Colin James III (The Rt Rev'd) (cjames@cec-services.com) wrote:
> >    the III> You have to remember that the tone of Stumps truly
> >    the III> violent comments are necessarily tainted by the fact that
> >    the III> he has an account at cygnus, which is owned, directed,
> >    the III> and populated by notorious homosexuals.
> Apparently the truth hurts, doesn't it.
> The Charlie Darwin quote above says it all.

Well, one positive thing about this idiot posting is that I finally have a
reason to use my kill file.

--
Jason Etheridge              jason@amber.apana.org.au

In article <3ou8te$rk3@newshost.lanl.gov> "WIlliam B. Clodius" <wclodius@lanl.gov> writes:

   Note:
   Some standards do not always include their libraries in the standard.

A good note.  Most languages are useless for real-world tasks without
their libraries.  Personally, I think that any language spec which
doesn't specify the interfaces to threads, GC (if any), calling into
assembly language (or C), string operations, and network operations is
next to useless for portable programming.  C, C++, Scheme, all lose
out on that consideration.  Common Lisp also fails to specify either
the threads interface or the foreign-function interface, so loses.
Two contenders are Modula-3 and Python, which do cover these important
interfaces.  Java seems to have promise, but I'm not sure yet.

Bill


--
 Bill Janssen  <janssen@parc.xerox.com> (415) 812-4763  FAX: (415) 812-4777
 Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, 3333 Coyote Hill Rd, Palo Alto, CA  94304
 URL:  ftp://ftp.parc.xerox.com/pub/ilu/misc/janssen.html

In article <3oub7l$4ie@eiffel.com>,
Bertrand Meyer. <bertrand@eiffel.com> wrote:
>
>From John Nagle <nagle@netcom.com>:
>
>>: bs@research.att.com (Bjarne Stroustrup <9758-26353> 0112760) writes:
>>: >The standard is large (700+ pages), but that is not large compared to
>>: >other standards for modern programming languages.
>[...]
>>:      "Eiffel, the language"    594 pages
>
>Although it is still an early draft, one may surmise that the final version
>won't be too different. The current size of the document is exactly 100 pages,
>with a large font and lots of white space.
>
>This is the length that should be quoted in any comparative discussion.

 Only if similar treatment is accorded the C++ document which
also contains numerous comments, notes, examples and non-normative
text -- as well as a significant library. 100 pages of normative
core language specification is probably not too far off.

--
        JOHN (MAX) SKALLER,         INTERNET:maxtal@suphys.physics.su.oz.au
 Maxtal Pty Ltd,
        81A Glebe Point Rd, GLEBE   Mem: SA IT/9/22,SC22/WG21
        NSW 2037, AUSTRALIA     Phone: 61-2-566-2189

In article <nagleD7yoA5.914@netcom.com>, John Nagle <nagle@netcom.com> wrote:
>In <D7vrG5.Mvs@research.att.com>, bs@research.att.com (Bjarne Stroustrup <9758-26353> 0112760) writes:
>>The standard is large (700+ pages), but that is not large compared to
>>other standards for modern programming languages.
>
>Compared with the initial defining documents for the major languages,
>this is is big.  It may be the current record-holder.
>
>     "Report on the Algorithmic Language ALGOL 60" 24 pages
>     "LISP 1.5 Programmer's Manual"   24 pages
>     "Modula, A language for modular multiprogramming"  33 pages
>     "The C Programming Language"   52 pages
>     "MIL-STD 1815 - Ada Programming Language"          242 pages
>     "Common LISP - the language"   465 pages
>     "Eiffel, the language"    594 pages
>
>However, comparisons with repeatedly revised old programming languages
>may be more fruitful. How long are the standards for Fortran 95,
>Ada 9x, and the new COBOL?

Ada 95: 256 pages, plus an almost equal amount for apendicies & index.
--

-- Ron Guilmette, Sunnyvale, CA ---------- RG Consulting -------------------
---- E-mail: rfg@segfault.us.com ----------- Purveyors of Compiler Test ----
---- finger: rfg@rahul.net ----------------- Suites and Bullet-Proof Shoes -

>   ruiter@ruls41.LeidenUniv.nl (Jan-Peter de Ruiter) writes:
 [CJ quote about Europeans not using C++ elided]

The same was once true of the Internet.

>
>  I couldn't agree more.
>
I couldn't care less.  Why are you reading (and posting to) this group if it is so
meaningless to you?

>  Jan
>
>  Nijmegen
>  The Netherlands
>  U.S.A.

When did The Netherlands become part of the USA?

 shane@cyber.net

shane@triptyk.com wrote:
: >  Jan
: >
: >  Nijmegen
: >  The Netherlands
: >  U.S.A.

: When did The Netherlands become part of the USA?

Since Dutch people started using C++.

JP

In article <3o3b5t$b9g@News1.mcs.com>, jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming)
wrote:

[long posting deleted]

I loved it. I will be laughing over Mr. Fleming's posting for days. The
"C++ machine..." I can hear it rumbling through my Mac now.

--
Gregory Jorgensen
radix consulting inc
radixinc@aol.com, radix@efn.org

"I would consent to have a limb amputated to recover my spirits." -- Samuel Johnson

In article <3og462$fkd@nsgate.envisionet.net> cjames@cec-services.com
(Colin James III (The Rt Rev'd)) writes:

|> You have to remember that the tone of Stumps truly violent comments are
|> necessarily tainted by the fact that he has an account at cygnus, which
|> is owned, directed, and populated by notorious homosexuals.

Flemings rantings are sounding saner every day.

One more poster arguing for moderation.
--
James Kanze         Tel.: (+33) 88 14 49 00        email: kanze@gabi-soft.fr
GABI Software, Sarl., 8 rue des Francs-Bourgeois, F-67000 Strasbourg, France
Conseils en informatique industrielle --
                              -- Beratung in industrieller Datenverarbeitung

In <D8Dxp5.CCJ@ucc.su.OZ.AU> maxtal@Physics.usyd.edu.au writes:

> In article <3oecvi$clj@tools.near.net>,
> Barry Margolin <barmar@nic.near.net> wrote:
> >
> >In a sense this is a vote, since an ANSI standard will normally not be
> >approved if there are any outstanding, unresolved negative responses to the
> >public review.  Conceivably
>
> >Some evil cat-lover could probably drag the approval process of C++ on for
> >years with this process.
>
>  NO they can't. They might drag the approval process for an
> AMERICAN Standard out for ever, but ISO does not require
> an ANSI Standard. We'll have an International Standard if
> there are enough YES votes, and USA has to vote whether they're
> ready to approve an ANSI version or not.

Great!

Elliott

>
> --
>         JOHN (MAX) SKALLER,         INTERNET:maxtal@suphys.physics.su.oz.au
>  Maxtal Pty Ltd,
>         81A Glebe Point Rd, GLEBE   Mem: SA IT/9/22,SC22/WG21
>         NSW 2037, AUSTRALIA     Phone: 61-2-566-2189

stt@spock.camb.inmet.com (Tucker Taft) wrote:
>
> John Nagle (nagle@netcom.com) wrote:
><snip>
>
> :      "Report on the Algorithmic Language ALGOL 60" 24 pages
> :      "LISP 1.5 Programmer's Manual"   24 pages
> :      "Modula, A language for modular multiprogramming"  33 pages
> :      "The C Programming Language"   52 pages
> :      "MIL-STD 1815 - Ada Programming Language"          242 pages
> :      "Common LISP - the language"   465 pages
> :      "Eiffel, the language"    594 pages
>
> : However, comparisons with repeatedly revised old programming languages
> : may be more fruitful. How long are the standards for Fortran 95,
> : Ada 9x, and the new COBOL?
>
> Ada 95 is 524 pages (250 pages of which correspond to new standard
> libraries not included in Ada 83).
>
> Fortran 90 is 369 pages.
>
> ANSI C is 219 pages.
>
> Much of ISO C++ is probably standard libraries as well, I presume.
><snip>

An examination of the standards section of the local library yields

Basic FORTRAN (a subset of F66) 32 pages
FORTRAN 77 difficult to estimate as it defines two standards.  The
   full standard is between 220 and 250 pages
Pascal 78 pages
Extended Pascal 219 pages
Scheme 51 pages
ANSI Cobol (1985) about 790 pages (very small type)
ANSI PL/I (a subset 1987) 449 pages
APL (late 80's) 259 pages
Minimal Basic 33 pages
Full Basic 360 pages
Forth 211 pages

Fortran 9x (to be 95?) is to be minor revision of Fortran 90, I
suspect about 400 pages.

Note:
Some standards do not always include their libraries in the standard.
Appendices in some standards duplicate information in the main text.
There is significant typographical variability before 1985.
Shorter standards typically do not address significant portability
and performance issues.

In Article <3o3m1l$7td@nsgate.envisionet.net> Colin James III (The Rt
Rev'd) writes:
>What's so funny about the dither over C++ is that it is widely used
only
>in two places in North America:  USA and Canada.  In other words, who
>cares.  No one in Europe uses it if they can help it !

This is not the case. I have been involved in and with large European
research projects for 4.5 years. I've probably seen (rather than
worked in) about 30 projects in all, each project involving companies
from 4-5 countries. At the beginning of that period, a mix of C (ANSI
and K&R) and Fortran was most common, with occasional sightings of
Pascal. Now about 85% of coding seems to be C++, with the remainder
mainly Visual BASIC on Windows for user interfaces. There is limited
use of Common Lisp, but I can't think of any other languages that are
much used. I believe Prolog is disproportionately popular in France (I
have no experience of its use), and Pop-11 is common in the UK academic
community. I am not considering special-purpose languages such as
SQL and XGL.

My experience may reflect the industrial orientation of the research:
factories prefer PCs and Windows, and the best tools in this
environment are for C++, VB, and Pascal.

Scott

In article <3odr7j$l69@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>,
Steve Clamage <clamage@Eng.Sun.COM> wrote:
>In article bbu@fsgm01.fnal.gov, b91926@fsgm01.fnal.gov (David Sachs) writes:
>>I have downloaded and taken a look at the working paper.
>>
>>I would recommend that everyone vote NO on it,
>
>Only X3J16 members who meet attendance requirements get to vote (this is an
>ANSI rule). To whom are you addressing this recommendation?

 How about the National Bodies of the 30 SC22 countries
who determine if the CD becomes a DIS?

 People who help determine NB positions read this group
and we're interested in the comments of particpants in comp.std.c++,
including Davids. Perhaps his comment was addressed to _all_ National
Bodies -- not just ANSI.

>(The comments must be sent to ANSI, where they are numbered, logged, and
>forwarded to the C++ committee. The committee responses are similarly
>logged and returned to the sender. These are ANSI rules.)

 Comments can also be sent to representatives of any of the
National Bodies. At least

 Australia
 Germany
 Sweden
 France
 USA
 UK

are conducting official or unofficial public reviews. Australia
at least welcomes comments from anyone anywhere -- such a person
might end up trading with us.


--
        JOHN (MAX) SKALLER,         INTERNET:maxtal@suphys.physics.su.oz.au
 Maxtal Pty Ltd,
        81A Glebe Point Rd, GLEBE   Mem: SA IT/9/22,SC22/WG21
        NSW 2037, AUSTRALIA     Phone: 61-2-566-2189

John Max Skaller <maxtal@Physics.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
> I might comment that the _internal_ Committee Draft
>is _different_ from the one put up for public review or
>sent to National Bodies by ISO. It contains "editorial boxes"
>indicating know problem areas.

Actually these editorial boxes (and diff-marks) appear, perhaps
accidentally, in the Adobe Acrobat version (the ".pdf" files)
of the draft made available on research.att.com.

      Ross Ridge

--
 l/  //   Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU, Ook                    +1 519 883 4329
[oo][oo]  rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca      http://csclub.uwaterloo.ca/u/rridge/
-()-/()/
 db  //

In article <3oecvi$clj@tools.near.net>,
Barry Margolin <barmar@nic.near.net> wrote:
>
>In a sense this is a vote, since an ANSI standard will normally not be
>approved if there are any outstanding, unresolved negative responses to the
>public review.  Conceivably

>Some evil cat-lover could probably drag the approval process of C++ on for
>years with this process.

 NO they can't. They might drag the approval process for an
AMERICAN Standard out for ever, but ISO does not require
an ANSI Standard. We'll have an International Standard if
there are enough YES votes, and USA has to vote whether they're
ready to approve an ANSI version or not.

--
        JOHN (MAX) SKALLER,         INTERNET:maxtal@suphys.physics.su.oz.au
 Maxtal Pty Ltd,
        81A Glebe Point Rd, GLEBE   Mem: SA IT/9/22,SC22/WG21
        NSW 2037, AUSTRALIA     Phone: 61-2-566-2189

Hello Andrew,

I realise this must seem very nieve but I am having trouble locating the
new draft C++ standard.  Can you give me the WWW home page for it or an
FTP site?

Regards,
Howard Ricketts

I have downloaded and taken a look at the working paper.

I would recommend that everyone vote NO on it, but only because
there are several loose ends in it, that could easily be handled
in the next revision.

While I disagree with some of the items in the standard, I have
not found anything (other than loose ends) that I would consider
to be totally unreasonable. At the proper time I will submit my
comments, and possible post them here.

In article bbu@fsgm01.fnal.gov, b91926@fsgm01.fnal.gov (David Sachs) writes:
>I have downloaded and taken a look at the working paper.
>
>I would recommend that everyone vote NO on it,

Only X3J16 members who meet attendance requirements get to vote (this is an
ANSI rule). To whom are you addressing this recommendation?

> but only because
>there are several loose ends in it, that could easily be handled
>in the next revision.

Constructive comments are not only welcome, but solicited. If you have
identified loose ends which need to be tied up, please do submit specifics
to ANSI so the committee can address them. The instructions for submitting
comments will be posted as soon as they are available.

BTW, "constructive" doesn't mean "laudatory". It means pointing out a
deficiency in such a way that it can be recognized and corrected.

(The comments must be sent to ANSI, where they are numbered, logged, and
forwarded to the C++ committee. The committee responses are similarly
logged and returned to the sender. These are ANSI rules.)
---
Steve Clamage, stephen.clamage@eng.sun.com

In article <3odiv6$bbu@fsgm01.fnal.gov> b91926@fsgm01.fnal.gov (David Sachs) writes:

> I would recommend that everyone vote NO on it, but only because
> there are several loose ends in it, that could easily be handled
> in the next revision.

That's why it says DRAFT on the top of every page.
There will be at least two more revisions before there
is even the opportunity to approve a quasi-final version
(i.e. final except for typographical errors).

The reason we are putting this draft out now is so that
people like you can tell us what loose ends you find.
Saying `Vote NO because there are loose ends' is not
helpful.  Identifying the loose ends is.
--
    --Andrew Koenig
      ark@research.att.com

In article <3odr7j$l69@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> clamage@Eng.Sun.COM writes:
>In article bbu@fsgm01.fnal.gov, b91926@fsgm01.fnal.gov (David Sachs) writes:
>>I have downloaded and taken a look at the working paper.
>>
>>I would recommend that everyone vote NO on it,
>
>Only X3J16 members who meet attendance requirements get to vote (this is an
>ANSI rule). To whom are you addressing this recommendation?

During the public review, anyone in the world may recommend for or against
the standard.  It's not strictly a vote, but I think this is what David
Sachs was referring to.

The negative responses must include detailed comments that explain their
reason.  The technical committee is required to address all these comments;
either they must revise the specification to the satisfaction of the
reviewer, or they must explain why they have chosen not to.  Positive
responses can also include comments, but they are treated as suggestions,
and don't require responses.

In a sense this is a vote, since an ANSI standard will normally not be
approved if there are any outstanding, unresolved negative responses to the
public review.  Conceivably a committee could respond to all the comments
with some bogus explanation of why they don't agree; however, this will
probably be noticed when X3 reviews the approval process.  Also, if a
reviewer thinks the committee didn't give their comments due consideration,
they can appeal to X3.

Some evil cat-lover could probably drag the approval process of C++ on for
years with this process.  But it probably won't matter too much, since
everyone else in the industry will simply use the draft standard as their
guide, knowing full well that it is identical to the standard that will
eventually be ratified once the fillibuster is broken.
--
Barry Margolin
BBN Planet Corporation, Cambridge, MA
barmar@bbnplanet.com

In article <3odr7j$l69@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> clamage@Eng.Sun.COM writes:
>(The comments must be sent to ANSI, where they are numbered, logged, and
>forwarded to the C++ committee. The committee responses are similarly
>logged and returned to the sender. These are ANSI rules.)

