Apologies for the interference recently received by many on usenet from
something called 'Jim Fleming'. I've been experimenting with the development
of a new game called 'Flemings'. This consists of semi-intelligent AI units
that wander randomly around quite oblivious to their real environment.

However, unlike 'Lemmings' the aim of 'Flemings' is not to save the little
critters but to let as many as possible perish. Unfotunately, as you may have
noticed, one of them has SLIPped out and gone rogue.

The game has been developed using a simple tool called C+@. The implementation
of this tool is quite simple on Unix-like platforms:

 alias C+@ cat

This takes code text as input and outputs it in a remarkably similar
symbolic form ready for intepreting. This output is quite portable, give
or take the odd '\n' or '\r', and has the same meaning (if any) wherever it
is used. A compressed binary format is also supported by piping the symbolic
output of C+@ into compress. The original symbolic form may be retrieved
using zcat -- useful for debugging, maintenance, etc.

The rest of the 'Flemings' system may be implemented in unpaged virtual
memory, write-only memory, as a mapping to /dev/null, or not at all.

It is possible that the 'Flemings' project will have the plug pulled on it
because of toxic hazards related to vapourware. A conspiracy seems to be
mounting to do this. You will be informed of any further developments.

+-----------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| Kevlin A P Henney           | Can you secure Christmas with an    |
|   kevlin@spuddy.mew.co.uk   | approximation only eighteen million |
| Westinghouse Systems Ltd    | seconds left of the original old    |
|   kevlin@wslint.demon.co.uk | red chimney?         - Jack Kerouac |
+-----------------------------+-------------------------------------+

In article <3pftau$kmg@News1.mcs.com> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:
[edited, especially those annoying @ symbols)

>Actually C+@ has taken a different path.

>5. Create a new language (species) called C+@ (CAT)...
>6. Develop a C+@ compiler...written in C+@, what a concept...:)...
>7. Develop a base set of C+@ classes...
>8. Develop an extensive visual development environment...
>9. Develop an extensive set of classes for Computer Integrated Telephony
>        and the Internet...circa 1990...YES!...1990, five years ago...
>10. Wait for C++ to deliver
>Jim Fleming

I think everybody's point is we don't have any ACCESS to the compiler,
the classes, or the development environment, so it does us no good.  Do you
understand?  Most of us can't share your fervor for C+@ because we've never
seen it and we have no idea if we ever will. (This is not a solicitation for
more junk e-mail, by the way.)  If that makes us stooges in Bjarne
Stroustrup's plot to rule the world, so be it.
And finally, once again, C+@ != to C++.  Stop cluttering up the C++ groups.
Things are bad enough.

I'm sure that was a waste of time, but I feel better.

John S

In article <JSULLIVA.330.0009050C@fhcrc.org>, JSULLIVA@fhcrc.org says...
>
>In article <3pftau$kmg@News1.mcs.com> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming)
writes:
>[edited, especially those annoying @ symbols)
>
>>Actually C+@ has taken a different path.
>
>>5. Create a new language (species) called C+@ (CAT)...
>>6. Develop a C+@ compiler...written in C+@, what a concept...:)...
>>7. Develop a base set of C+@ classes...
>>8. Develop an extensive visual development environment...
>>9. Develop an extensive set of classes for Computer Integrated Telephony
>>        and the Internet...circa 1990...YES!...1990, five years ago...
>>10. Wait for C++ to deliver
>>Jim Fleming
>
>I think everybody's point is we don't have any ACCESS to the compiler,
>the classes, or the development environment, so it does us no good.  Do you
>understand?  Most of us can't share your fervor for C+@ because we've never
>seen it and we have no idea if we ever will. (This is not a solicitation
for
>more junk e-mail, by the way.)  If that makes us stooges in Bjarne
>Stroustrup's plot to rule the world, so be it.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

We have just installed 2 Sun Workstations "on the Net" so that you (yes
you) will be able to compile classes...stay tuned for more information...

By the way...there are only 3 stooges...there is only 1 left at AT&T...:)

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>And finally, once again, C+@ != to C++.  Stop cluttering up the C++ groups.

>Things are bad enough.
>
>I'm sure that was a waste of time, but I feel better.
>
>John S
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

C+@ is more similar to JAVA...Sun is doing a nice job of "marketing"
JAVA...for people that are into that sort of "roll out"...check out the
JAVA home pages...http://java.sun.com


--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
jrf@tiger.bytes.com  /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
%Techno Cat I       /   |  \    Naperville, IL 60563   Naperville, IL 60563
East End, Tortola  |____|___\   1-708-505-5801         1-800-222-UNIR(8647)
British Virgin Islands__|______ 1-708-305-3277 (FAX)   1-708-305-0600
                 \__/-------\__/       http:199.3.34.13 telnet: port 5555
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

