 1 is "no", then the
second question becomes moot.  But they are distinct, and we should keep
that distinction in mind when reading and writing about this subject.
---
[ 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              ]