In X3J13, we asked email-capable reviewers to send the responses *both* as
hardcopy to ANSI and as email.  This permitted us to start processing the
responses before waiting for ANSI to log them and forward them.  It also
permitted us to distribute them easily to all the committee members (I
think all the email responses are still on the FTP server).
--
Barry Margolin
BBN Planet Corporation, Cambridge, MA
barmar@bbnplanet.com

In article <3o5hiu$j8h@News1.mcs.com>, jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:

> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>
> C++ became "the single most successful language" because starting at the
> *top*, AT&T Bell Laboratories has supported it, promoted it, manipulated
> the markets, and generally presented a one-sided story to the OO industry.

Sorry, but this is just not true.  The facts have been presented many
times.  C++ was an idea whose time had come.

Your recent postings seem to me to show such disregard for the facts that
I'd start to worry about legal action for libel if I were you.  But then
I'm no lawyer.
--
 (This man's opinions are his own.)
 From mole-end    Mark Terribile
 mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us, Somewhere in Matawan, NJ
 (Training and consulting in C, C++, UNIX, etc.)

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

|"Are you a member of the committee?

No, Mr Stump is a member of the secret shadow committee that will push the C++
language forward in its march for language purity and will cause all other
dirty unclean languages like C+@ to die a hundred horrible deaths; note that
this death warrant also extends all its obvious supporters like yourself.

Also, did you know that all secret committee meetings are actually held in
Hawaii, and the current status of the C++ standard has been written on
Egyptian parchment, well over 24 centuries old ? It took about 32 litres of
blood from several members of the secret shadow committee - real blood had to
be used, because otherwise the wording of the standard could be corrupted by
unclean activists who would wave their magic wand and play their devil's
instruments with strings made out of C+@'s intestines.

Oh, before I forget - the official language used by this committee is Swahili,
so you may experience some difficulty trying to decipher their proceedings.

I must applaud Mr Stroustrup's effort to divert all attention from the work of
the secret committee, but I decided it was about time the truth would be
known.

I hope this posting has clarified things for you, as you seem to be getting
the facts wrong time after time.
--
Ronald van Loon       \   S-Mail: St. Janskerkhof 18 | Motif++ Mailinglist:
- Motif++ Maintainer   \          3811 HW Amersfoort | motif++@motif.xs4all.nl
- Columnist C++ Report  \         The Netherlands   /
(rvloon@motif.xs4all.nl) \ Phone: +31 33 758 293   / Insert quote here.

In article <3o6qdr$7bi@News1.mcs.com>, jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:
> In article <D7z7zr.4y@kithrup.com>, mrs@cygnus.com says...

> >Steve doesn't need to read the files.  Steve has better sources of
> >information.
> >
> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
 ...
> I don't think that anyone would question the fact that members and
> especailly "officers" of the ANSI and ISO committees have "better
> sources of information". I would hope that not only do they have
> better "sources", I would also hope that they are themselves a
> "source".
>
> Unfortunately, there has been a very active effort to make sure that
> information does not get posted in Usenet. I can see from your
> postings that you intend to sit on the side-line without providing
> the readers here with information on what is going on from your
> point of view. That of course is your right. People have to draw
> their own conclusions about your motives.

One motive is to prevent premature and ill-considered speculation of
the sort presented by Mr. Fleming.
--
 (This man's opinions are his own.)
 From mole-end    Mark Terribile
 mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us, Somewhere in Matawan, NJ
 (Training and consulting in C, C++, UNIX, etc.)

In <3o8lsj$4en@News1.mcs.com>, jim.fleming@bytes.com wrote this with
possible deletions.
>
>In article <D80K07.BtC@kithrup.com>, mrs@cygnus.com says...
>>
>>In article <3o6q33$7bi@News1.mcs.com>,
>>Jim Fleming <jim.fleming@bytes.com> wrote:
>[ cut to the quick ]
>>

>How can you, as a member of a "government" sponsored activity, state
>that you would have preferred that the "copyright" details be "hidden"
>from the general public...???
>
>Do you also endorse all of the other issues that have been hidden from
>the general public?
>

You have to remember that the tone of Stumps truly violent comments are
necessarily tainted by the fact that he has an account at cygnus, which
is owned, directed, and populated by notorious homosexuals.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Colin James III, Principal Scientist    cjames@cec-services.com
CEC Services, 2080 Kipling St, Lakewood, CO  80215-1502   U S A
303.231.9437  Voice;  303.231.9438  Facsimile
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Note: comp.std.c++ left in newsgroup list -- if this is considered
highly off-topic, please remove it from further replies to this post.

In article <KCLINE.95May5113132@sun132.dsccc.com>,
Kevin Cline <kcline@sun132.dsccc.com> wrote:
>In article <D820MK.82M@ss3.magec.com> mjmeie@ss5.magec.com (Mike Meier) writes:
>
>> For what it's worth: I count 569 pages in my copy of the Ada 95 RM
>> (including TOC and introduction).
>
>What does Ada95 have that corresponds to the C++ standard library functions
>and the standard template library?  These are the facilities that make
>C programs portable, and FORTRAN and Ada programs non-portable.
>

That's a fair question.  The Ada language defines many "common" kinds
of libraries: IO for all types, multiple forms of string handling,
numerics libraries, stream IO, decimal types (infinite length
numbers), complex math support, etc.

Further, Ada has defined interfaces for C, Fortran, and Cobol, as
well as support to inherit from C++ classes (and reexport classes
back to C++).

It does not (yet) have the equivalent of the STL, although I'm
working on the GNU Ada95 Booch Components (based on the Booch C++
Components).  A set of standardized components will be important in
the future, but the resulting set in Ada will look different from the
STL at the low-level, since Ada already supports many features that
must be built into the STL.

Missing from C++, but standardized in Ada: Concurrency support (both
lightweight threads and processes), Real-time support (including
priority celiing control, dynamic priorities, synchronous and
asynchronous task contrl, etc.), Distribution support, and
command-line interface support.  This list, by the way, is by no
means exhaustive.

As to the implied claim that C programs exhibit more portability than
Ada, I can tell you that's untrue (based on experience in porting C,
C++, and Ada applications).  However, to partially support your
claim, I will say that many vendors of Ada compilers in the past had
difficult mechanisms to support interoperability with other languages
(difficult isn't a good word, non-standardized is more accurate).
That has been fixed.

For more information, point a web browser to
http://lglwww.epfl.ch/Ada/


--
      Frustrated with C, C++, Pascal, Fortran?  Ada95 _might_ be for you!
   For all sorts of interesting Ada95 tidbits, run the command:
"finger dweller@starbase.neosoft.com | more" (or e-mail with "finger" as subj.)
  if u cn rd ths, u r gd enuf to chg to Ada   :-)

    the III> You have to remember that the tone of Stumps truly
    the III> violent comments are necessarily tainted by the fact that
    the III> he has an account at cygnus, which is owned, directed,
    the III> and populated by notorious homosexuals.

Oh really? Who the hell cares? How this affects their judgment of OOP
or C++? What does it have to do with the subject matter of these
newsgroups?

Now this. ONE day after Mr. Flemming decides (apparently) to return to
his den and be quiet this "individual" starts posting (offensive)
garbage. What have we all done to the heavens to deserve this "Jim
Flemming, the II"?

-rn



--
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Ricardo Nassif |||||||
| There is grandeur in |||||||||||||||||||||||||||| rn@moe.shore.net |||||
| this view of life.   |||||||||||||||||||||||||||| rcn@bluesky.net ||||||
|    --C. Darwin, 1859 ||<URL:http://www.bluesky.net/rcn/FrontDoor.html>||
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Fax: 1 617 586 9432 ||

In <rnzneeyc5igfg9@moe.shore.net>, rn@moe.shore.net wrote this with
possible deletions.
>
>
>    the III> You have to remember that the tone of Stumps truly
>    the III> violent comments are necessarily tainted by the fact that
>    the III> he has an account at cygnus, which is owned, directed,
>    the III> and populated by notorious homosexuals.
>
>Oh really? Who the hell cares? How this affects their judgment of OOP
>or C++? What does it have to do with the subject matter of these
>newsgroups?
>
>Now this. ONE day after Mr. Flemming decides (apparently) to return to
>his den and be quiet this "individual" starts posting (offensive)
>garbage. What have we all done to the heavens to deserve this "Jim
>Flemming, the II"?
>
>-rn
>
>
>
>--
>||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Ricardo Nassif
|||||||
>| There is grandeur in |||||||||||||||||||||||||||| rn@moe.shore.net
|||||
>| this view of life.   |||||||||||||||||||||||||||| rcn@bluesky.net
||||||
>|    --C. Darwin, 1859
||<URL:http://www.bluesky.net/rcn/FrontDoor.html>||
>||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Fax: 1 617 586 9432
||


Apparently the truth hurts, doesn't it.

The Charlie Darwin quote above says it all.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Colin James III, Principal Scientist    cjames@cec-services.com
CEC Services, 2080 Kipling St, Lakewood, CO  80215-1502   U S A
303.231.9437  Voice;  303.231.9438  Facsimile
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

dweller@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (David Weller) writes:

>Missing from C++, but standardized in Ada: [...]
>command-line interface support.

No, C++ does have command-line interface support.

--
Fergus Henderson                       | I'll forgive even GNU emacs as
fjh@cs.mu.oz.au                        | long as gcc is available ;-)
http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh            |             - Linus Torvalds

In <3oije4$iob@nsgate.envisionet.net>, cjames@cec-services.com (Colin James III (The Rt Rev'd)) writes:
>In <rnzneeyc5igfg9@moe.shore.net>, rn@moe.shore.net wrote this with
>possible deletions.
>>
>>
>>    the III> You have to remember that the tone of Stumps truly
>>    the III> violent comments are necessarily tainted by the fact that
>>    the III> he has an account at cygnus, which is owned, directed,
>>    the III> and populated by notorious homosexuals.
>>
>>Oh really? Who the hell cares? How this affects their judgment of OOP
>>or C++? What does it have to do with the subject matter of these
>>newsgroups?
>>
>>Now this. ONE day after Mr. Flemming decides (apparently) to return to
>>his den and be quiet this "individual" starts posting (offensive)
>>garbage. What have we all done to the heavens to deserve this "Jim
>>Flemming, the II"?
>>
>>-rn
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Ricardo Nassif
>|||||||
>>| There is grandeur in |||||||||||||||||||||||||||| rn@moe.shore.net
>|||||
>>| this view of life.   |||||||||||||||||||||||||||| rcn@bluesky.net
>||||||
>>|    --C. Darwin, 1859
>||<URL:http://www.bluesky.net/rcn/FrontDoor.html>||
>>||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Fax: 1 617 586 9432
>||
>
>
>Apparently the truth hurts, doesn't it.
>
>The Charlie Darwin quote above says it all.

Crap!  "And are you still beating your wife, Bishop?"

1)  Ad hominem attacks have no place in a reasoned discussion.

2)  You seem capable, like the late and unlamented Senator McCarthy, of
     drawing fantastic conclusions from evidence which is at best irrelevant to
     the conclusion and at worst imaginary -- might we speculate on the underlying
     motives for such raving homophobia?

>
>
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Colin James III, Principal Scientist    cjames@cec-services.com
>CEC Services, 2080 Kipling St, Lakewood, CO  80215-1502   U S A
>303.231.9437  Voice;  303.231.9438  Facsimile
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Tres Seaver                   tseaver@neosoft.com

How does one get your language C+@?

In article <3o8lsj$4en@News1.mcs.com>,
Jim Fleming <jim.fleming@bytes.com> wrote:
>This is more sad than I originally thought....:(((()
>
>How can you, as a member of a "government" sponsored activity,

While the activity is an ANSI/ISO activity, the financial sponsorship
of the committee does not rest upon the US government.  All meetings
are hosted by commercial organizations, all mailings are paid for by
the companies taking part in the standardization process.

>state that you would have preferred that the "copyright" details be
>"hidden" from the general public...???

I failed to expound enough it seems.  I agree with you, the notion of
copyright on the document isn't elaborated in enough detail.  That was
one point I was making in my original posting.

The details that seem extraneous to me, that I thought should have
been `hidden' are the copyright references to other works that this
document is based upon.  It seems confusing to me.  I thought it would
be clearer to just say, `this work is based upon bla bla...'

I think it is a safe assumption that most published books have
copyrights.

You have an interesting view of things in life that most of us can't
sharing in simply because we lack the proper amounts of imagination.

>Do you also endorse all of the other issues that have been hidden from
>the general public?

What what might those be?  When was the last time you tried coming to
a meeting?  Were you kicked out?  Did you feel people were hiding things?

Why don't you come out to the next meeting, I'll buy you lunch.  It
would be interesting to meet you in person.

In article <3o8mcs$4en@News1.mcs.com>,
Jim Fleming <jim.fleming@bytes.com> wrote:
>Since you have stated that you would prefer that certain key issues in
>the ANSI C++ standardization process be...
>
> ..."hidden" from the general public...

I don't recall stating that key issues in the process be hidden, could
you quote me?

>Not only is the membership list a big secret,

It's not a secret.  You can join ANSI X3J16 anytime _you_ want and get
it.  Why have you not joined?

>I can see that you are representative of the type of individual that is
>a member of the ANSI committee,

Thank you.

>and therefore the serious readers of Usenet may as well not waste
>their time asking you for information which you prefer to "hide" from
>the general public...

So far you haven't asked me anything other than wanting the list.  The
list can be obtained from ANSI if you want it.  I don't have an online
copy to hand you, sorry.

In article <3o8mcs$4en@News1.mcs.com>, jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming)
wrote:
>I can see that you are representative of the type of individual that is
>a member of the ANSI committee, and therefore the serious readers of
>Usenet may as well not waste their time asking you for information which
>you prefer to "hide" from the general public...

Oops, Jim dropped his medication off the side of the cat.

Andy Dent, Product Architect, A.D. Software Western Australia
Authors of the OOFILE cross-platform ODBMS framework
ftp://perth.highway1.com.au/pub/adsoftware/
http://www.highway1.com.au/adsoftware/

In article <D820MK.82M@ss3.magec.com> mjmeie@ss5.magec.com (Mike Meier) writes:

> For what it's worth: I count 569 pages in my copy of the Ada 95 RM
> (including TOC and introduction).

What does Ada95 have that corresponds to the C++ standard library functions
and the standard template library?  These are the facilities that make
C programs portable, and FORTRAN and Ada programs non-portable.

Kevin Cline

--
Kevin Cline

John Nagle (nagle@netcom.com) wrote:
: In <D7vrG5.Mvs@research.att.com>,
: bs@research.att.com (Bjarne Stroustrup <9758-26353> 0112760) writes:
: >The standard is large (700+ pages), but that is not large compared to
: >other standards for modern programming languages.

: Compared with the initial defining documents for the major languages,
: this is is big.  It may be the current record-holder.

:      "Report on the Algorithmic Language ALGOL 60" 24 pages
:      "LISP 1.5 Programmer's Manual"   24 pages
:      "Modula, A language for modular multiprogramming"  33 pages
:      "The C Programming Language"   52 pages
:      "MIL-STD 1815 - Ada Programming Language"          242 pages
:      "Common LISP - the language"   465 pages
:      "Eiffel, the language"    594 pages

: However, comparisons with repeatedly revised old programming languages
: may be more fruitful. How long are the standards for Fortran 95,
: Ada 9x, and the new COBOL?

Ada 95 is 524 pages (250 pages of which correspond to new standard
libraries not included in Ada 83).

Fortran 90 is 369 pages.

ANSI C is 219 pages.

Much of ISO C++ is probably standard libraries as well, I presume.

:      John Nagle

-Tucker Taft   stt@inmet.com
Intermetrics, Inc.

In article <D82FvF.Cox@kithrup.com>, Mike Stump  <mrs@cygnus.com> wrote:
>In article <3o8lsj$4en@News1.mcs.com>,
>Jim Fleming <jim.fleming@bytes.com> wrote:
>>This is more sad than I originally thought....:(((()
>>
>>How can you, as a member of a "government" sponsored activity,
>
>While the activity is an ANSI/ISO activity, the financial sponsorship
>of the committee does not rest upon the US government.  All meetings
>are hosted by commercial organizations, all mailings are paid for by
>the companies taking part in the standardization process.

 This is not quite true. Mailings to the National Bodies
-- which are not "companies" -- are funded by ISO and NB processes.

 The USA National Body ANSI may well admit
both corporate and individual members, but other National
Bodies such as Standards Australia do not operate in this
fashion.