In article <3pk035$f7r@terrazzo.lm.com> kanak@telerama.lm.com (Jim Kownacki) writes:
>Mike Maddux (mikem@bga.com) wrote:
>...
>Absolutely.  I've been asking for information on C@+ for years.  I've yet
>to get any.  Perhaps I've been taking the wrong tack and should just hit
>my local Egghead for a copy, hey?
>--
>

Nah, Egghead isn't the right tack.  The right tack 's gotta be: you've got a
Dr. Dobbs article and a copy of YACC don't you?  Golly, what more could
you ask for? ;)

"Standards are wonderful, everyone should have one."
Joshua Scholar

   Actually C+@ has taken a different path.
<deleted stuff>
   10. Wait for C++ to deliver...@@@@ :) @@@@

And till then create a lot of noise on this newsgroup

: >Or at least, so you claim. No one outside of your possibly nonexistent
: >company has seen it. In *months* of relentless babbling and conspiracy
: >theorizing, you haven't managed to provide the slightest bit of really
: >information about the language to the net.
: >
: @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

: This is not the case. I believe that anyone that is working at the
: leading edge of the OO language industry, has seen the language, has
: a running system, and in some cases they are actively "adapting" it
: to their needs.

        This, is, as most people know, a flat lie.  Could you name
some of these experts who are so infatuated with C+@?  I don't know
any, and I'm relatively involved with OOP development.  I'm sure a lot
of people would be impressed to see an application, a compiler, etc.

: AH, so the static vs. dynamic situation (in your opinion) does not
: lend itself well to the convergence of C++ and Smalltalk....

: ...I guess some other language will have to do that...:)

        Yeah, like smalltalk, fool.

: If a programmer develops ANSI standard C++ software they may find that
: it is not easily reusable in Smalltalk or Eiffel environments.


        Of course.  If they wanted smalltalk software, they'd write
it in smalltalk.  Same for eiffel.  Are you suggesting that a C+@ program
will go through other compilers?

: They
: will likely find that it conforms to the ANSI standard, but that does
: not ensure the developer that the software will have longevity
: especially as dynamic systems begin to dominate the scene.

        Not so.  Many, many people perfer static typing for real
software development.  Such people won't be stitching to untyped
languages.

: Unfortunately, in reading the above and the rest of your reply, one
: could conclude that C++ is already out-dated before it has made it
: through the ANSI standards process.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| David James Hanley, KSC--dhanley@lac.eecs.uic.edu -- C++, OOD, martial arts|
| Laboratory for advanced computing      |      My employer barely KNOWS me. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember, GOD spelled backwards is DOG.
But BOB spelled backwards is still BOB.

In article <19950519.133833.364687.NETNEWS@UICVM.UIC.EDU>,
dhanley@matisse.eecs.uic.edu says...
>
>: >Or at least, so you claim. No one outside of your possibly nonexistent
>: >company has seen it. In *months* of relentless babbling and conspiracy
>: >theorizing, you haven't managed to provide the slightest bit of really
>: >information about the language to the net.
>: >
>: @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>
>: This is not the case. I believe that anyone that is working at the
>: leading edge of the OO language industry, has seen the language, has
>: a running system, and in some cases they are actively "adapting" it
>: to their needs.
>
>        This, is, as most people know, a flat lie.  Could you name
>some of these experts who are so infatuated with C+@?  I don't know
>any, and I'm relatively involved with OOP development.  I'm sure a lot
>of people would be impressed to see an application, a compiler, etc.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Just because you list the Laboratory for advanced computing below and
just because you state that you are relatively involved in OOP development
does not mean that you would be one of the people that I referred to
when I mentioned the "leading edge".

Just because C+@ was born in Chicago does not mean that your institution,
the University of Illinois, Chicago has any special knowledge of it.

Your concerns are warranted only if you "define" yourself to be the
leading edge...:)

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

---
>| David James Hanley, KSC--dhanley@lac.eecs.uic.edu -- C++, OOD, martial
arts|
>| Laboratory for advanced computing      |      My employer barely KNOWS
me. |
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
>Remember, GOD spelled backwards is DOG.
>But BOB spelled backwards is still BOB.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
C++ spelled backward is still DOG......
C+@ spelled backward is still CAT....:)
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
jrf@tiger.bytes.com  /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
%Techno Cat I       /   |  \    Naperville, IL 60563   Naperville, IL 60563
East End, Tortola  |____|___\   1-708-505-5801         1-800-222-UNIR(8647)
British Virgin Islands__|______ 1-708-305-3277 (FAX)   1-708-305-0600
                 \__/-------\__/       http:199.3.34.13 telnet: port 5555
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

In article <3pj0ol$o2q@news1.mcs.com>,
Jim Fleming <jim.fleming@bytes.com> wrote:
>In article <19950519.133833.364687.NETNEWS@UICVM.UIC.EDU>,
>dhanley@matisse.eecs.uic.edu says...
>>
>>: >Or at least, so you claim. No one outside of your possibly nonexistent
>>: >company has seen it. In *months* of relentless babbling and conspiracy
>>: >theorizing, you haven't managed to provide the slightest bit of really
>>: >information about the language to the net.
>>: >
>>: @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>>
>>: This is not the case. I believe that anyone that is working at the
>>: leading edge of the OO language industry, has seen the language, has
>>: a running system, and in some cases they are actively "adapting" it
>>: to their needs.
>>
>>        This, is, as most people know, a flat lie.  Could you name
>>some of these experts who are so infatuated with C+@?  I don't know
>>any, and I'm relatively involved with OOP development.  I'm sure a lot
>>of people would be impressed to see an application, a compiler, etc.
>
>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>
>Just because you list the Laboratory for advanced computing below and
>just because you state that you are relatively involved in OOP development
>does not mean that you would be one of the people that I referred to
>when I mentioned the "leading edge".
>
>Just because C+@ was born in Chicago does not mean that your institution,
>the University of Illinois, Chicago has any special knowledge of it.
>
>Your concerns are warranted only if you "define" yourself to be the
>leading edge...:)
>
>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Notice how Jim Fleming WILL NOT answer direct questions.  Instead he uses
very wierd ad hominem attacks.  He was asked if he could name some of the
people he referred to that "have seen the language, have a running system,
and in some cases are actively 'adapting' it to their needs."  He did not
answer that and he has never, in the several months I have been following
his threads with a strange morbid fascination, answered that question or any
similar question.

Fleming says that the University of Illinois may not have "any special
knowledge of" C+@.  But the poster wasn't asking for "special knowledge" or
claiming to have any.  He was just asking for some names of these "leading
edge" people that Fleming speaks of.  Of course that request was not
honored.  Could it be...no...but, maybe...that Fleming in fact COULDN'T
answer that question?  No, that couldn't possibly be it...  It must be that
these "leading edge" people are so leading edge that the rest of us really
couldn't possibly know about them, or maybe even understand anything they
said even were we to come face to face with one of them.  Could they be
space aliens?

My simple prediction - whatever he says, whether in response to this or any
other post - he will not answer the simple question asked by the previous
poster.

Mike Maddux

Look, please, name names and get them to contribute.  If there are any users, which I doubt.

Get them to stand up - here (or preferably) elsewhere and be counted.

I am beginning to think you are simply a cheap fraud.

James

In article <3pj36v$f9r@maria.bga.com>, mikem@bga.com says...
>
>In article <3pj0ol$o2q@news1.mcs.com>,
>Jim Fleming <jim.fleming@bytes.com> wrote:
>>In article <19950519.133833.364687.NETNEWS@UICVM.UIC.EDU>,
>>dhanley@matisse.eecs.uic.edu says...
>>>
>>>: >Or at least, so you claim. No one outside of your possibly nonexistent
>>>: >company has seen it. In *months* of relentless babbling and conspiracy
>>>: >theorizing, you haven't managed to provide the slightest bit of really
>>>: >information about the language to the net.
>>>: >
>>>: @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>>>
>>>: This is not the case. I believe that anyone that is working at the
>>>: leading edge of the OO language industry, has seen the language, has
>>>: a running system, and in some cases they are actively "adapting" it
>>>: to their needs.
>>>
>>>        This, is, as most people know, a flat lie.  Could you name
>>>some of these experts who are so infatuated with C+@?  I don't know
>>>any, and I'm relatively involved with OOP development.  I'm sure a lot
>>>of people would be impressed to see an application, a compiler, etc.
>>
>>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>>
>>Just because you list the Laboratory for advanced computing below and
>>just because you state that you are relatively involved in OOP development
>>does not mean that you would be one of the people that I referred to
>>when I mentioned the "leading edge".
>>
>>Just because C+@ was born in Chicago does not mean that your institution,
>>the University of Illinois, Chicago has any special knowledge of it.
>>
>>Your concerns are warranted only if you "define" yourself to be the
>>leading edge...:)
>>
>>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>
>Notice how Jim Fleming WILL NOT answer direct questions.  Instead he uses
>very wierd ad hominem attacks.  He was asked if he could name some of the
>people he referred to that "have seen the language, have a running system,
>and in some cases are actively 'adapting' it to their needs."  He did not
>answer that and he has never, in the several months I have been following
>his threads with a strange morbid fascination, answered that question or
any
>similar question.
>
>Fleming says that the University of Illinois may not have "any special
>knowledge of" C+@.  But the poster wasn't asking for "special knowledge" or
>claiming to have any.  He was just asking for some names of these "leading
>edge" people that Fleming speaks of.  Of course that request was not
>honored.  Could it be...no...but, maybe...that Fleming in fact COULDN'T
>answer that question?  No, that couldn't possibly be it...  It must be that
>these "leading edge" people are so leading edge that the rest of us really
>couldn't possibly know about them, or maybe even understand anything they
>said even were we to come face to face with one of them.  Could they be
>space aliens?
>
>My simple prediction - whatever he says, whether in response to this or any
>other post - he will not answer the simple question asked by the previous
>poster.
>
>Mike Maddux
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Let me give you the *same* answer that an ANSI C++ Committee Member gave
me when I asked them for a list of the members of the committee.