 The _internal_ committee mailings have been
done up till now by ANSI corporate members -- if you
count Roland Hartinger's work as being done by Siemens
Nixdorff rather than the Head of the German National Delegation
to WG21, or Josee's work as being done by IBM rather than
the HOD of Canada.  I'd say this work was done by _people_
"funded" by their voluntary efforts.

>>Do you also endorse all of the other issues that have been hidden from
>>the general public?
>
>What what might those be?

 I might comment that the _internal_ Committee Draft
is _different_ from the one put up for public review or
sent to National Bodies by ISO. It contains "editorial boxes"
indicating know problem areas.

 The reason these boxes do not appear in the Committee Draft
is primarily because ISO will not permit them to -- they're
an administrative detail of the C++ committee and not part of
the proposed Standard.

 There is no conspiracy here -- a lot of committee
members wanted the editorial boxes to go out in the CD.
ISO rules pre-empted any decision.

 Active participants in the Australian C++ Panel
can obtain the internal committee version. However, it
ISN'T what the National Bodies will be voting on.

--
        JOHN (MAX) SKALLER,         INTERNET:maxtal@suphys.physics.su.oz.au
 Maxtal Pty Ltd,
        81A Glebe Point Rd, GLEBE   Mem: SA IT/9/22,SC22/WG21
        NSW 2037, AUSTRALIA     Phone: 61-2-566-2189

gjohnson@netcom.com (Serendipitous Freelance Hacker) wrote:
>
>  +---- 9758-26353 wrote:
>  | The draft C++ standard is now generally available.
>  | To get it, go to
>  |  research.att.com, directory dist/c++std/WP
>  +----
>
> Cool, thanks to all that fought the good fight and got the draft
> out and online!  The next few months should be fun.  Anyone feel
> like setting up an FTP site for a plain text version before
> it becomes a FAQ?
>

Try this:

http://www.cygnus.com/~mrs/wp-draft/index.html

In article <3o65k2$mu@News1.mcs.com>, jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:

>If you have not seen C+@...have a cup of Hot JAVA while waiting... :)

Hmmmm. So you admit that C+@ is vaporware at last. You might want to let Microsoft
in on what they should tell their users to take while waiting.
--
Grtz, RFP ;-)

 |o|     Ruurd Pels, Kamgras 187, 8935 EJ  Leeuwarden, The Netherlands   |o|
 |o| GC2.1 GAT/!/?/CS/B -d+(---) H s !g p? a w--(+++) v--(+++) C++ UL+++ |o|
 |o| P? L++ !3 E? N++ !V t+ !5 !j G?  tv- b++ D B? u++(---) h-- f? y++++ |o|

In article <3og462$fkd@nsgate.envisionet.net> cjames@cec-services.com (Colin James III (The Rt Rev'd)) writes:
 [rubbish]

M-x gnus-kill-file-kill-by-author
--
Gregory Bond <gnb@bby.com.au> Burdett Buckeridge & Young Ltd Melbourne Australia
  The "typical user" couldn't spell C1 if you spotted him a letter and
  offered to sell him the digit for a reasonable price.
 -- Casey Schaufler (<casey@orange.engr.sgi.com>), on C1 secure UNIX OS

Colin James III (The Rt Rev'd) (cjames@cec-services.com) wrote:

: What's so funny about the dither over C++ is that it is widely used only
: in two places in North America:  USA and Canada.  In other words, who
: cares.  No one in Europe uses it if they can help it !

I couldn't agree more.

Jan

Nijmegen
The Netherlands
U.S.A.

mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us wrote:
: In article <3o6qdr$7bi@News1.mcs.com>, jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:

Could you please all stop quoting Jim Fleming? I've put him in my kill
file but if you guys keep quoting him I'll still see his thoughtful
and constructive comments over & over again.

Thanks,

JP

In article <nagleD7yoA5.914@netcom.com> nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes:
>In <D7vrG5.Mvs@research.att.com>, bs@research.att.com (Bjarne Stroustrup <9758-26353> 0112760) writes:
>>The standard is large (700+ pages), but that is not large compared to
>>other standards for modern programming languages.
>
>Compared with the initial defining documents for the major languages,
>this is is big.  It may be the current record-holder.
>
>     "Report on the Algorithmic Language ALGOL 60" 24 pages
>     "LISP 1.5 Programmer's Manual"   24 pages
>     "Modula, A language for modular multiprogramming"  33 pages
>     "The C Programming Language"   52 pages
>     "MIL-STD 1815 - Ada Programming Language"          242 pages
>     "Common LISP - the language"   465 pages
>     "Eiffel, the language"    594 pages
>
>However, comparisons with repeatedly revised old programming languages
>may be more fruitful. How long are the standards for Fortran 95,
>Ada 9x, and the new COBOL?

I don't have the final Ada95 stuff, but my early september copy of the
Ada Annotated Reference Manual (the full reference manual with
extensive annotations) is around 730 pages. The ARM will be quite a
bit shorter (I'd guess that there are 250 pages of annotation). But
I'd guess that the C++ standard contains a fair amount of annotation;
the drafts that I saw certainly did.

A very incomplete, informal writeup of Dylan, which is intended to
compete with C++, is around 200 pages. However, it is lacking in some
features that will be in the final version. I would guess that the
Dylan manual will be around 400 pages. (But Dylan doesn't have the
historical burden of C++ or Ada.)

Modula-3 fit the language definition into under 100 pages, while
including nearly all of the features of Ada9x and C++. But it is
notable lacking in supporting text for standard libraries, which would
take quite a bit of text.

What does any of this tell us? Not a whole heck of a lot. A real world
programming language contains a whole lot of baggage, either in the
language itself or in its standard libraries. And the bureaucratic
writing style dictated by a standards committee bloat the description
quite a bit. There's no way to tell whether a language is complex or
not on the basis of how many pages are in its standards
document. (Some frightfully complex things can be stated in a small
number of words, and explanations of simple things can sometimes take
quite a long time.)

Having read the full Ada RM, the C++ ARM, the Design and Evolution of
C++, and parts of the ISO C++ document, I'd say that C++ is quite a
bit more complex than Ada, despite the equivalent lengths of the RMs.
On the other hand, *reading* the ISO C++ draft is a lot less painful
than reading the Ada RM, despite the fact that I think that Ada is
simpler once you drill your way past the standardese writing.

All in all, I'd have to say that any attempt to really prove anything
about the language by talking about surface features of its ISO
standards document fits rather well with Stroustrups various
statements about language wars. They're a waste of time. I hate C++,
so I won't use it. Not because of the length of the standards
document, nor because of the bureaucratic process that created the
document, but because of a variety of features and faults in the
language that would take far longer to really defend than fits into a
netnews post. Similarly, the answers to my complaints from C++ users
who are happy with the language are similarly long, involved, and
beyond the scope of a netnews discussion. So why don't we all grow up,
and stop wasting our time trying to find stupid little sound bites
about how our favorite language is better than anyone elses?

 <MC>

--
|| Mark Craig Chu-Carroll: <MC> || "Only love
|| CIS Grad, Univ of Delaware   ||     can make love"
|| PGP key available by finger  ||  -Peter Gabriel
|| carroll@cis.udel.edu         ||

In article <D870nL.4GK@ucc.su.OZ.AU> maxtal@Physics.usyd.edu.au (John Max Skaller) writes:

>  The reason these boxes do not appear in the Committee Draft
> is primarily because ISO will not permit them to -- they're
> an administrative detail of the C++ committee and not part of
> the proposed Standard.

>  There is no conspiracy here -- a lot of committee
> members wanted the editorial boxes to go out in the CD.
> ISO rules pre-empted any decision.

This is not quite fair.  The fundamental issue is that the boxes
have not been approved by committee vote.  They are notes stuck
in by various committee members as reminders of things that
should probably be considered in the future.

If we included these notes in what we sent out for National Body
approval, we would also have to vote on them, which would mean
we would have to debate their contents.  But what sense would it
make to debate now the contents of stuff that is intended to be
debated later?

So the notes are missing from the official version.  However, they
are still available to the public, because anyone can buy a copy
of the internal version of the Working Paper, notes and all,
from ANSI.  Just ask them for X3J16 document number 95-0091.
--
    --Andrew Koenig
      ark@research.att.com

In article <3o5hiu$j8h@News1.mcs.com> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:

   From: jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming)
   Newsgroups: comp.std.c++,comp.object,comp.lang.c++
   Date: 2 May 1995 15:02:54 GMT
   Organization: Unir Corporation

   In article <3o5ajb$uac@locutus.rchland.ibm.com>,
   pstaite@powertool.rchland.ibm.com says...

*snip*

   >Are these same sinister promoters the ones who shot JFK?  Come on.  All the
   network news i
   >s really run by three people in big offices in New York too, right? :-)  If
   we're set back
   > 10 years, who's 10 years ahead of us and that wildly successful?  Through
   the 80's struct
   >ured programming ran out of gas as more and more demands were placed on
   software.  OO and
   >C++ are helping to tame that monster -- for now, it's still
   growing/changing.

*snip*

   @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
   You clearly feel that if we are 10 years behind, then someone must be
   10 years ahead. It is a shame that you do not understand the concept
   of being 10 years more advanced *without* a comparison being made.
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Impossible!  The phrase "10 years behind" or "10 years ahead" _is_ a
comparison.  I believe Mr. Staite asks a very good question in response to
your assertion which you can't support.

   If it helps, maybe you could imagine another planet, just like earth.
   For discussion, let's say it is Mars. Maybe I should tell you that the
   Martians have a net which allows them to exchange informaCtion which
   is "information in action". Their net allows them to educate ALL of
   the children on their planet in an "equal" and fair manner. Their net
   allows them to hire "the most qualified people" for jobs. Their net
   allows their government to operate efficiently and to protect the
   privacy of citizens and provides security that people are seeking as
   they live their lives. Finally, their net allows them to accurately
   report news and to accurately judge the contributions that people make
   to society while on *their* planet.

   If I tell you they are 10 years ahead, and you look out over the
   landscape of planet earth do you feel that we have a little catching
   up to do? Or do you say, "OH...those Martians, they are always trying
   to "one up us"...pour me another cocktail bartender, bring on the
   multi-media TV show...I like living on Earth..."

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

It is a shame that you do not understand the concept of being 10 years more
advanced *with* a comparison.  What you just gave above _was_ a comparison.

To continue your metaphor, there are some people who might be content to
stay on Earth, but there are others who, if they found out that there was a
place that was 10 years more advanced, would sell body parts to get there.
If C++ users are 10 years behind, who is 10 years ahead of them?  I would
like to learn this language, and be associated with the companies that are
successfully using it!

JAB

In article <JBYERLY.95May9145703@malta.jpmorgan.com>,
jbyerly@malta.jpmorgan.com says...
>
>In article <3o5hiu$j8h@News1.mcs.com> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming)
writes:
>
>   From: jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming)
>   Newsgroups: comp.std.c++,comp.object,comp.lang.c++
>   Date: 2 May 1995 15:02:54 GMT
>   Organization: Unir Corporation
>
>   In article <3o5ajb$uac@locutus.rchland.ibm.com>,
>   pstaite@powertool.rchland.ibm.com says...
>
>*snip*
>
>   >Are these same sinister promoters the ones who shot JFK?  Come on.  All
the
>   network news i
>   >s really run by three people in big offices in New York too, right? :-)
 If
>   we're set back
>   > 10 years, who's 10 years ahead of us and that wildly successful?
Through
>   the 80's struct
>   >ured programming ran out of gas as more and more demands were placed on
>   software.  OO and
>   >C++ are helping to tame that monster -- for now, it's still
>   growing/changing.
>
>*snip*
>
>   @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>   You clearly feel that if we are 10 years behind, then someone must be
>   10 years ahead. It is a shame that you do not understand the concept
>   of being 10 years more advanced *without* a comparison being made.
>                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Impossible!  The phrase "10 years behind" or "10 years ahead" _is_ a
>comparison.  I believe Mr. Staite asks a very good question in response to
>your assertion which you can't support.
>
>   If it helps, maybe you could imagine another planet, just like earth.
>   For discussion, let's say it is Mars. Maybe I should tell you that the
>   Martians have a net which allows them to exchange informaCtion which
>   is "information in action". Their net allows them to educate ALL of
>   the children on their planet in an "equal" and fair manner. Their net
>   allows them to hire "the most qualified people" for jobs. Their net
>   allows their government to operate efficiently and to protect the
>   privacy of citizens and provides security that people are seeking as
>   they live their lives. Finally, their net allows them to accurately
>   report news and to accurately judge the contributions that people make
>   to society while on *their* planet.
>
>   If I tell you they are 10 years ahead, and you look out over the
>   landscape of planet earth do you feel that we have a little catching
>   up to do? Or do you say, "OH...those Martians, they are always trying
>   to "one up us"...pour me another cocktail bartender, bring on the
>   multi-media TV show...I like living on Earth..."
>
>   @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>
>It is a shame that you do not understand the concept of being 10 years more
>advanced *with* a comparison.  What you just gave above _was_ a comparison.
>
>To continue your metaphor, there are some people who might be content to
>stay on Earth, but there are others who, if they found out that there was a
>place that was 10 years more advanced, would sell body parts to get there.
>If C++ users are 10 years behind, who is 10 years ahead of them?  I would
>like to learn this language, and be associated with the companies that are
>successfully using it!
>
>JAB
>
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

You are always welcome to explore the OuterNet... :)

You do not have to trade any "body parts" 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_|

In article <3o3sd7$263@News1.mcs.com>,
Jim Fleming <jim.fleming@bytes.com> wrote:
>Then why doesn't Bjarne or some "official" member of the committee post
> an official notice?

It is hard to do, one cannot speak for the committee unless the
committee votes on it, voting takes a long time to do.  Bjarne did the
next best thing.  Any committee member can speak in this forum, as a
member, and share their views, that doesn't mean the committee voted
on what they said and agrees.

>Why is Bjarne going to the trouble of pointing out that he is doing this
> on his own?

Because there was no formal vote on the exact wording he used in his
post.  I think it would be a waste of time to vote on wording in his
post.  I generally agreed with it, if I said it, it might have been a
bit different, but not substantially so.

>Why have other ANSI members indicated that there are administrative
> problems which have caused delays and why is Bjarne jumping the
> gun and not waiting for these administrative ANSI problems to
> be solved?

Is it a fact he jumped the gun, is is this your assumption?  You seem
to be missing facts.  Please stick to facts you know.

>What is the purpose of having a committee if one person (who admits not
> to be an "officer" of the committee) is able to promote something
> for public comment evidently without the committee's approval?

Is this a fact or just your assumption?  To others reading this, it is
unlikely the above is true.

>Since we still do not have a list of members of the committee and can
> not tell who is in charge of the committee activities, it is
> very difficult to determine what is going on. The following
> words from Bjarne make it clear that he is acting as a committee
> of one.

Why did you want it?  I can answer general questions about it, as I
have it here, but I see no reason to give it to anyone.  As to who is
in charge, the answer is the committee is in charge.  Anything they
want to say or do has to be agreed on by the voting members of present
at the meeting.

Why is it difficult to determine what's going on?  ANSI/ISO is
starting it's public review.  In preperation for that, Bjarne has made
the object of the comments availible, so that people can start reading
it critically, and start forming their comments.  What exactly is it
that you don't understand?

Steve doesn't need to read the files.  Steve has better sources of
information.

In article <3o45pr$c37@News1.mcs.com>,
Jim Fleming <jim.fleming@bytes.com> wrote:
>>It was produced by the standards committee, and it's being put out
>>by the whole committee.
>>
>>Steve Adamczyk
>>Edison Design Group
>>
>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>I suggest that Mr. Adamczyk go to the ftp site and read the files.
>Andrew Koenig clearly states that this is a copy of their Working
>Paper for their Working Group.
>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

In article <3o456v$263@News1.mcs.com>,
Jim Fleming <jim.fleming@bytes.com> wrote:
>In article <D7vrG5.Mvs@research.att.com>, 9758-26353 says...
>>The draft C++ standard is now generally available.
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>What is provided in the files below is in Andrew Koenig's words...
>
> "a machine-readable copy of the April 28, 1995
> Working Paper of ISO Working Group WG21..."
>
>This is NOT a copy of the "draft C++ standard" which is being issued for
>public comment.

How do you know this?  Is this a fact or your opinion?  How did you
come to know this as a fact, if you think it is?

>This is a copy of the Working Paper which will be submitted for
>consideration by the committee.