We can not divulge that list for fear that head-hunters would hound those
people to death.

Seriously, I do not think that it would be prudent for my company to tell
people who is doing what with C+@. The best I can do is point people at
similar efforts like JAVA from Sun...that was done by some cool C@Ts..:)

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
jrf@tiger.bytes.com  /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
%Techno Cat I       /   |  \    Naperville, IL 60563   Naperville, IL 60563
East End, Tortola  |____|___\   1-708-505-5801         1-800-222-UNIR(8647)
British Virgin Islands__|______ 1-708-305-3277 (FAX)   1-708-305-0600
                 \__/-------\__/       http:199.3.34.13 telnet: port 5555
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

The C+@ prgramming language has been used to develop a much more extensive,
complete, portable, and reusable class library than C++.

This class library has been proven to be very compatible with the growing
Smalltalk class libraries.

Given this situation, shouldn't any efforts to "standardize" on a C++
Standrard Class Library consider the fact that C++ programmers may want
to develop software that can easily inter-work with C+@ and Smalltalk?

Was the Smalltalk class library considered (or studied) when the proposed
C++ class library was developed?

Are the people that developed the C++ class library "experts" in OO
analysis, design and development or just experts in C++? There is a
difference!

Also, JAVA programmers are starting to develop class libraries to be
used primarily for "interactive content". Is there any concern being
given in the C++ standards efforts as to how the "proposed" C++ class
library will (or will not) be able to leverage off of other efforts
which are clearly evolving faster than C++?

Are the "majority" of C++ programmers interested in developing portable
reusable software or are they content to develop ANSI standard software?
(at the risk of having that be "sub-standard" software with respect to
what is available in other domains)

Is it possible that the recently announced C++ standard is the least
common denominator in the C++ industry at the present time? Why wasn't
more of the Microsoft C++ class library included?

Is this one of those cases like the U.S. federal government where our
pilots get concerned that they are flying planes from the "lowest bidder"?
Was the C++ language and class library developed by "experts" or just
people that had time on their hands to do it?

--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
jrf@tiger.bytes.com  /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
%Techno Cat I       /   |  \    Naperville, IL 60563   Naperville, IL 60563
East End, Tortola  |____|___\   1-708-505-5801         1-800-222-UNIR(8647)
British Virgin Islands__|______ 1-708-305-3277 (FAX)   1-708-305-0600
                 \__/-------\__/       http:199.3.34.13 telnet: port 5555
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

There are many good points made by Mark...

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

In article <CARROLL.95May17132059@quadriga.cis.udel.edu>,
carroll@quadriga.cis.udel.edu says...
>
>
>>>>>> "Jim" == Jim Fleming <jim.fleming@bytes.com> writes:
>In article <3p8151$o2r@News1.mcs.com> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming)
writes:
>
>
>Jim> The C+@ prgramming language has been used to develop a much more
>Jim> extensive, complete, portable, and reusable class library than
>Jim> C++.
>
>Or at least, so you claim. No one outside of your possibly nonexistent
>company has seen it. In *months* of relentless babbling and conspiracy
>theorizing, you haven't managed to provide the slightest bit of really
>information about the language to the net.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

This is not the case. I believe that anyone that is working at the
leading edge of the OO language industry, has seen the language, has
a running system, and in some cases they are actively "adapting" it
to their needs.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>Jim> This class library has been proven to be very compatible with the
>Jim> growing Smalltalk class libraries.
>
>Yea, sure. It's easy to say that when it's impossible to verify...
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

C+@ lovers can verify this...:)
 maybe you need to visit a "pet shop"...:)

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>Jim> Given this situation, shouldn't any efforts to "standardize" on a
>Jim> C++ Standrard Class Library consider the fact that C++
>Jim> programmers may want to develop software that can easily
>Jim> inter-work with C+@ and Smalltalk?
>
>Well, it's kind of ridiculous to say that a standards committee should
>consider interoperability with a possibly nonexistent, definitely
>unavailable language.
>
>It also demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of what a
>standards committee *does* to suggest that.
>
>A standards committee is supposed to standardize current practice,
>*not* innovate. Nothing should *ever* go into a standard unless it's
>been widely used and proved either indispensable or useful in some
>extremely important way.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

I totally agree! Standards committees used to standardize current
practice. In the case of C++, the standards process has clearly evolved
to be a design forum which I assume you agree should not be what the
standards process is all about.

Unfortunately, since the C++ standards process has resulted in a group
of people attempting to design a language to match their compilers, the
process has stepped beyond the normal ANSI activities. Once this
boundary is crossed, then questions like mine above need to be asked.

I agree, if C++ had evolved from the normal scenario...

 1. A language is designed.
 2. A compiler is designed
 3. Software is developed.
 4. A standard is proposed.

...then the normal ANSI process could be followed.

Instead C++ tooke the following path...

 1. A pre-processor was designed for C.
 2. C language extensions were specified to match 1.
 3. A compiler was designed.
 4. The C language was extended to match 3.
 5. More compilers were designed.
 6. A standard was proposed to harmonize 1,2,3,4,5.

...maybe after 6 is complete, a language can be designed...:)

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>"Standardizing" an interface with a non-standardized, unavailable,
>single-vendor proprietary language is absolutely, 100% entirely beyond
>the bounds of what a standards committee is supposed to do.
>
>Jim> Was the Smalltalk class library considered (or studied) when the
>Jim> proposed C++ class library was developed?
>
>I would be absolutely shocked if it weren't. At the very least, NIH,
>which wrote a Smalltalk-like library for C++, almost certainly had
>representation on the committee. But C++ is a *very* different
>language from Smalltalk. It's *very* static, and a useful library for
>C++ has to be designed with that staticness in mind. (As anyone who
>used the NIHCL libraries can attest, libraries from dynamic languages
>aren't well suited to extensive use in static languages.)
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

AH, so the static vs. dynamic situation (in your opinion) does not
lend itself well to the convergence of C++ and Smalltalk....

...I guess some other language will have to do that...:)

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>
>Jim> Are the people that developed the C++ class library "experts" in
>Jim> OO analysis, design and development or just experts in C++? There
>Jim> is a difference!
>
@@@@@@@@@@@
No comment?
@@@@@@@@@@@
>
>Jim> Also, JAVA programmers are starting to develop class libraries to
>Jim> be used primarily for "interactive content". Is there any concern
>Jim> being given in the C++ standards efforts as to how the "proposed"
>Jim> C++ class library will (or will not) be able to leverage off of
>Jim> other efforts which are clearly evolving faster than C++?
>
>The C++ standards effort is *over*. The draft standard is out.  So of
>course, the C++ standard committee isn't actively considering how to
>add *anything* to the standard.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Thank God it is Over...
 ...I guess there is no sense wasting any time providing
 any public comments...
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>Besides which, the point of a language standard is, to a very great
>extent, to *HALT* evolution of the language.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Yes...the sooner the C++ target stops moving...the sooner people
will be able to get a good look at it and maybe then they will
discover what is there...(or *not* there)

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>Right now, ignoring its misfeatures, C++ is incredibly painful to work
>with, because the language compiled by the different available
>compilers is different. Templates, exceptions, casts, and RTTI, among
>other things, are implemented to varying degrees in varying fashions
>on different compilers. The reason for this is that the language has
>been constantly changing from the time of its release.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Who is responsible for this pain?

Do companies have any recourse for this pain?

Have people been mislead?

Is AT&T going to fix C++?
 Has anyone read the AT&T Code of Conduct in their Annual Report?
  http://www.att.com

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>People developing commercial software aren't as concerned with
>evolution as with *stability*. It's *tough* to implement a piece of
>software when the code you write today doesn't necessarily work next
>week because the language has evolved. (I recently had to go out on a
>hunt for an old version of GCC, because a local user needed to SUIF
>compiler toolkit, and it doesn't compile under gcc-2.6.3 because of a
>change in constructor overloading in the language.)
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

In 1995, one would think that more progress would have been made.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>Jim> Are the "majority" of C++ programmers interested in developing
>Jim> portable reusable software or are they content to develop ANSI
>Jim> standard software?  (at the risk of having that be "sub-standard"
>Jim> software with respect to what is available in other domains)
>
>What's the difference?

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

If a programmer develops ANSI standard C++ software they may find that
it is not easily reusable in Smalltalk or Eiffel environments. They
will likely find that it conforms to the ANSI standard, but that does
not ensure the developer that the software will have longevity
especially as dynamic systems begin to dominate the scene.

Unfortunately, in reading the above and the rest of your reply, one
could conclude that C++ is already out-dated before it has made it
through the ANSI standards process.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>
>Let's be realistic for a moment here. Consider J. Random Programmer,
>who's trying to develop a piece of software for a customer. Now, to
>the customer, it really doesn't matter what language the software is
>written in - what a customer wants is *functionality*. So J. Random
>settles down, and chooses to work with C++. He builds the software, he
>delivers it, and his customer is satisfied and pays for it.
>
>Should J. Random be concerned because the delivered software doesn't
>use the newest, neatest library on the market? Obviously not - what he
>cares about is delivering a working piece of software.
>
>So what factors go into choosing the language that J uses to develop
>his product? Probably robustness, portability, expressiveness,
>efficiency, though perhaps in a different order.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
How about Joe Random Manager...?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>Does he care whether he needs to recompile the software to run on a
>different machine? Not at all, as long as the code will compile
>without alteration. Does he care that it's not the newest, neatest
>language? No, as long as the language that he used got the job done.
>In fact, he may well prefer the opposite: new, neat stuff tends to be
>buggy. A production programmer will often prefer older, proven
>technology over the newer, possibly buggy stuff. (Why do you think
>that so many people are choosing C++? Because they believe that it
>lets them take advantage of the new hot technology in a form that lets
>them continue to use their old, proven, reliable code.)
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Yes, I have studied and I understand the brilliant "marketing" approach
used by the designers and developers of C++. They road on the coat-tails
of C, added incremental changes, and have ended up with a bunch of warts
on warts.