This is most likely a true statement, but may not be.

>Please note, many working papers could exist. This is just one instance.

I can confirm this.  Many working papers in fact do exist.  I maintain
an online archive going back to the beginning of 93.  My paper archive
goes back to 92.

>According to the README file mentioned above, the details of this
>comment process have not been worked out. Since the committee has not
>approved the Working Paper, it is unclear to me how this draft can
>magically become the version upon which people make official comments.

Real simple.  We vote on it.  Guess what, this vote already happened.
It passed.  With that formal motion we created a magic wand that gives
a single person the ability to call anything in the world they like
`our' work and submit it to the ISO folks for the basis of our
Committee Draft.  All it would take, is that person to proclaim any
document they like our work, and presto, it becomes our work, even
though we have never seen it.

>If that is the case, then someone appears to be making the assumption
>that no changes will be made when the committee reviews the Working
>Paper.

You should do less speculating.  Get the facts.

In article <3o6c5f$324@rover.village.org>, imp@village.org says...
>
>In article <nagleD7yoA5.914@netcom.com>, John Nagle <nagle@netcom.com>
wrote:
>>In <D7vrG5.Mvs@research.att.com>, bs@research.att.com (Bjarne Stroustrup
<9758-26353> 011
>2760) writes:
>>>The standard is large (700+ pages), but that is not large compared to
>>>other standards for modern programming languages.
>>     "The C Programming Language"                      52 pages
>
>The ANSI C standard is 220 pages long, plus another 120 for the
>rational.  Given this size, I'm pleasantly surprised that the C++
>working group draft standard is only 720 pages.  Heck, the OI
>programmer's manual, a C++ lirbary for X, is about 1200 pages.  I
>feared the standard would be as hefty.
>
>Warner
>
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

I would imagine that everyone expects the standard to grow as a result
of the various "activities" that will now start to occur. There will
likely be a need and a requirement for a rationale, that will likely
add another 100 pages.

I am not sure why the page count matters. We have to deal with what
we have. I would prefer 1,000 complete pages over 720 incomplete pages.
The concern at this point should be, how will the "completion" be
organized? Will several groups go off and diverge to complete the
effort? If that occurs, will a standard come together?

I agree with other people that have posted a very simple request.
Let's stop this target from moving. Let's get it in a form where
*all* people (including real language experts) can get a look at it.
Then let's get a stable version and process in place to determine
the fate of this monster that no one (including the creator) has been
able to tame.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
%Techno Cat I        /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
Penn's Landing      /   |  \    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
                 \__/-------\__/       e-mail: jim.fleming@bytes.com
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

In article <D7z4vy.M92@kithrup.com>, mrs@cygnus.com says...
>
>In article <3o3b5t$b9g@News1.mcs.com>,
>Jim Fleming <jim.fleming@bytes.com> wrote:
>>Does anyone know who is on the ANSI committee?
>
>Yes.  I know them all.

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

GREAT..!!!

Maybe you can let us all in on the big secret...

Are you a member of the committee?

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

--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
%Techno Cat I        /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
Penn's Landing      /   |  \    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
                 \__/-------\__/       e-mail: jim.fleming@bytes.com
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

In article <D7z7oA.n1r@kithrup.com>, mrs@cygnus.com says...
>
>In article <3o3sd7$263@News1.mcs.com>,
>Jim Fleming <jim.fleming@bytes.com> wrote:
>>Then why doesn't Bjarne or some "official" member of the committee post
>>       an official notice?
>
>It is hard to do, one cannot speak for the committee unless the
>committee votes on it, voting takes a long time to do.  Bjarne did the
>next best thing.  Any committee member can speak in this forum, as a
>member, and share their views, that doesn't mean the committee voted
>on what they said and agrees.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

I have applauded Bjarne Stroustrup and Andrew Koenig for helping
the poor "info-have-nots" that have to rely on Usenet.

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

>>Why is Bjarne going to the trouble of pointing out that he is doing this
>>       on his own?
>
>Because there was no formal vote on the exact wording he used in his
>post.  I think it would be a waste of time to vote on wording in his
>post.  I generally agreed with it, if I said it, it might have been a
>bit different, but not substantially so.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Why wouldn't the Chairpeople of the committee prepare the wording?
This seems like standard operating procedure for ANSI committees.
There is all sorts of historical precedence, canned boiler plate,
etc. Why all of the "cat" and mouse about Bjarne not being an Officer
of the Committee? Does Bjarne want to be an Officer? Why doesn't
ANSI just make the information available in their "normal" rather
"formal" manner?

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

>>Why have other ANSI members indicated that there are administrative
>>       problems which have caused delays and why is Bjarne jumping the
>>       gun and not waiting for these administrative ANSI problems to
>>       be solved?
>
>Is it a fact he jumped the gun, is is this your assumption?  You seem
>to be missing facts.  Please stick to facts you know.
>

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Why don't you fill us in on what the administrative problems are?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>>What is the purpose of having a committee if one person (who admits not
>>       to be an "officer" of the committee) is able to promote something
>>       for public comment evidently without the committee's approval?
>
>Is this a fact or just your assumption?  To others reading this, it is
>unlikely the above is true.
>

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Why doesn't the "committee" just publish their position. Signed by
all of the members of the committee? That is the purpose of an ANSI
committee. They should act as a "unit". At this stage of the game
their communications to U.S. citizens and the world should be in a
very formal format so that no one has any doubt that the entire
committee has reviewed material and has endorsed the release for
public comment.

Come on, this is not hard stuff. This is just common sense.

When the Republicans published the "Contract For America", they
made quite an effort to make sure that people knew they were
organized, serious, and they all signed the document. The way that
the ANSI and ISO committees is releasing this stuff, it gives the
impression that Andrew Koenig looked at the clock, realized he was
out of time in April and put some files on an ftp server. The files
carry none of the typical ANSI and ISO boiler-plate that normally
go with documents released for public comment. Also, there appear
to be some rather loose copyright issues attached to the documents
that were provided. This is all of the stuff that the ANSI process
helps to "clean up" so that you have the best shot at getting your
technical work through this highly political process. Again, this
should not be new to seasoned members of the ANSI and ISO committees.

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

>>Since we still do not have a list of members of the committee and can
>>       not tell who is in charge of the committee activities, it is
>>       very difficult to determine what is going on. The following
>>       words from Bjarne make it clear that he is acting as a committee
>>       of one.
>
>Why did you want it?  I can answer general questions about it, as I
>have it here, but I see no reason to give it to anyone.  As to who is
>in charge, the answer is the committee is in charge.  Anything they
>want to say or do has to be agreed on by the voting members of present
>at the meeting.
>
>Why is it difficult to determine what's going on?  ANSI/ISO is
>starting it's public review.  In preperation for that, Bjarne has made
>the object of the comments availible, so that people can start reading
>it critically, and start forming their comments.  What exactly is it
>that you don't understand?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Are you speaking here on behalf of the Chairperson of the ANSI committee?
Do you speak for the ISO?
Are you on either the ANSI or ISO committees?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
%Techno Cat I        /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
Penn's Landing      /   |  \    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
                 \__/-------\__/       e-mail: jim.fleming@bytes.com
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

In article <D7z7zr.4y@kithrup.com>, mrs@cygnus.com says...
>
>Steve doesn't need to read the files.  Steve has better sources of
>information.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

I am certain that he does. It seems the The Edison Design Group is
very tapped into the process. Some of the people involved in that
organization have provided very useful information in the past. For
some reason this has stopped.

I don't think that anyone would question the fact that members and
especailly "officers" of the ANSI and ISO committees have "better
sources of information". I would hope that not only do they have
better "sources", I would also hope that they are themselves a
"source".

Unfortunately, there has been a very active effort to make sure that
information does not get posted in Usenet. I can see from your
postings that you intend to sit on the side-line without providing
the readers here with information on what is going on from your
point of view. That of course is your right. People have to draw
their own conclusions about your motives.

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

>In article <3o45pr$c37@News1.mcs.com>,
>Jim Fleming <jim.fleming@bytes.com> wrote:
>>>It was produced by the standards committee, and it's being put out
>>>by the whole committee.
>>>
>>>Steve Adamczyk
>>>Edison Design Group
>>>
>>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>>I suggest that Mr. Adamczyk go to the ftp site and read the files.
>>Andrew Koenig clearly states that this is a copy of their Working
>>Paper for their Working Group.
>>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
%Techno Cat I        /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
Penn's Landing      /   |  \    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
                 \__/-------\__/       e-mail: jim.fleming@bytes.com
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

In article <D7z8zG.Du@kithrup.com>, mrs@cygnus.com says...
>
>In article <3o456v$263@News1.mcs.com>,
>Jim Fleming <jim.fleming@bytes.com> wrote:
>>In article <D7vrG5.Mvs@research.att.com>, 9758-26353 says...
>>>The draft C++ standard is now generally available.
>>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>>What is provided in the files below is in Andrew Koenig's words...
>>
>>       "a machine-readable copy of the April 28, 1995
>>       Working Paper of ISO Working Group WG21..."
>>
>>This is NOT a copy of the "draft C++ standard" which is being issued for
>>public comment.
>
>How do you know this?  Is this a fact or your opinion?  How did you
>come to know this as a fact, if you think it is?
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Read Andrew Koenig's README file.
I posted it to comp.std.c++.

Besides, if this was the DRAFT C++ Standard being made available for
public comments, there would be many legal issues covered which have
not been covered in the files that Bjarne and Andrew put on an AT&T
ftp server. Also, there would be procedures described in detail on
how public comments should be made.

Andrew Koenig is very clear in his README file. He states that he (they)
ran out of time, they wanted to throw us cats a bone, so they posted the
Working Paper from the Working Group.

Now I can imagine that this will be a large portion of the DRAFT released
for public comment, but as other ANSI members have stated, there are
likely to be some changes. You seem to imply that there will be no
changes. Are you speaking for the ANSI committee?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>>This is a copy of the Working Paper which will be submitted for
>>consideration by the committee.
>
>This is most likely a true statement, but may not be.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Why not just tell us your opinion? Do you know?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>>Please note, many working papers could exist. This is just one instance.
>
>I can confirm this.  Many working papers in fact do exist.  I maintain
>an online archive going back to the beginning of 93.  My paper archive
>goes back to 92.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Good, so we agree that many Working Papers can exist.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>>According to the README file mentioned above, the details of this
>>comment process have not been worked out. Since the committee has not
>>approved the Working Paper, it is unclear to me how this draft can
>>magically become the version upon which people make official comments.
>
>Real simple.  We vote on it.  Guess what, this vote already happened.
>It passed.  With that formal motion we created a magic wand that gives
>a single person the ability to call anything in the world they like
>`our' work and submit it to the ISO folks for the basis of our
>Committee Draft.  All it would take, is that person to proclaim any
>document they like our work, and presto, it becomes our work, even
>though we have never seen it.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

OH...I see...this is not a very serious process...what you are saying
is very sad...you are saying that the committee has turned their fate
over to a few...and as many of us have known...those few do whatever
they please and the rest of us (who trust the ANSI process) are not
aware that the committee may have never seem the work...how sad...

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

>>If that is the case, then someone appears to be making the assumption
>>that no changes will be made when the committee reviews the Working
>>Paper.
>
>You should do less speculating.  Get the facts.

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

This is a very sad situation. I do not know if this person is really
a member of the ANSI committee or speaks for anyone or everyone on
the committee. I am sure that the executives of ANSI and the people
of the United States that support ANSI would not like to hear that
the ANSI process is not being followed by the committee of people
who claim to be "members".

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
%Techno Cat I        /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
Penn's Landing      /   |  \    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
                 \__/-------\__/       e-mail: jim.fleming@bytes.com
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

Jim Flemming - The Rushed Hamburger of C++ ??

-----------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas McGuigan               (nickmcg@ibm.net)

In article <3o6p5r$7bi@News1.mcs.com> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:

> Maybe you can let us all in on the big secret...
>
> Are you a member of the committee?

No, no, you phrased that wrong.  The proper wording for a question
like that is "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the
committee?"
--
Matt Austern          matt@physics.berkeley.edu
http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt

In <D7yrJH.IuF@research.att.com>, ark@research.att.com (Andrew Koenig) writes:
>I should note that about two-thirds of the C++ draft is libraries.
>Also... the Modula2 standard is about 600 pages, and the CLOS manual
>(I don't know about the standard) is well over 1,000 pages.

    Andrew -

 I spent about seven hours printing the thing out on my little laser
printer. Indeed, the majority of the document is taken up by library issues.
These libraries are definately tending towards making C++ a higher level
language than C as far as typical usage is concerned. Obviously, it still
follows the "don't pay for what you don't use" convention so its only as
high a level as needed. I really think that this standards document release
is going to greatly increase the quality of software developed in C++ since
people will now be able to count on having these features, functions, and
classes available.
 Not being a language lawyer, I can't comment too much on the
language "correctness" of the document but it looks pretty impressive to
me. I'm sure I'll have some questions and comments about it when the
time comes for such. Meanwhile, Great Job!

   later,

      Ben Scherrey
      Proteus Technologies, Inc.

nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes:

>In <D7vrG5.Mvs@research.att.com>, bs@research.att.com (Bjarne Stroustrup <9758-26353> 0112760) writes:
>>The standard is large (700+ pages), but that is not large compared to
>>other standards for modern programming languages.

>Compared with the initial defining documents for the major languages,
>this is is big.  It may be the current record-holder.

>     "Report on the Algorithmic Language ALGOL 60" 24 pages
>     "LISP 1.5 Programmer's Manual"   24 pages
>     "Modula, A language for modular multiprogramming"  33 pages
>     "The C Programming Language"   52 pages
>     "MIL-STD 1815 - Ada Programming Language"          242 pages
>     "Common LISP - the language"   465 pages
>     "Eiffel, the language"    594 pages
      "Ada Reference Manual" ('95 version)              561 pages

About 260 pages describes the language itself, the rest libraries and
a few optional annexes (Interfacing to other languages (C, COBOL, Fortran),
System Programming, Real-Time Systems, Distributed Systems, Information
Systems, Numerics, Safety and Security.)
Ada 95 is also the first Object-Oriented language that has been standardized
by ISO (I believe CLOS was the first ANSI OO language).

Erik

In article <3o3m1l$7td@nsgate.envisionet.net> cjames@cec-services.com
(Colin James III (The Rt Rev'd)) writes:

|> What's so funny about the dither over C++ is that it is widely used only
|> in two places in North America:  USA and Canada.  In other words, who
|> cares.  No one in Europe uses it if they can help it !

Really.  I wonder why C++ programmers are so much in demand over here,
then.
--
James Kanze         Tel.: (+33) 88 14 49 00        email: kanze@gabi-soft.fr
GABI Software, Sarl., 8 rue des Francs-Bourgeois, F-67000 Strasbourg, France
Conseils en informatique industrielle --
                              -- Beratung in industrieller Datenverarbeitung

In article <nagleD7yoA5.914@netcom.com> nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes:

|      "Eiffel, the language"    594 pages

To be fair, "Eiffel: The Language" is much more than a language
reference manual. It's an intertwined reference manual, OO and Eiffel
tutorial.  The Eiffel Consortium is currently at work at distilling
the "reference manual" parts out of ETL into a more terse language
definition document.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Llamas are larger than frogs.

Steve Tynor  Internet: Steve.Tynor@atlanta.twr.com
Tower Technology UUCP:     twratl!Steve.Tynor
   WWW:      http://www.cm.cf.ac.uk/Tower/

Philip Staite (pstaite@powertool.rchland.ibm.com) wrote:
> Commercial
success doesn't "drive a need for a standard", it demands it!  Do you
really think big business wants a fragmented <language> landscape?  Do you
expect someone to invest millions and years into <language> knowing that
<vendor>'s version of <l anguage> is not quite like anyone else's version
of <language>?
-----

Empirical evidence unfortunately demonstrates this.

Big Green's mind control lasers appear to have pulled it off.

-----

That's called being locked-in to a proprietary system.  If
there are any significant differences between <vendorA> and <vendorB>'s
versions of <language> then changing is painful, potentiall y impractical.
If I'm the only vendor putting out this flavor of <language> and my
customer base is locked into my feature/extension set, where's my
motivation to make my compiler as good as it can be?  I've got a virtual
monopoly on this "mini" language.

-----

Dos.  MS-Office.

In <D7z4vy.M92@kithrup.com> Mike Stump <mrs@cygnus.com> writes:
>In article <3o3b5t$b9g@News1.mcs.com>,
>Jim Fleming <jim.fleming@bytes.com> wrote:
>>Does anyone know who is on the ANSI committee?

>Yes.  I know them all.

 Sorry, this is a bit off topic, but maybe I'm not the only one
 interested in this question:
 I've collected a set of subjects and names (well, one name mostly)
 that go in my kill file (I use nn) that do a very good job in
 keeping my blood pressure down.

 Is there a way of specifying strings in the BODY of a message that
 the kill file throws out, such as names or email addresses
 (or certain ASCII char@cters)? :-)

 Martin

In article <3o8b23$m02@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov> mbk@jt3ws1.etd.ornl.gov (Kennel) writes:

> It's not a reapeatedly-revised-old-language, but it is modern,
>
>        "The Sather 1.0 Specification Dec 2, 1994" 40 pages
>  ftp://ftp.icsi.berkeley.edu/pub/sather/sather.ps

But that's also not an ANSI or ISO standard: it leaves a lot of picky
details unspecified that are describe in excruciating detail in
official standards.  The ANSI/ISO draft C++ standard, for example,
spends a lot of space describing sequence points and describing the
differences between hosted and freestanding implementations.

Not to mention, of course, that the Sather reference manual says next
to nothing about the Sather libraries.  Most of the draft C++ standard
is the description of the C++ libraries.

C++ is a large language, no doubt about it.  Let's not get carried
away, though.  An official standard (not an informal description) of
a modern language, complete with library descriptions and languge-
lawyer details, isn't going to be brief.
--
Matt Austern          matt@physics.berkeley.edu
http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt

In article <3o8b23$m02@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov> mbk@jt3ws1.etd.ornl.gov (Kennel) writes:

   John Nagle (nagle@netcom.com) wrote:
   > In <D7vrG5.Mvs@research.att.com>, bs@research.att.com (Bjarne Stroustrup <9758-26353> 0112760) writes:
   > >The standard is large (700+ pages), but that is not large compared to
   > >other standards for modern programming languages.

   > Compared with the initial defining documents for the major languages,
   > this is is big.  It may be the current record-holder.

   >  "Report on the Algorithmic Language ALGOL 60"     24 pages
   >  "LISP 1.5 Programmer's Manual"          24 pages
   >  "Modula, A language for modular multiprogramming" 33 pages
   >  "The C Programming Language"          52 pages
   >  "MIL-STD 1815 - Ada Programming Language"         242 pages
   >  "Common LISP - the language"          465 pages
   >  "Eiffel, the language"           594 pages

   > However, comparisons with repeatedly revised old programming languages
   > may be more fruitful. How long are the standards for Fortran 95,
   > Ada 9x, and the new COBOL?

   It's not a reapeatedly-revised-old-language, but it is modern,

   "The Sather 1.0 Specification Dec 2, 1994" 40 pages
    ftp://ftp.icsi.berkeley.edu/pub/sather/sather.ps

   >      John Nagle

Modula-3's definition is 55 pages, including the syntax equations, and
can be found at:
http://www.research.digital.com/SRC/modula-3/html/home.html

The Modula-3 faq can be located at:
http://froh.vlsi.polymtl.ca/m3/m3-faq.html

In article <3o6q33$7bi@News1.mcs.com>,
Jim Fleming <jim.fleming@bytes.com> wrote:
>Why wouldn't the Chairpeople of the committee prepare the wording?

Why bother?  The committee doesn't exist to compose Usenet postings.
They exist to create a standard for C++, or did you forget that.

>This seems like standard operating procedure for ANSI committees.
>There is all sorts of historical precedence, canned boiler plate,
>etc.

In my opinion it could do with some more canned boiler plate stuff on
it, that is true.  I would anticipate that it'll pick up more boiler
plate stuff as it winds it's way throuh ANSI and ISO.

>Why doesn't ANSI just make the information available in their
>"normal" rather "formal" manner?

We are.  Have you even tried to contact ANSI and get it from them?
Are you confused because we are also putting it up for ftp?

>Why don't you fill us in on what the administrative problems are?

Why?  If you want to join ANSI, you're free to do so, no one is stopping
you, but yourself.

I don't know about all the little problems that exist, so I cannot
help inform you about them.  Why do you need to know about them?  What
difference does it make to you?  What difference does it have on the
content of our Draft?

What purpose would it serve you?

In any process, one can expect all sorts of problems, delays, issues,
discussions...  If your interested in the little details, you can
attend the meetings, if your not, you can read the paper.  It is
_your_ choice.

>Why doesn't the "committee" just publish their position.

We are.  We did.  Please ftp it at the addresss Bjarne gave.  What do
you think our position could be besides that document?

>Signed by all of the members of the committee?

A lot of members don't have digital signature software.  It isn't as
radical as a constitution.  ANSI members never sign their names to the
document, do they?

>That is the purpose of an ANSI committee.

What, to sign their names?  No, that isn't, you misunderstand our
purpose.  We exist to create a standard.  We are doing that.  One step
along the way is to publish a draft of it, so people can comment on
it.  We have done that.  What do you think what we are doing doesn't
serve that purpose?

>They should act as a "unit".

We do.

>At this stage of the game their communications to U.S. citizens and
>the world should be in a very formal format

Feel free to get our communication from ISO and ANSI, if you prefer.

>so that no one has any doubt that the entire committee has reviewed
>material and has endorsed the release for public comment.

Not necessary, people can either trust us, or get the document from
ANSI/ISO.  Feel free to get it from ANSI, and report back here if you
feel the documents presented here are `wrong.'

>The way that the ANSI and ISO committees is releasing this stuff, it
>gives the impression that Andrew Koenig looked at the clock, realized
>he was out of time in April and put some files on an ftp server.

This impression is fairly close to being accurate.  Does it trouble
you?  Would you prefer the alternative style:

 Here it is.

With no commentary?  Pretend he did that if it makes you feel better.

>Also, there appear to be some rather loose copyright issues attached
>to the documents that were provided. This is all of the stuff that
>the ANSI process helps to "clean up" so that you have the best shot
>at getting your technical work through this highly political
>process.

I agree that this is somewhat confusing.  Those details should have been
hidden from the general public.

>Are you speaking here on behalf of the Chairperson of the ANSI committee?

No.

>Do you speak for the ISO?

No.

>Are you on either the ANSI or ISO committees?

Yes.

In article <3o6p5r$7bi@News1.mcs.com>,
Jim Fleming <jim.fleming@bytes.com> wrote:
>Maybe you can let us all in on the big secret...

Sure, love to.  What big secret did you have in mind.

>Are you a member of the committee?

Yes.

In article <3o6rgm$7bi@News1.mcs.com>,
Jim Fleming <jim.fleming@bytes.com> wrote:
>In article <D7z8zG.Du@kithrup.com>, mrs@cygnus.com says...
>>
>>>What is provided in the files below is in Andrew Koenig's words...
>>>
>>>       "a machine-readable copy of the April 28, 1995
>>>       Working Paper of ISO Working Group WG21..."
>>>
>>>This is NOT a copy of the "draft C++ standard" which is being issued for
>>>public comment.
>>
>>How do you know this?  Is this a fact or your opinion?  How did you
>>come to know this as a fact, if you think it is?
>>
>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>Read Andrew Koenig's README file.

I read it.  Where does he say it is not the Draft?  I missed that
part?  Please quote it to me.  You seem to be assuming it isn't the
draft, I have no clue why.  What ANSI member told you it wasn't?  How
do you know that it isn't?

>Besides, if this was the DRAFT C++ Standard being made available for
>public comments, there would be many legal issues covered which have
>not been covered in the files that Bjarne and Andrew put on an AT&T
>ftp server. Also, there would be procedures described in detail on
>how public comments should be made.

This is your view of the process.  Your view doesn't conform to the
reality of what has happened.

>Andrew Koenig is very clear in his README file. He states that he (they)
>ran out of time, they wanted to throw us cats a bone, so they posted the
>Working Paper from the Working Group.

Yes, and?

>Are you speaking for the ANSI committee?

Nope.

>>>This is a copy of the Working Paper which will be submitted for
>>>consideration by the committee.
>>
>>This is most likely a true statement, but may not be.
>>
>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>Why not just tell us your opinion? Do you know?

The meeting that Andy will ask us to call the paper he created `our'
working paper hasn't happened, I would need a time machine and
predesinty would have to be a fact for me to know what will take place.

It is highly likely that he'll ask us to approve the paper he
submitted as our draft.  He may choose to do some editing, and do up a
different version of it.

>>>According to the README file mentioned above, the details of this
>>>comment process have not been worked out. Since the committee has not
>>>approved the Working Paper, it is unclear to me how this draft can
>>>magically become the version upon which people make official comments.
>>
>>Real simple.  We vote on it.  Guess what, this vote already happened.
>>It passed.  With that formal motion we created a magic wand that gives
>>a single person the ability to call anything in the world they like
>>`our' work and submit it to the ISO folks for the basis of our
>>Committee Draft.  All it would take, is that person to proclaim any
>>document they like our work, and presto, it becomes our work, even
>>though we have never seen it.
>>
>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>
>OH...I see...this is not a very serious process...

I think we take ourselves very seriously.  I think the world takes
what we do very seriously.  I think we take the process we use to
arrive at a proposed standard very seriously.

>what you are saying is very sad...

This is your opinion.  Your welcome to your own views.

>you are saying that the committee has turned their fate over to a
>few...

It is interesting how you interpret things.  For example, when we
FedEx a paper copy to ANSI and ISO, and we `turn over our entire fate
to a few', infact, just a single FedEx employee, you think this is sad.

Most people that know how businesses work would not share your
opinion.  Most businesses don't mind `trusting' FedEx, or who ever
they have to, to get the job done.

>and as many of us have known...those few do whatever they please and
>the rest of us (who trust the ANSI process) are not aware that the
>committee may have never seem the work...how sad...

Do you know of any committee members that have stated that the work
produced isn't the result of the process agreed to by the committee
and ANSI/ISO?  It is my opinion that it is.  You seem to have not have
a firm grip on exactly how ANSI and ISO work.

>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>
>>>If that is the case, then someone appears to be making the assumption
>>>that no changes will be made when the committee reviews the Working
>>>Paper.
>>
>>You should do less speculating.  Get the facts.
>
>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>
>I am sure that the executives of ANSI and the people of the United
>States that support ANSI would not like to hear that the ANSI process
>is not being followed by the committee of people who claim to be
>"members".

What ANSI process is not being followed?  I don't know of any that isn't.
Enlighten us with facts that you know.  Please refrain from idle speculation.

In article <D80K07.BtC@kithrup.com>, mrs@cygnus.com says...
>
>In article <3o6q33$7bi@News1.mcs.com>,
>Jim Fleming <jim.fleming@bytes.com> wrote:
[ cut to the quick ]
>
>>Also, there appear to be some rather loose copyright issues attached
>>to the documents that were provided. This is all of the stuff that
>>the ANSI process helps to "clean up" so that you have the best shot
>>at getting your technical work through this highly political
>>process.
>
>I agree that this is somewhat confusing.  Those details should have been
>hidden from the general public.
>
[snip]
>
>>Are you on either the ANSI or ISO committees?
>
>Yes.

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

This is more sad than I originally thought....:(((()

How can you, as a member of a "government" sponsored activity, state
that you would have preferred that the "copyright" details be "hidden"
from the general public...???

Do you also endorse all of the other issues that have been hidden from
the general public?

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
%Techno Cat I        /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
Penn's Landing      /   |  \    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
                 \__/-------\__/       e-mail: jim.fleming@bytes.com
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

In article <D80K9p.Bx5@kithrup.com>, mrs@cygnus.com says...
>
>In article <3o6p5r$7bi@News1.mcs.com>,
>Jim Fleming <jim.fleming@bytes.com> wrote:
>>Maybe you can let us all in on the big secret...
>
>Sure, love to.  What big secret did you have in mind.
>
>>Are you a member of the committee?
>
>Yes.

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

Since you have stated that you would prefer that certain key issues in
the ANSI C++ standardization process be...

 ..."hidden" from the general public...

it seems rather useless to ask you to provide the readers of Usenet
with something as simple as the list of members of the ANSI committee...
(the context of your remarks above resulted from a previous request..)

Not only is the membership list a big secret, so are the copyright
issues which you have stated should have been "hidden" from the general
public. There are numerous other issues which should also be discussed
by the public.

I can see that you are representative of the type of individual that is
a member of the ANSI committee, and therefore the serious readers of
Usenet may as well not waste their time asking you for information which
you prefer to "hide" from the general public...

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
%Techno Cat I        /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
Penn's Landing      /   |  \    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
                 \__/-------\__/       e-mail: jim.fleming@bytes.com
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

In article <3o6qdr$7bi@News1.mcs.com>, jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:

 - some stuff deleted -

|> Unfortunately, there has been a very active effort to make sure that
|> information does not get posted in Usenet. I can see from your
|> postings that you intend to sit on the side-line without providing
|> the readers here with information on what is going on from your
|> point of view. That of course is your right. People have to draw
|> their own conclusions about your motives.

If it weren't for the subject line, I would have sworn you were talking
to yourself about C+@. :-)
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Ed Osinski
 Computer Science Department, New York University
 E-mail:  osinski@cs.nyu.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In the early years of the 16th century, to combat the rising tide of
religious unorthodoxy, the Pope gave Cardinal Ximinez of Spain leave
to move without let or hindrance throughout the land, in a reign of
violence, terror and torture that makes a smashing film.  This was
the Spanish Inquisition...
    -- Monty Python's Flying Circus

Andrew Koenig (ark@research.att.com) wrote:

: If I had two years with the luxury of doing nothing else, I am
: quite certain I could reduce the size of the C++ draft by a
: factor of two while making it substantially clearer and
: without losing any functionality.  Unfortunately, life isn't
: like that.

: I am reminded of Mark Twain (I think) who, invited to give a lecture
: on short notice, spoke for two hours.  He apologized for going on
: so long; had he more time to prepare, he said, he could have spoken
: for thirty minutes.

I noticed a lot of repetition in an earlier version of the C++ Draft.
Can some of this repetition be eliminated, possibly?

Eric Lemings

John Nagle (nagle@netcom.com) wrote:
> In <D7vrG5.Mvs@research.att.com>, bs@research.att.com (Bjarne Stroustrup <9758-26353> 0112760) writes:
> >The standard is large (700+ pages), but that is not large compared to
> >other standards for modern programming languages.

> Compared with the initial defining documents for the major languages,
> this is is big.  It may be the current record-holder.

>      "Report on the Algorithmic Language ALGOL 60" 24 pages
>      "LISP 1.5 Programmer's Manual"   24 pages
>      "Modula, A language for modular multiprogramming"  33 pages
>      "The C Programming Language"   52 pages
>      "MIL-STD 1815 - Ada Programming Language"          242 pages
>      "Common LISP - the language"   465 pages
>      "Eiffel, the language"    594 pages

> However, comparisons with repeatedly revised old programming languages
> may be more fruitful. How long are the standards for Fortran 95,
> Ada 9x, and the new COBOL?

It's not a reapeatedly-revised-old-language, but it is modern,

       "The Sather 1.0 Specification Dec 2, 1994" 40 pages
 ftp://ftp.icsi.berkeley.edu/pub/sather/sather.ps

>      John Nagle

cjames@cec-services.com (Colin James III (The Rt Rev'd)) writes:
>What's so funny about the dither over C++ is that it is widely used only
>in two places in North America:  USA and Canada.

It hardly seems surprising that the only two places in North America where C++
is widely used are the USA and Canada.

regards,
Graham (in Australia, where C++ also happens to be widely used)

In article <3o456v$263@News1.mcs.com>,
Jim Fleming <jim.fleming@bytes.com> wrote:
>
>According to the README file mentioned above, the details of this
>comment process have not been worked out. Since the committee has not
>approved the Working Paper, it is unclear to me how this draft can
>magically become the version upon which people make official comments.

Because Sam Harbison, convenor of ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG21, was empowered
to submit the document for registration as CD.  Motion #40 at the Austin
meeting last March.

Dag Bruck
Member of X3J16 and WG21

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dynasim AB                            Phone:  +46 46 182500
Research Park Ideon                   Fax:    +46 46 129879
S-223 70 Lund                         E-mail: Dag@Dynasim.se

Jim Fleming (jim.fleming@bytes.com) wrote:
: >However, comparisons with repeatedly revised old programming languages
: >may be more fruitful. How long are the standards for Fortran 95,
: >Ada 9x, and the new COBOL?