This is the same approach used to develop DOS and Windows...:)
 Maybe C++ and Windows are a good match after all....:)

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>Jim> Is it possible that the recently announced C++ standard is the
>Jim> least common denominator in the C++ industry at the present time?
>Jim> Why wasn't more of the Microsoft C++ class library included?
>
>Is it possible that Jim Fleming is babbling pointlessly about things
>that he has no clue about?
>
>Standards are *supposed* to be the least common denominator. Everyone
>implements the standard, and then provides additional material on top
>of it. If everyone didn't implement the standard as a minimum, then it
>wouldn't be a standard!
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

AH...what a thought...$100,000,000 developing a standard which is
 the least common denominator...:)

 It would be humorous if that turned out to be ANSI C...:)
  In that case $100,000,000 would have been spent
  recreating what already existed.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>Why wasn't more of the microsoft library included? Because it's a
>microsoft library, not a standard library. The standard library is
>supposed to include the minimum standard set of features that every
>implementation needs.
>
>If you take a look at the STL, it's probably the best part of the
>standard. STL is a solid, portable library, which integrates quite
>well with the language and its common idioms, provides the efficiency
>that the language was designed for, and provides a lot of
>expressiveness. It's a really, *really* good library for C++. A
>near-perfect fit.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Great...hopefully STL will help to create the stability of the
language and the *target* will stop moving...
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>Jim> Is this one of those cases like the U.S. federal government where
>Jim> our pilots get concerned that they are flying planes from the
>Jim> "lowest bidder"?  Was the C++ language and class library
>Jim> developed by "experts" or just people that had time on their
>Jim> hands to do it?
>
>The standards process was open. You had the opportunity to join it, if
>you were so interested. You didn't, so shut up and stop whining.
>
>        <MC>
>--
>|| Mark Craig Chu-Carroll: <MC> ||"In all seriousness of truth, hear this:

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

You are implying that the people that "joined" the standards process
are part of the process. This might not be a valid assumption.

Some people have told me that they joined the process just to get their
name on an ANSI standard and because their company needed a "name" to
make sure their company name was on the document....:)

Furthermore, it appears that very few of the 250 members of the ANSI
standards committee have really done any "real" work....:) One fellow
I spoke to recently did not even know the standard was released...:)

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
jrf@tiger.bytes.com  /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
%Techno Cat I       /   |  \    Naperville, IL 60563   Naperville, IL 60563
East End, Tortola  |____|___\   1-708-505-5801         1-800-222-UNIR(8647)
British Virgin Islands__|______ 1-708-305-3277 (FAX)   1-708-305-0600
                 \__/-------\__/       http:199.3.34.13 telnet: port 5555
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

According to jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming):
>I believe that anyone that is working at the leading edge of the OO
>language industry, has seen the language, has a running system, and
>in some cases they are actively "adapting" it to their needs.

What about us peons?  Where can *we* find out about D-G?
--
            Chip Salzenberg, aka <chip@cybernetics.net>
     "And remember to worship at the railroad of your choice."
        -- Mike Nelson, MST3K: "The Amazing Transparent Man"

>>>>> "Jim" == Jim Fleming <jim.fleming@bytes.com> writes:
In article <3p8151$o2r@News1.mcs.com> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:


Jim> The C+@ prgramming language has been used to develop a much more
Jim> extensive, complete, portable, and reusable class library than
Jim> C++.

Or at least, so you claim. No one outside of your possibly nonexistent
company has seen it. In *months* of relentless babbling and conspiracy
theorizing, you haven't managed to provide the slightest bit of really
information about the language to the net.

Jim> This class library has been proven to be very compatible with the
Jim> growing Smalltalk class libraries.

Yea, sure. It's easy to say that when it's impossible to verify...

Jim> Given this situation, shouldn't any efforts to "standardize" on a
Jim> C++ Standrard Class Library consider the fact that C++
Jim> programmers may want to develop software that can easily
Jim> inter-work with C+@ and Smalltalk?

Well, it's kind of ridiculous to say that a standards committee should
consider interoperability with a possibly nonexistent, definitely
unavailable language.

It also demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of what a
standards committee *does* to suggest that.

A standards committee is supposed to standardize current practice,
*not* innovate. Nothing should *ever* go into a standard unless it's
been widely used and proved either indispensable or useful in some
extremely important way.