For what it's worth: I count 569 pages in my copy of the Ada 95 RM
(including TOC and introduction).

In article <3o8mcs$4en@News1.mcs.com> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:

> I can see that you are representative of the type of individual that is
> a member of the ANSI committee, and therefore the serious readers of
> Usenet may as well not waste their time asking you for information which
> you prefer to "hide" from the general public...

To make that accusation of Mike Stump is truly the most vivid
demonstration of complete ignorance I have seen to date.  Mike may be
terse of tounge, but he is clearly one of the most prolific members of
the C++ community.  His contributions to C++ are a matter of public
record, and greatly benefit an indenumerable number of C++ programmers.
--
--
Geoffrey Furnish                  http://dino.ph.utexas.edu/~furnish
UT Institute for Fusion Studies,  furnish@dino.ph.utexas.edu   512-471-6147
MCC Experimental Systems Lab,     furnish@mcc.com              512-338-3717

 "Pushing back the boundary of inanity."

In article <3o3m1l$7td@nsgate.envisionet.net>, cjames@cec-services.com
says...
>
>In <D7x30A.55H@edg.com>, jsa@edg.com wrote this with possible deletions.
>>
>>In article <3o3b5t$b9g@News1.mcs.com> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim
>Fleming) write>>The C++ standards committees' (ANSI XJ316, ISO SC22-SG21)
>p
>>>>making the draft available this way is to get feedback on the language
>>>>and standard library as described and in particular on the details of
>>>>that description:
>>>>
>:
>mad stuff by Adamczyk deleted
>:
>>
>>Steve Adamczyk
>>Edison Design Group
>>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Note: Mr. Adamczyk has not indicated whether he is speaking for
the ANSI committee. He has also not indicated if he is a member
of the committee.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>
>What's so funny about the dither over C++ is that it is widely used only
>in two places in North America:  USA and Canada.  In other words, who
>cares.  No one in Europe uses it if they can help it !
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
This is true. Europe is miles ahead in OO. Most Europeans that I
have had the pleasure of meeting laugh at C++. Unfortunately, it
has given Europeans a very bad impression of the technical capabilities
of the United States. Fortunately other solutions such as C+@ and JAVA
will show the world that the U.S. can still deliver.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>The hah-hah is on Adamczyk et al for defending C++.  Even Stroustroup has
>to defend it because AT&T is going to C+@ (pronounced "kat").
>
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Colin James III, Principal Scientist    cjames@cec-services.com
>CEC Services, 2080 Kipling St, Lakewood, CO  80215-1502   U S A
>303.231.9437  Voice;  303.231.9438  Facsimile
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
I am not sure that I would say that AT&T is going with C+@. The last
good rumor I heard was that AT&T was going to adopt Objective C and
NeXT Step.

Also, with regard to interest in C+@. I would say that Asia will become
the driving force behind C+@. Because C+@ addresses the need for
portability and the need for mass marketing plug and play software via
networks, the Asian developers seem to have a better understanding of
the advantages of "plug & play". Maybe their diverse environments and
their attention to sound engineering principles have lead them to this
conclusion. Their cautious approach to markets will allow them to bypass
the hype of C++ and to get down to business with C+@. This will save
them a lot of time and money.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
%Techno Cat I        /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
Penn's Landing      /   |  \    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
                 \__/-------\__/       e-mail: jim.fleming@bytes.com
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

In article <D7vrG5.Mvs@research.att.com>, 9758-26353 says...
>
>
>The draft C++ standard is now generally available.
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
What is provided in the files below is in Andrew Koenig's words...

 "a machine-readable copy of the April 28, 1995
 Working Paper of ISO Working Group WG21..."

This is NOT a copy of the "draft C++ standard" which is being issued for
public comment. This is a copy of the Working Paper which will be
submitted for consideration by the committee. They have a long way to
go, and based on Andrew's comments in this file, it is clear that they
ran out of time.

Please note, many working papers could exist. This is just one instance.

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

>To get it, go to
>
>        research.att.com, directory dist/c++std/WP
>
>There are seven files there; one is a README which explains the
>rest and the rules for using the text. I expect several more
>ftp sites to ``come on line'' with the draft over the next few days.
>

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
These files have been confirmed to exist. Because they are in Postscript
they are not very useful for exchanging pieces via Usenet. The Postscript
files appear to be derived from "troff" files. The troff files are not
provided on the above site.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>The C++ standards committees' (ANSI XJ316, ISO SC22-SG21) purpose of
>making the draft available this way is to get feedback on the language
>and standard library as described and in particular on the details of
>that description:
>
>        is the description clear?
>
>        is the description complete?
>
>        is the description comprehensible?
>
>        can the language as described be used in the areas
>        where C++ is used?
>
>        can the standard as described be used in the areas
>        where C++ is used and where the standard library
>        is applicable?
>
>A  public review is primarily an exercise for language lawyers.
>The members of the committee makes this draft available because they
>feel that the language and library is reasonably complete and that the
>framework for the description is reasonably clear. Now is the time to
>pick nits and polish the presentation; it is not the time to try to
>redesign the language or the library according to new principles.
>
>Let me give a few examples of suggestions that I personally think
>would stand little chance of acceptance at this stage:
>
>        banning the preprocessor
>
>        adding concurrency
>
>        generalizing the switch statement to select based on a string
>
>        requiring automatic garbage collection
>
>        requiring 100% ISO C compatibility
>
>        adding a regular pattern matching library
>
>        adding a persistence library
>
>Naturally every comment will be considered, and equally naturally the
>chance of a change increases if the suggestion is constructive, specific,
>fits with the rest of the language, is of general utility, is easily
>implementable and hasn't already been considered and rejected by the
>committee.
>
>The way to make official comments will be posted in a few days when
>the US public review officially starts.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
According to the README file mentioned above, the details of this
comment process have not been worked out. Since the committee has not
approved the Working Paper, it is unclear to me how this draft can
magically become the version upon which people make official comments.

If that is the case, then someone appears to be making the assumption
that no changes will be made when the committee reviews the Working
Paper. This is certainly possible but it does not give the committee
the chance to make changes if half of the world already has a version
that was distributed "early" as a Working Paper prior to committee
approval.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>Please note that many committee
>members read the net, but that postings to the net are not formal comments:
>they can easily be overlooked in the volume of traffic. So can private
>mail to members. To be sure your comments are not lost, use the official
>ANSI channels.
>
>I suggest that the best place for discussion of the draft standard
>is comp.std.c++. Please remember that an agreement between a few posters
>doesn't constitute a majority of the committee or of the C++ community.
>The C++ community is unimaginably diverse, and most C++ users don't
>take part in net discussions.
>
>Note that as far as ANSI and ISO is concerned, you have had five years
>to make your comments and contributions and for the committee to have
>considered them. Starting to learn about the language and the standards
>procedure now is rather late in the day.
>

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
The README file above states that you can make comments on the Working
Paper at least until July. This is when the next joint ISO/ANSI meeting
is being held. That would be the logical time when any significant action
could be taken on the Working Paper.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>Note that the standard in not a tutorial; it is not expected that you can
>learn C++ programming, object-oriented programming, generic programming,
>string manipulation using international character sets, etc., from the
>draft standard. Do not expect to be able to make contributions to the
>standard related to a form of programming in which you are not already
>an expert. In my opinion, precision and formality were in places achieved
>at the cost of some accessibility. I don't particularly like that, but
>I don't see an alternative.
>
>There is no rationale. We tried several times to organize an effort to
>write one, but the resources of the committee - that is the voluneteer
>time and effort offered - didn't stretch to both getting the standard
>written an to write a rationale.
>
>For people who are interested in the workings of the committee, the
>reasoning behind many of its decisions, and the design of C++ in general,
>I recommend:
>
>        Bjarne Stroustrup
>        The Design and Evolution of C++
>        Addison Wesley, ISBN 0-201-54330-3.
>
>The standard is large (700+ pages), but that is not large compared to
>other standards for modern programming languages. Similarly, the time
>taken by the C++ standards effort so far compared favorably with other
>standards efforts.
>
>The draft is the result of a sustained effort by many volunteers.
>My personal opinion is that the draft is better than many thought
>possible. It isn't perfect, but then it couldn't be, and it is still
>just a draft. If enough people help by making constructive comments
>on the draft, the standard will be better yet. Please help by making
>constructive comments, by making the draft standard understood, and
>by opposing the inevitable ignorant screaming in a dignified manner.
>
>Note that several standards organizations make various claims on the
>copyright of standards and draft standards. In addition, the rights of
>holders of copyrights of base documents must be considered. Furthermore,
>the standards organizations are - quite reasonably - most concerned
>that people don't mistake a draft standard for a standard, and also that
>quotes from a draft standard don't find their way into the literature
>where they can get mistaken for references to a standard. In other
>words, the draft standard is made available for comments as a part
>of the standards process and not for any other purposes. Please respect
>that.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
As predicted the files make mention of the fact that P.J. Plauger has
provided copyrighted material. Evidently these are the copyrights that
Bjarne refers to in his posting.

As posted earlier, there was some confusion amongst ANSI members over
the status of the P.J. Plauger C++ Class Library being marketed by
Plum Hall, Inc. (owned by Tom Plum). That status is now becoming more
clear. More information will likely be published on the history of the
Plauger-Plum-Stroustrup relationship as the standards process progresses.

At least one ANSI committee member claimed that P.J. Plauger rushed
his book to market because of a deadline set by the publisher. The
"standards" process had taken longer than expected to "endorse" his
work, so he evidently took the path of a "defacto endorsement" by
publishing the copyrighted work before it was approved as part of the
standard.

Evidently, Stroustrup and Koenig are endorsing this approach by
supporting the copyrighted P.J. Plauger work in their Working Papers.
Bjarne has stated above how to handle these works and Andrew Koenig
echoes those rules in the README file mentioned above.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>        - Bjarne
>
>PS For the legalistically minded, I must point out that I am not an
>officer of any of the C++ committees, so this message is not a
>formal communication from those committees. It is simply a personal
>effort to help us get us a good and timely C++ standard.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
I think it would have been more accurate if Bjarne had said. We ran out
of time and hours before the "end of April" we decided to put the current
Working Paper of our working group on the net. This Working Paper has
not been approved by the committee.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
%Techno Cat I        /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
Penn's Landing      /   |  \    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
                 \__/-------\__/       e-mail: jim.fleming@bytes.com
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

In article <D7x30A.55H@edg.com>, jsa@edg.com says...
>
>In article <3o3b5t$b9g@News1.mcs.com> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming)
write>>The C++ s
>tandards committees' (ANSI XJ316, ISO SC22-SG21) purpose of
>>>making the draft available this way is to get feedback on the language
>>>and standard library as described and in particular on the details of
>>>that description:
>>>
>>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>>Translation:
>>       The above files are NOT the official standard, just some files
>>       that Bjarne put together. ANSI and ISO have yet to release the
>>       "official" DRAFT standard. This is Bjarne's attempt to get the
>>       ball rolling, even though he does not represent any of the C++
>>       committees (see below). Yes, that is correct, the committee has
>>       been pushed aside to allow Bjarne to railroad this process.
>>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>
>I'm sure that anyone who has seen anything at all of comp.std.c++ over the
>past several weeks will already be ignoring Mr. Fleming's rantings,
>except perhaps out of morbid fascination.  So maybe this doesn't need to
>be said, but ...
>
>Yes, the document made available via ftp is the official document for
>the ANSI public review period.  Mr. Fleming is correct in saying that
>it is not the official standard -- it is an early proposed version of
>that standard made available for comments -- but it is not "just some
>files that Bjarne put together."  It was produced by the standards
>committee, and it's being put out by the whole committee.
>
>Steve Adamczyk
>Edison Design Group
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
I suggest that Mr. Adamczyk go to the ftp site and read the files.
Andrew Koenig clearly states that this is a copy of their Working
Paper for their Working Group.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
%Techno Cat I        /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
Penn's Landing      /   |  \    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
                 \__/-------\__/       e-mail: jim.fleming@bytes.com
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

In article <3o3rn5$263@News1.mcs.com>, jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:
|> In article <3o3fc7$174n@locutus.rchland.ibm.com>,
|> pstaite@powertool.rchland.ibm.com says...
|> >
|> >In article <3o3b5t$b9g@News1.mcs.com>, jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim
|> Fleming) writes:
|>
|> It is one thing to create a language, to deceive a large number of people
|> about it's capabilities, to get a large segment of the computing industry
|> to offer substantial commercial support, and to get a bunch of companies

Who is doing this?  Who is the sinister person(s) benefitting from all this?  Are you upset because software companies have effective marketing and are selling a product?  I don't see a sinister master deception plan.  I see companies fufilling a need.  Sure, the marketing types push the product and try to create a demand, don't begrudge them their success.

|> design. Why don't all 12 of the hard-core C++ advocates in the world go
|> and do that?

12 eh, then just how did C++ become the single most successful language?

|> The ANSI and ISO process is not the place to try to design a language
|> to match your compiler. It is shocking that companies have spent millions
|> allowing their engineers to be sucked in by this process, and have not
|> evaluated the results.

I'll agree with you there, a committee is no place to design anything, except maybe another committee. ;-)  However, many companies have only recently started using OO technology and C++ in particular, and for them it is too early to tell.  Unless a company has the resources to put two or more teams on a project using different languages we'll never really know how C++ stacks up directly against another language.  Even then, one or two projects is hardly a proper basis for making sweeping generalizations.


|> The ANSI and ISO procedures have been established to make it very
|> difficult for a small number of people to gain the type of national
|> and international endorsement they are seeking without the "public"
|> taking notice. In the case of C++, extraordinary measures have been

But if you're seeking national/international endorsement wouldn't you _want_ the public to take notice of your efforts?

|> taken to avoid allowing the "public" to be part of the process. The
|> reason for this is because anyone with any background in computer
|> systems and/or language design will recognize that C++ and its hodge
|> podge of libraries certainly does not deserve to have the endorsement
|> at the national and international levels.

Yes and no (IMHO).  Letting the public take a more active hand in defining the standard would probably result in even more oddball compromises. (hey, look, we gotta have xxx even if it blows orthogonality...)  Limiting participation to language/compiler types helps ensure a more reasoned, even approach.  Sure, C++ isn't a "pure" language by any stretch.  It _is_ however very useful.  It isn't perfect, but it is the best thing going right now.  Don't worry, it won't be around forever, something else will come along.  What will it take to displace C++?  A language that is _very_ much better at OO abstractions and development that is marketed like crazy.... Or the next big paradigm shift. (we've had procedural/structured, OO, how about "user centric" next?  Wait, we're programmers, lets be selfish and call it "programmer centric" yeah, PC... :-)

|> We have to be very careful in political activities like ANSI and ISO.
|> We can not take the rapid commercial success of something like C++ and
|> immediately translate that into the need for a national and international
|> standard. If that were the case, we could be arguing that Microsoft

Why not?  Would you prefer N different flavors of C++ as we have/had with Unix, Pascal etc?

|> Windows should become an ANSI and ISO standard and everyone around the
|> world will benefit from having a common look and feel GUI.

ROTFL  Now that _would_ set us back years. ;-)

|> Commercial success does not drive the need for a standard. In fact,
|> commercial success in some cases negates the need for a standard or the
|> benefits of a standard. Often times a standard causes the vendors to
|> be reduced to commodity suppliers and the vendor interest in innovation
|> is reduced because they can not easily step outside of the boundaries
|> imposed by a standard.

Commercial success doesn't "drive a need for a standard", it demands it!  Do you really think big business wants a fragmented <language> landscape?  Do you expect someone to invest millions and years into <language> knowing that <vendor>'s version of <language> is not quite like anyone else's version of <language>?  That's called being locked-in to a proprietary system.  If there are any significant differences between <vendorA> and <vendorB>'s versions of <language> then changing is painful, potentially impractical.  If I'm the only vendor putting out this flavor of <language> and my customer base is locked into my feature/extension set, where's my motivation to make my compiler as good as it can be?  I've got a virtual monopoly on this "mini" language.

A language is not a product in need of diferentiation, it is a tool in need of commonality.  Hey, use my screwdrivers, they've got new triangular tips that won't slip!  Yeah, great, but the rest of the world is still using straight, phillips (always like that one ;-), square-drive or socket-head...  Use my power drill too, runs off 17 volts DC.  No shocks!  Use it in the rain! I also sell a "development support environment" (a generator and full-wave rectifier)...

|> been a tremendous amount of this type of hype. Again, just because the
|> hype has been successful, the next step is not to enshrine the hype in
|> in an ANSI or ISO standard.