"Standardizing" an interface with a non-standardized, unavailable,
single-vendor proprietary language is absolutely, 100% entirely beyond
the bounds of what a standards committee is supposed to do.

Jim> Was the Smalltalk class library considered (or studied) when the
Jim> proposed C++ class library was developed?

I would be absolutely shocked if it weren't. At the very least, NIH,
which wrote a Smalltalk-like library for C++, almost certainly had
representation on the committee. But C++ is a *very* different
language from Smalltalk. It's *very* static, and a useful library for
C++ has to be designed with that staticness in mind. (As anyone who
used the NIHCL libraries can attest, libraries from dynamic languages
aren't well suited to extensive use in static languages.)


Jim> Are the people that developed the C++ class library "experts" in
Jim> OO analysis, design and development or just experts in C++? There
Jim> is a difference!


Jim> Also, JAVA programmers are starting to develop class libraries to
Jim> be used primarily for "interactive content". Is there any concern
Jim> being given in the C++ standards efforts as to how the "proposed"
Jim> C++ class library will (or will not) be able to leverage off of
Jim> other efforts which are clearly evolving faster than C++?

The C++ standards effort is *over*. The draft standard is out.  So of
course, the C++ standard committee isn't actively considering how to
add *anything* to the standard.

Besides which, the point of a language standard is, to a very great
extent, to *HALT* evolution of the language.

Right now, ignoring its misfeatures, C++ is incredibly painful to work
with, because the language compiled by the different available
compilers is different. Templates, exceptions, casts, and RTTI, among
other things, are implemented to varying degrees in varying fashions
on different compilers. The reason for this is that the language has
been constantly changing from the time of its release.

People developing commercial software aren't as concerned with
evolution as with *stability*. It's *tough* to implement a piece of
software when the code you write today doesn't necessarily work next
week because the language has evolved. (I recently had to go out on a
hunt for an old version of GCC, because a local user needed to SUIF
compiler toolkit, and it doesn't compile under gcc-2.6.3 because of a
change in constructor overloading in the language.)

Jim> Are the "majority" of C++ programmers interested in developing
Jim> portable reusable software or are they content to develop ANSI
Jim> standard software?  (at the risk of having that be "sub-standard"
Jim> software with respect to what is available in other domains)

What's the difference?

Let's be realistic for a moment here. Consider J. Random Programmer,
who's trying to develop a piece of software for a customer. Now, to
the customer, it really doesn't matter what language the software is
written in - what a customer wants is *functionality*. So J. Random
settles down, and chooses to work with C++. He builds the software, he
delivers it, and his customer is satisfied and pays for it.

Should J. Random be concerned because the delivered software doesn't
use the newest, neatest library on the market? Obviously not - what he
cares about is delivering a working piece of software.

So what factors go into choosing the language that J uses to develop
his product? Probably robustness, portability, expressiveness,
efficiency, though perhaps in a different order.

Does he care whether he needs to recompile the software to run on a
different machine? Not at all, as long as the code will compile
without alteration. Does he care that it's not the newest, neatest
language? No, as long as the language that he used got the job done.
In fact, he may well prefer the opposite: new, neat stuff tends to be
buggy. A production programmer will often prefer older, proven
technology over the newer, possibly buggy stuff. (Why do you think
that so many people are choosing C++? Because they believe that it
lets them take advantage of the new hot technology in a form that lets
them continue to use their old, proven, reliable code.)

Jim> Is it possible that the recently announced C++ standard is the
Jim> least common denominator in the C++ industry at the present time?
Jim> Why wasn't more of the Microsoft C++ class library included?

Is it possible that Jim Fleming is babbling pointlessly about things
that he has no clue about?

Standards are *supposed* to be the least common denominator. Everyone
implements the standard, and then provides additional material on top
of it. If everyone didn't implement the standard as a minimum, then it
wouldn't be a standard!

Why wasn't more of the microsoft library included? Because it's a
microsoft library, not a standard library. The standard library is
supposed to include the minimum standard set of features that every
implementation needs.

If you take a look at the STL, it's probably the best part of the
standard. STL is a solid, portable library, which integrates quite
well with the language and its common idioms, provides the efficiency
that the language was designed for, and provides a lot of
expressiveness. It's a really, *really* good library for C++. A
near-perfect fit.

Jim> Is this one of those cases like the U.S. federal government where
Jim> our pilots get concerned that they are flying planes from the
Jim> "lowest bidder"?  Was the C++ language and class library
Jim> developed by "experts" or just people that had time on their
Jim> hands to do it?

The standards process was open. You had the opportunity to join it, if
you were so interested. You didn't, so shut up and stop whining.

 <MC>
--
|| Mark Craig Chu-Carroll: <MC> ||"In all seriousness of truth, hear this:
|| CIS Grad, U of Delaware      || without the It, one cannot live. But
|| PGP Key Available, by finger || whoever lives with It alone is not
|| carroll@cis.udel.edu         || human" - _I_and_Thou_, by Martin Buber

Jim Fleming (jim.fleming@bytes.com) wrote:

: Instead C++ tooke the following path...

:  1. A pre-processor was designed for C.
:  2. C language extensions were specified to match 1.
:  3. A compiler was designed.
:  4. The C language was extended to match 3.
:  5. More compilers were designed.
:  6. A standard was proposed to harmonize 1,2,3,4,5.

: ...maybe after 6 is complete, a language can be designed...:)

#!~@%$^#!$#!~@%$^#!$#!~@%$^#!$#!~@%$^#!$#!~@%$^#!$#!~@%$^#!$#!~@

Whereas C+@ tooke the following path:

1. Create a smalltalk like @ operator.
2. Build a language around it.
3. Call the language C+@
4. Invent some ridiculous way of pronouncing C+@
5. Write a pompous article in dr. Dobbs
6. Avoid implementing the language on more than one machine.
7. Be surprised that C++ isn't spontaneously disappearing due to 1-6.
8. Bombarding Usenet with paranoid stories about the ANSI committee
   being installed solely for the purpose of preventing the human
   race to advance to a higher level by not changing C++ into
   Smalltalk.

#!~@%$^#!$#!~@%$^#!$#!~@%$^#!$#!~@%$^#!$#!~@%$^#!$#!~@%$^#!$#!~@

JP

In article <3pevou$jtf@highway.LeidenUniv.nl>, ruiter@ruls41.LeidenUniv.nl
says...
>
>Jim Fleming (jim.fleming@bytes.com) wrote:
>
>: Instead C++ tooke the following path...
>
>:       1. A pre-processor was designed for C.
>:       2. C language extensions were specified to match 1.
>:       3. A compiler was designed.
>:       4. The C language was extended to match 3.
>:       5. More compilers were designed.
>:       6. A standard was proposed to harmonize 1,2,3,4,5.
>
>: ...maybe after 6 is complete, a language can be designed...:)
>
>#!~@%$^#!$#!~@%$^#!$#!~@%$^#!$#!~@%$^#!$#!~@%$^#!$#!~@%$^#!$#!~@
>
>Whereas C+@ tooke the following path:
>
>1. Create a smalltalk like @ operator.
>2. Build a language around it.
>3. Call the language C+@
>4. Invent some ridiculous way of pronouncing C+@
>5. Write a pompous article in dr. Dobbs
>6. Avoid implementing the language on more than one machine.
>7. Be surprised that C++ isn't spontaneously disappearing due to 1-6.
>8. Bombarding Usenet with paranoid stories about the ANSI committee
>   being installed solely for the purpose of preventing the human
>   race to advance to a higher level by not changing C++ into
>   Smalltalk.
>
>#!~@%$^#!$#!~@%$^#!$#!~@%$^#!$#!~@%$^#!$#!~@%$^#!$#!~@%$^#!$#!~@
>
>JP

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Actually C+@ has taken a different path.

1. Gather a group of C, UNIX, and Computer Integrated Telephony *Experts*
 at AT&T Bell Laboratories in Naperville, Illinois....circa 1984...

2. Study OO in depth *including* Smalltalk, Lisp and C++. Compare the
 productivity of developers in each environment and conclude that
 UNIX and C are an important base and that a leap to Smalltalk or
 Lisp is too large a "step" for most developers.

3. Prototype systems using C++ and analyze results using the same rigorous
 engineering practices used to create telephone systems that provide
 non-stop service with 2 hours of down-time in 40 years.

4. Conclude that C++ will certainly be an incremental step but will not
 provide a *long-term solution* to plug&play software for distributed
 networks of objects.

5. Create a new language (species) called C+@ (CAT)...

6. Develop a C+@ compiler...written in C+@, what a concept...:)...

7. Develop a base set of C+@ classes...

8. Develop an extensive visual development environment...

9. Develop an extensive set of classes for Computer Integrated Telephony
 and the Internet...circa 1990...YES!...1990, five years ago...

10. Wait for C++ to deliver...@@@@ :) @@@@

--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
jrf@tiger.bytes.com  /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
%Techno Cat I       /   |  \    Naperville, IL 60563   Naperville, IL 60563
East End, Tortola  |____|___\   1-708-505-5801         1-800-222-UNIR(8647)
British Virgin Islands__|______ 1-708-305-3277 (FAX)   1-708-305-0600
                 \__/-------\__/       http:199.3.34.13 telnet: port 5555
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

In article <3p8151$o2r@News1.mcs.com>, jim.fleming@bytes.com says...
>Is it possible that the recently announced C++ standard is the least
>common denominator in the C++ industry at the present time? Why wasn't
>more of the Microsoft C++ class library included?

If you had ever used MFC you'd know why :-)

--
Trent Glascock
glascock@esd.dl.nec.com

Speaking only for myself