Again, because it _is_ successful, it needs to be standardized.  A river shunted down too many diverging paths looses the power to turn mills...

|> The need for any standard should be driven from *above* not from below.

Oouuhh, centralized control?  "Thou shalt use <language> as defined by us, and like it!"  Who better to select the tools than those who must use them?  Why not from below?

|> There should be a clearly articulated need for "society" to get together
|> to endorse a common process, procedure, design, or "standard". In the

Hmmm, you must love Ada...

|> case of C++, this social need has never been articulated. Just because
|> a small group of people have decided that they need to work together,
|> this does not trigger a standards process and it certainly does not
|> guarantee that a standard will be developed.

No, usually it takes a somewhat larger group of people who must work together :-)  If you don't like/use C++ then why do you care if there is a standard for it?  Are you OK with the Fortran, Cobol, Ada etc standardization efforts?

|> good reason for being here. In my opinion C++ does qualify for
|> standardization partly because it is such a technical disaster and

Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and most people have acted on theirs.  Hence, C++ is very successful.  Technically it may not be pure as an academic's daydream, but blemishes and all it _is_ very useful and many people are putting it to good use.  If it were truely a "disaster" then all these organizations that have invested so much in it should be dropping like flies.  If C++ is so bad, where's the language that is sooo much better than it?  Where are the successful companies deploying projects in this language?

|> also because no one has been able to articulate a wide-spread benefit
|> to society for having a standard.

Anarchy rules eh?  You seem to support an eclectic mix of wanting centralized/top-down control yet no standard...  You complain about so many companies being "sucked into the vortex" yet you would deny them a standard?  Given the large number of organizations using C++ you think they would be better off without a standard?  Hmm, maybe that would make them/C++ easier targets for the next language/vendor to come along. (sorry, that's my conspiracy-seeing cynical side showing, I keep seeing hints of a hidden agenda)

|> They do not see through the hype and the manipulation used by the small
|> group of promoters and they do not understand that society has been
|> set back at least 10 years by this monster and will be set back another
|> 10 if elevated to the level of a national and international standard.

Are these same sinister promoters the ones who shot JFK?  Come on.  All the network news is really run by three people in big offices in New York too, right? :-)  If we're set back 10 years, who's 10 years ahead of us and that wildly successful?  Through the 80's structured programming ran out of gas as more and more demands were placed on software.  OO and C++ are helping to tame that monster -- for now, it's still growing/changing.

|> It is somewhat ironic that the development of C++ has fueled many
|> other serious OO efforts. The outrage of many *true* scientists and

Good, when they bear fruit, we'll use them...

|> developers so that the public can only see one solution. Once again
|> from an academic stand-point this has been shocking and the industry
|> seems unconcerned that they have been presented a one-sided story.

If, _if_, language X is less than fully successful because of C++'s success that's just too bad.  Its called competition.  Don't blame the language, blame the specific langauge vendors.  That's where the real battle is fought.  If vendor A and B both provide development environments for some platform, they've got to fight for market share.  They can choose their weapons:  languages, editors etc. etc.  Its the basic difference between academics and business.  In business it doesn't have to be theoretically pure, it's just got to be good enough to beat the competition.  If something else is better, the competition may come back after you with it.

|> vortex 20 years ago. They probably thought that they were at the
|> leading edge and that C++ would continue to keep them there. Little
|> do they know that C++ has set them back 10 years and is starting on
|> the next 10 years.

Well, lots of businesses don't want to be on the leading edge in many respects.  Leading edge with their products sure.  But leading edge with their tools they use to create their product?  Few people want to "bet the business" on effectively being an industry beta tester for some tool technology.  As far as tools go, most businesses would rather wait for a technology to mature a little bit and become stable/useful....standardized even <gasp>.

Again, if all these people using C++ are set back 10 years, who's 10 years out front, and why don't they own AT&T, Borland, MS, Greenleaf, Metaware, etc. by now? :-)

|> By the way Phil, are you a member of the ANSI C++ Committee?

NO! <grin>  I wouldn't want that job.  I don't think anyone would be willing to pay what it would take to make me take that job.  No matter what the committee does it'll be the "wrong" thing for someone and they'll have to put up with a lot of flak...  I'd rather keep working for a much smaller/less-demanding "customer" base than all the C++ users. ;-)


--
Phil Staite
pstaite@vnet.ibm.com

In article <3o5ajb$uac@locutus.rchland.ibm.com>,
pstaite@powertool.rchland.ibm.com says...
>
>In article <3o3rn5$263@News1.mcs.com>, jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming)
writes:
>|> In article <3o3fc7$174n@locutus.rchland.ibm.com>,
>|> pstaite@powertool.rchland.ibm.com says...
>|> >
>|> >In article <3o3b5t$b9g@News1.mcs.com>, jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim
>|> Fleming) writes:
>|>
>|> It is one thing to create a language, to deceive a large number of
people
>|> about it's capabilities, to get a large segment of the computing
industry
>|> to offer substantial commercial support, and to get a bunch of companies
>
>Who is doing this?  Who is the sinister person(s) benefitting from all
this?  Are you upse
>t because software companies have effective marketing and are selling a
product?  I don't
>see a sinister master deception plan.  I see companies fufilling a need.
Sure, the market
>ing types push the product and try to create a demand, don't begrudge them
their success.
>
>|> design. Why don't all 12 of the hard-core C++ advocates in the world go
>|> and do that?
>
>12 eh, then just how did C++ become the single most successful language?
>

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

C++ became "the single most successful language" because starting at the
*top*, AT&T Bell Laboratories has supported it, promoted it, manipulated
the markets, and generally presented a one-sided story to the OO industry.
Why? To protect their technical prima-donnas and to make sure that they
have a firm grip on the "intellectual community" around the world. This
starts with Universities but reaches most of the other "professional
societies".

Why does AT&T Corporate (a very different animal from Bell Labs) allow
this to continue? To make sure that AT&T corporate has a firm grip on the
pulse of the "communication and information industry". Everyone with a
significant investment in that industry knows that with the stroke of a
pen AT&T can make them or break them. For years companies like Microsoft
Sun, Motorola, and the RBOCs have had to follow the lead from AT&T or
risk being left out of the flow of information from the "intellectual
community". Being left out of that flow can be very costly for a company,
look at Novell as a good example.

Is this changing? Yes, the Internet is one of the components that is
allowing that change to occur. The Internet is a very different medium
from newspapers, TV, radio and other forms of communication. Companies
like AT&T do not fully understand how to deal with something like the
Internet. AT&T is familiar with the days when it was very expensive
(thanks to them :) ) for people to communicate. Now, it is becoming very
low cost. People all over corporate America are running around in a panic
because *they* no longer have a "unfair" advantage, as they have had for
many years.

It is interesting to note that many of the people that post objections
on the "net" advocate creating structures and procedures that allow them
to have an unfair advantage. One of the beauties of the "net" has always
been that anyone with the basic ability to think and express themself
has "equal access". As long as the "net" was perceived as being a bunch
of geeks and hackers, companies like AT&T and Microsoft were willing to
ignore it. Now the "net" is viewed as real, and a threat to these
companies and what do you know...guess who is going to "invent the net"
this year...???

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

>|> The ANSI and ISO process is not the place to try to design a language
>|> to match your compiler. It is shocking that companies have spent
millions
>|> allowing their engineers to be sucked in by this process, and have not
>|> evaluated the results.
>
>I'll agree with you there, a committee is no place to design anything,
except maybe anothe
>r committee. ;-)  However, many companies have only recently started using
OO technology a
>nd C++ in particular, and for them it is too early to tell.  Unless a
company has the reso
>urces to put two or more teams on a project using different languages we'll
never really k
>now how C++ stacks up directly against another language.  Even then, one or
two projects i
>s hardly a proper basis for making sweeping generalizations.
>
>
>|> The ANSI and ISO procedures have been established to make it very
>|> difficult for a small number of people to gain the type of national
>|> and international endorsement they are seeking without the "public"
>|> taking notice. In the case of C++, extraordinary measures have been
>
>But if you're seeking national/international endorsement wouldn't you
_want_ the public to
> take notice of your efforts?

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

These people have wanted and have attracted the attention of the public.
They just do not want the "public" to have any say in the contents of
the standard.

They feel that "content determination" should be reserved for language
experts. Unfortunately, language experts become experts by getting a
small group together at a well-known place like Bell Labs and declaring
themselves to be language experts. They are not experts, they are just
a couple of geeks that happened to get a job at a place in New Jersey.
These people are only experts because people around the world have been
fooled into thinking that there is some magic fountain at Murray Hill
which produces water that can only be consumed by Nobel prize winners
and "experts".

To show you how silly this is, people at Bell Labs fight over being able
to have an "e-mail address" with "research.att.com". I have worked with
people at Bell Labs who immediately become "experts" once they are given
an account on that system. It is as if God transformed them. What is sad
is that they do not realize that "most" people know that they are just
normal people like you and I. Unfortunately, they surround themselves
with other people who are on "cloud 9" or whatever the current high is
and they all tell each other that they are experts. This attitude soon
makes its way into the world, and the world laps it up like cats and dogs.

I claim that the Internet is going to change the way our planet deals
with these "old" traditions. These types of traditions are not unique
to AT&T or to the telecommunications industry in general. These types
of traditions can be found in any system that is "big" where there is
a lot of money at stake and in general where people have staked out their
"turf". The Internet is tugging at all of the fibers that hold these
"good old boy" systems together. We might as well enjoy the Internet
while it still exists, because you can bet your life that the "good
old boys" are going to do everything they can to get it under control.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>
>|> taken to avoid allowing the "public" to be part of the process. The
>|> reason for this is because anyone with any background in computer
>|> systems and/or language design will recognize that C++ and its hodge
>|> podge of libraries certainly does not deserve to have the endorsement
>|> at the national and international levels.
>
>Yes and no (IMHO).  Letting the public take a more active hand in defining
the standard wo
>uld probably result in even more oddball compromises. (hey, look, we gotta
have xxx even i
>f it blows orthogonality...)  Limiting participation to language/compiler
types helps ensu
>re a more reasoned, even approach.  Sure, C++ isn't a "pure" language by
any stretch.  It
>_is_ however very useful.  It isn't perfect, but it is the best thing going
right now.  Do
>n't worry, it won't be around forever, something else will come along.
What will it take
>to displace C++?  A language that is _very_ much better at OO abstractions
and development
> that is marketed like crazy.... Or the next big paradigm shift. (we've had
procedural/str
>uctured, OO, how about "user centric" next?  Wait, we're programmers, lets
be selfish and
>call it "programmer centric" yeah, PC... :-)
>
>|> We have to be very careful in political activities like ANSI and ISO.
>|> We can not take the rapid commercial success of something like C++ and
>|> immediately translate that into the need for a national and
international
>|> standard. If that were the case, we could be arguing that Microsoft
>
>Why not?  Would you prefer N different flavors of C++ as we have/had with
Unix, Pascal etc
>?
>
>|> Windows should become an ANSI and ISO standard and everyone around the
>|> world will benefit from having a common look and feel GUI.
>
>ROTFL  Now that _would_ set us back years. ;-)
>
>|> Commercial success does not drive the need for a standard. In fact,
>|> commercial success in some cases negates the need for a standard or the
>|> benefits of a standard. Often times a standard causes the vendors to
>|> be reduced to commodity suppliers and the vendor interest in innovation
>|> is reduced because they can not easily step outside of the boundaries
>|> imposed by a standard.
>
>Commercial success doesn't "drive a need for a standard", it demands it!
Do you really th
>ink big business wants a fragmented <language> landscape?  Do you expect
someone to invest
> millions and years into <language> knowing that <vendor>'s version of
<language> is not q
>uite like anyone else's version of <language>?  That's called being
locked-in to a proprie
>tary system.  If there are any significant differences between <vendorA>
and <vendorB>'s v
>ersions of <language> then changing is painful, potentially impractical.
If I'm the only
>vendor putting out this flavor of <language> and my customer base is locked
into my featur
>e/extension set, where's my motivation to make my compiler as good as it
can be?  I've got
> a virtual monopoly on this "mini" language.
>
>A language is not a product in need of diferentiation, it is a tool in need
of commonality
>.  Hey, use my screwdrivers, they've got new triangular tips that won't
slip!  Yeah, great
>, but the rest of the world is still using straight, phillips (always like
that one ;-), s
>quare-drive or socket-head...  Use my power drill too, runs off 17 volts
DC.  No shocks!
>Use it in the rain! I also sell a "development support environment" (a
generator and full-
>wave rectifier)...
>
>|> been a tremendous amount of this type of hype. Again, just because the
>|> hype has been successful, the next step is not to enshrine the hype in
>|> in an ANSI or ISO standard.
>
>Again, because it _is_ successful, it needs to be standardized.  A river
shunted down too
>many diverging paths looses the power to turn mills...
>
>|> The need for any standard should be driven from *above* not from below.
>
>Oouuhh, centralized control?  "Thou shalt use <language> as defined by us,
and like it!"
>Who better to select the tools than those who must use them?  Why not from
below?

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
By above and below...I do not mean what you imply...
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>
>|> There should be a clearly articulated need for "society" to get together
>|> to endorse a common process, procedure, design, or "standard". In the
>
>Hmmm, you must love Ada...
>
>|> case of C++, this social need has never been articulated. Just because
>|> a small group of people have decided that they need to work together,
>|> this does not trigger a standards process and it certainly does not
>|> guarantee that a standard will be developed.
>
>No, usually it takes a somewhat larger group of people who must work
together :-)  If you
>don't like/use C++ then why do you care if there is a standard for it?  Are
you OK with th
>e Fortran, Cobol, Ada etc standardization efforts?
>
>|> good reason for being here. In my opinion C++ does qualify for
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@/not/...sorry
>|> standardization partly because it is such a technical disaster and
>
>Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and most people have acted on
theirs.  Hence,
> C++ is very successful.  Technically it may not be pure as an academic's
daydream, but bl
>emishes and all it _is_ very useful and many people are putting it to good
use.  If it wer
>e truely a "disaster" then all these organizations that have invested so
much in it should
> be dropping like flies.  If C++ is so bad, where's the language that is
sooo much better
>than it?  Where are the successful companies deploying projects in this
language?
>
>|> also because no one has been able to articulate a wide-spread benefit
>|> to society for having a standard.
>
>Anarchy rules eh?  You seem to support an eclectic mix of wanting
centralized/top-down con
>trol yet no standard...  You complain about so many companies being "sucked
into the vorte
>x" yet you would deny them a standard?  Given the large number of
organizations using C++
>you think they would be better off without a standard?  Hmm, maybe that
would make them/C+
>+ easier targets for the next language/vendor to come along. (sorry, that's
my conspiracy-
>seeing cynical side showing, I keep seeing hints of a hidden agenda)
>
>|> They do not see through the hype and the manipulation used by the small
>|> group of promoters and they do not understand that society has been
>|> set back at least 10 years by this monster and will be set back another
>|> 10 if elevated to the level of a national and international standard.
>
>Are these same sinister promoters the ones who shot JFK?  Come on.  All the
network news i
>s really run by three people in big offices in New York too, right? :-)  If
we're set back
> 10 years, who's 10 years ahead of us and that wildly successful?  Through
the 80's struct
>ured programming ran out of gas as more and more demands were placed on
software.  OO and
>C++ are helping to tame that monster -- for now, it's still
growing/changing.
>
>|> It is somewhat ironic that the development of C++ has fueled many
>|> other serious OO efforts. The outrage of many *true* scientists and
>
>Good, when they bear fruit, we'll use them...
>
>|> developers so that the public can only see one solution. Once again
>|> from an academic stand-point this has been shocking and the industry
>|> seems unconcerned that they have been presented a one-sided story.
>
>If, _if_, language X is less than fully successful because of C++'s success
that's just to
>o bad.  Its called competition.  Don't blame the language, blame the
specific langauge ven
>dors.  That's where the real battle is fought.  If vendor A and B both
provide development
> environments for some platform, they've got to fight for market share.
They can choose t
>heir weapons:  languages, editors etc. etc.  Its the basic difference
between academics an
>d business.  In business it doesn't have to be theoretically pure, it's
just got to be goo
>d enough to beat the competition.  If something else is better, the
competition may come b
>ack after you with it.
>
>|> vortex 20 years ago. They probably thought that they were at the
>|> leading edge and that C++ would continue to keep them there. Little
>|> do they know that C++ has set them back 10 years and is starting on
>|> the next 10 years.
>
>Well, lots of businesses don't want to be on the leading edge in many
respects.  Leading e
>dge with their products sure.  But leading edge with their tools they use
to create their
>product?  Few people want to "bet the business" on effectively being an
industry beta test
>er for some tool technology.  As far as tools go, most businesses would
rather wait for a
>technology to mature a little bit and become stable/useful....standardized
even <gasp>.
>
>Again, if all these people using C++ are set back 10 years, who's 10 years
out front, and
>why don't they own AT&T, Borland, MS, Greenleaf, Metaware, etc. by now? :-)
>
>|> By the way Phil, are you a member of the ANSI C++ Committee?
>
>NO! <grin>  I wouldn't want that job.  I don't think anyone would be
willing to pay what i
>t would take to make me take that job.  No matter what the committee does
it'll be the "wr
>ong" thing for someone and they'll have to put up with a lot of flak...
I'd rather keep w
>orking for a much smaller/less-demanding "customer" base than all the C++
users. ;-)
>
>
>--
>Phil Staite
>pstaite@vnet.ibm.com

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
You clearly feel that if we are 10 years behind, then someone must be
10 years ahead. It is a shame that you do not understand the concept
of being 10 years more advanced *without* a comparison being made.

If it helps, maybe you could imagine another planet, just like earth.
For discussion, let's say it is Mars. Maybe I should tell you that the
Martians have a net which allows them to exchange informaCtion which
is "information in action". Their net allows them to educate ALL of
the children on their planet in an "equal" and fair manner. Their net
allows them to hire "the most qualified people" for jobs. Their net
allows their government to operate efficiently and to protect the
privacy of citizens and provides security that people are seeking as
they live their lives. Finally, their net allows them to accurately
report news and to accurately judge the contributions that people make
to society while on *their* planet.

If I tell you they are 10 years ahead, and you look out over the
landscape of planet earth do you feel that we have a little catching
up to do? Or do you say, "OH...those Martians, they are always trying
to "one up us"...pour me another cocktail bartender, bring on the
multi-media TV show...I like living on Earth..."

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
%Techno Cat I        /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
Penn's Landing      /   |  \    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
                 \__/-------\__/       e-mail: jim.fleming@bytes.com
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

In <D7vrG5.Mvs@research.att.com>, bs@research.att.com (Bjarne Stroustrup <9758-26353> 0112760) writes:
>The standard is large (700+ pages), but that is not large compared to
>other standards for modern programming languages.

Compared with the initial defining documents for the major languages,
this is is big.  It may be the current record-holder.

     "Report on the Algorithmic Language ALGOL 60" 24 pages
     "LISP 1.5 Programmer's Manual"   24 pages
     "Modula, A language for modular multiprogramming"  33 pages
     "The C Programming Language"   52 pages
     "MIL-STD 1815 - Ada Programming Language"          242 pages
     "Common LISP - the language"   465 pages
     "Eiffel, the language"    594 pages

However, comparisons with repeatedly revised old programming languages
may be more fruitful. How long are the standards for Fortran 95,
Ada 9x, and the new COBOL?

     John Nagle

In article <nagleD7yoA5.914@netcom.com> nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes:

> >The standard is large (700+ pages), but that is not large compared to
> >other standards for modern programming languages.
>
> Compared with the initial defining documents for the major languages,
> this is is big.  It may be the current record-holder.
>
>      "Report on the Algorithmic Language ALGOL 60" 24 pages
>      "LISP 1.5 Programmer's Manual"   24 pages
>      "Modula, A language for modular multiprogramming"  33 pages
>      "The C Programming Language"   52 pages
>      "MIL-STD 1815 - Ada Programming Language"          242 pages
>      "Common LISP - the language"   465 pages
>      "Eiffel, the language"    594 pages

But the draft ANSI/ISO C++ standard isn't an initial defining
document; it's an official standard that tries to cross all the i's
and dot all the t's.  (And note that it's a standard for both the
language itself and what's now a fairly large class library.)  The
documents in this list are more closely analogous to the ARM, or in
some cases just the reference manual portion of the ARM, than to the
standard.

I think it's true: 700 pages is a lot, but it's typical for modern
language standards.

--
Matt Austern          matt@physics.berkeley.edu
http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt

In article <D7vrG5.Mvs@research.att.com> bs@research.att.com (Bjarne Stroustrup <9758-26353> 0112760) writes:

> The draft C++ standard is now generally available.

and later he writes:

> PS For the legalistically minded, I must point out that I am not an
> officer of any of the C++ committees, so this message is not a
> formal communication from those committees. It is simply a personal
> effort to help us get us a good and timely C++ standard.

I am Project Editor of both the ANSI and ISO committees, which means
that I had overall responsibility for producing the Working Paper
cited above.  This puts me in a fairly good position to say just what
it is, though I will happily acknowledge that other committee members
know more than I about the organizational details.

The PostScript text on research.att.com is the result of work that the
ISO/ANSI C++ committee authorized at its March, 1995 meeting.  It is
the same text that I used to produce the paper copies that I sent to
ANSI and ISO for official distribution.  ANSI will use the paper copy
I sent them to make the copies it sends out for public review.

The electronic form is only in PostScript because of a strong desire
to ensure that all copies have the same page numbers.  We will surely
get lots of comments back from people that identify parts of the text
only by page number; without a uniform numbering scheme, it would be
hard to know just what text was meant.

I had originally planned on having the text complete by April 14.
That schedule proved to be overly optimistic; I made the last change
to the text just before 8 PM on April 28.  At that point, all the
changes the committee approved in March were complete.  For that
reason, I expect the committee will approve this draft as their next
Working Paper in their July meeting, just as they have approved every
previous draft.  Even if they do not, however, it will still be what
ANSI sends out for public comment.
--
    --Andrew Koenig
      ark@research.att.com

In article <3o3s6p$1cs@keystone.intergate.net> scherrey@proteus-tech.com writes:

>    Hoo boy howdy! 700 pages! My printer's going to be needing a new toner
> cartridge after this. Well, congradulations to you and the committee for getting
> it out. I really feel that this is going to have a dramatic impact on the quality of
> tools that will be made available to those of us whose incomes derive greatly
> from this fantastic little language.
>   ... never figured 700 pages though ... whew! How big is ANSI C's?

I don't have a paper copy handy, but I think it's about 200 pages.

I should note that about two-thirds of the C++ draft is libraries.
Also... the Modula2 standard is about 600 pages, and the CLOS manual
(I don't know about the standard) is well over 1,000 pages.

If I had two years with the luxury of doing nothing else, I am
quite certain I could reduce the size of the C++ draft by a
factor of two while making it substantially clearer and
without losing any functionality.  Unfortunately, life isn't
like that.

I am reminded of Mark Twain (I think) who, invited to give a lecture
on short notice, spoke for two hours.  He apologized for going on
so long; had he more time to prepare, he said, he could have spoken
for thirty minutes.
--
    --Andrew Koenig
      ark@research.att.com

In article <nagleD7yoA5.914@netcom.com> nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes:
>In <D7vrG5.Mvs@research.att.com>, bs@research.att.com (Bjarne Stroustrup <9758-26353> 0112760) writes:
>>The standard is large (700+ pages), but that is not large compared to
>>other standards for modern programming languages.
>
>Compared with the initial defining documents for the major languages,
>this is is big.  It may be the current record-holder.

Why are you comparing a standard to "initial defining documents" rather
than other standards?  Anyway, it's not even close to the record.

>     "Common LISP - the language"   465 pages

"Common LISP -- the Language, 2nd Edition" is 1030 pages long; however, it
includes some appendices describing features that aren't included in the
ANSI standard.  But ANS Common Lisp is still around 1100 pages long.

I don't remember how large the ANSI PL/I standard is, but I believe it's in
the ballpark of the C++ standard.  And I'll bet ANSI COBOL is huge as well.

--
Barry Margolin
BBN Planet Corporation, Cambridge, MA
barmar@bbnplanet.com

In article <3o3sd7$263@News1.mcs.com> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:
>Then why doesn't Bjarne or some "official" member of the committee post
> an official notice?

Perhaps because the newsgroup is not the committee's chosen way to
publicize their actions.  I seem to recall a posting a few weeks ago saying
that you should subscribe to a mailing list (c++draft, or something like
that) to get the official announcements.

>Why is Bjarne going to the trouble of pointing out that he is doing this
> on his own?

Perhaps so that if he makes any mistakes they can be blamed on him, not on
the committee.

>Why have other ANSI members indicated that there are administrative
> problems which have caused delays and why is Bjarne jumping the
> gun and not waiting for these administrative ANSI problems to
> be solved?

Presumably these problems do not affect the content of the draft.  See the
posting by Andrew Koenig, where he says that this draft is the one that the
committee has approved for use in the public review.

>What is the purpose of having a committee if one person (who admits not
> to be an "officer" of the committee) is able to promote something
> for public comment evidently without the committee's approval?

His message is not announcing the start of the official public review.  He
merely posted the location of the text that he knows will be used in that
review.
--
Barry Margolin
BBN Planet Corporation, Cambridge, MA
barmar@bbnplanet.com

In article <3o3b5t$b9g@News1.mcs.com>,
Jim Fleming <jim.fleming@bytes.com> wrote:
>Does anyone know who is on the ANSI committee?

Yes.  I know them all.

In article <nagleD7yoA5.914@netcom.com>, John Nagle <nagle@netcom.com> wrote:
>In <D7vrG5.Mvs@research.att.com>, bs@research.att.com (Bjarne Stroustrup <9758-26353> 0112760) writes:
>>The standard is large (700+ pages), but that is not large compared to
>>other standards for modern programming languages.
>     "The C Programming Language"   52 pages

The ANSI C standard is 220 pages long, plus another 120 for the
rational.  Given this size, I'm pleasantly surprised that the C++
working group draft standard is only 720 pages.  Heck, the OI
programmer's manual, a C++ lirbary for X, is about 1200 pages.  I
feared the standard would be as hefty.

Warner

In article <nagleD7yoA5.914@netcom.com>, nagle@netcom.com says...
>
>In <D7vrG5.Mvs@research.att.com>, bs@research.att.com (Bjarne Stroustrup
<9758-26353> 0112
>760) writes:
>>The standard is large (700+ pages), but that is not large compared to
>>other standards for modern programming languages.
>
>Compared with the initial defining documents for the major languages,
>this is is big.  It may be the current record-holder.
>
>     "Report on the Algorithmic Language ALGOL 60"      24 pages
>     "LISP 1.5 Programmer's Manual"                     24 pages
>     "Modula, A language for modular multiprogramming"  33 pages
>     "The C Programming Language"                       52 pages
@@@@@@"The C+@ Programming Language"                     57 pages@@@@@@@@
>     "MIL-STD 1815 - Ada Programming Language"          242 pages
>     "Common LISP - the language"                       465 pages
>     "Eiffel, the language"                             594 pages
>
>However, comparisons with repeatedly revised old programming languages
>may be more fruitful. How long are the standards for Fortran 95,
>Ada 9x, and the new COBOL?
>
>                                        John Nagle

@@@@@@ Since C+@ features the "best" of C and Smalltalk it is
 actually smaller than C. I suppose the discussion on OO
 added a few pages... :)

If you have not seen C+@...have a cup of Hot JAVA while waiting... :)

--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
%Techno Cat I        /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
Penn's Landing      /   |  \    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
                 \__/-------\__/       e-mail: jim.fleming@bytes.com
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

In article <D7yrAt.Ipp@research.att.com>, ark@research.att.com says...
>
>In article <D7vrG5.Mvs@research.att.com> bs@research.att.com (Bjarne
Stroustrup <9758-2635
>3> 0112760) writes:
>
>> The draft C++ standard is now generally available.
>
>and later he writes:
>
>> PS For the legalistically minded, I must point out that I am not an
>> officer of any of the C++ committees, so this message is not a
>> formal communication from those committees. It is simply a personal
>> effort to help us get us a good and timely C++ standard.
>
>I am Project Editor of both the ANSI and ISO committees, which means
>that I had overall responsibility for producing the Working Paper
>cited above.  This puts me in a fairly good position to say just what
>it is, though I will happily acknowledge that other committee members
>know more than I about the organizational details.
>
>The PostScript text on research.att.com is the result of work that the
>ISO/ANSI C++ committee authorized at its March, 1995 meeting.  It is
>the same text that I used to produce the paper copies that I sent to
>ANSI and ISO for official distribution.  ANSI will use the paper copy
>I sent them to make the copies it sends out for public review.
>
>The electronic form is only in PostScript because of a strong desire
>to ensure that all copies have the same page numbers.  We will surely
>get lots of comments back from people that identify parts of the text
>only by page number; without a uniform numbering scheme, it would be
>hard to know just what text was meant.
>

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

There is a conformance index include with the document that claims to
be useful for this same purpose. If a troff version had been provided
then comments could reference the document via the conformance index
provided and also, sections of text could be more easily quoted via
cut and paste.

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

>I had originally planned on having the text complete by April 14.
>That schedule proved to be overly optimistic; I made the last change
>to the text just before 8 PM on April 28.  At that point, all the
>changes the committee approved in March were complete.  For that
>reason, I expect the committee will approve this draft as their next
>Working Paper in their July meeting, just as they have approved every
>previous draft.  Even if they do not, however, it will still be what
>ANSI sends out for public comment.
>--
>                                --Andrew Koenig
>                                  ark@research.att.com

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

For those people who indicated that they intend to make
changes *before* the document goes out...

 ...for public comment...

...I think that Andrew is telling you in a very nice way...

 ...No way Jose... :)

The moral of the story is...he who has the source file, controls
the distribution...no matter what anyone says... :)

BTW, I applaud Andrew and Bjarne for going out on a limb and
bypassing the normal ANSI channels to provide information on the
Internet. Unfortunately, both the troff AND Postscript versions
would have been more helpful. I am sure that someone here on the
net will be able to convert the Postscript to text and will provide
a pointer to an ftp site. This is only a matter of time and is one
example of the extra effort that people on the net have to go to
to obtain information.

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

Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
%Techno Cat I        /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
Penn's Landing      /   |  \    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
                 \__/-------\__/       e-mail: jim.fleming@bytes.com
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

In article <3o69d1$6u4@tools.near.net>, barmar@nic.near.net says...
>
>In article <nagleD7yoA5.914@netcom.com> nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
writes:
>>In <D7vrG5.Mvs@research.att.com>, bs@research.att.com (Bjarne Stroustrup
<9758-26353> 011
>2760) writes:
>>>The standard is large (700+ pages), but that is not large compared to
>>>other standards for modern programming languages.
>>
>>Compared with the initial defining documents for the major languages,
>>this is is big.  It may be the current record-holder.
>
>Why are you comparing a standard to "initial defining documents" rather
>than other standards?  Anyway, it's not even close to the record.
>
>>     "Common LISP - the language"                      465 pages
>
>"Common LISP -- the Language, 2nd Edition" is 1030 pages long; however, it
>includes some appendices describing features that aren't included in the
>ANSI standard.  But ANS Common Lisp is still around 1100 pages long.
>
>I don't remember how large the ANSI PL/I standard is, but I believe it's in
>the ballpark of the C++ standard.  And I'll bet ANSI COBOL is huge as well.
>
>--
>Barry Margolin
>BBN Planet Corporation, Cambridge, MA
>barmar@bbnplanet.com

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

You can always go back and compare the second edition "books"...

 The C Programming Language - Second Edition.....292 pages
 The C++ Programming Language - Second Edition...691 pages

I do not think that anyone would argue that C++ is very complex...

BTW...there is not a book entitled, "The C+@ Programming Language"
although there is a paper with similar contents. C+@ programmers
pride themselves on being able to develop serious OO software that
is reusable and they do not need 15 manuals to accomplish this
task. Most of their programming support comes from the interactive
development environment (written in C+@ of course), not from books.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
%Techno Cat I        /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
Penn's Landing      /   |  \    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
                 \__/-------\__/       e-mail: jim.fleming@bytes.com
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

In article <3o6a4v$70f@tools.near.net>, barmar@nic.near.net says...
>
>In article <3o3sd7$263@News1.mcs.com> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming)
writes:
>>Then why doesn't Bjarne or some "official" member of the committee post
>>       an official notice?
>
>Perhaps because the newsgroup is not the committee's chosen way to
>publicize their actions.  I seem to recall a posting a few weeks ago saying
>that you should subscribe to a mailing list (c++draft, or something like
>that) to get the official announcements.
>
>>Why is Bjarne going to the trouble of pointing out that he is doing this
>>       on his own?
>
>Perhaps so that if he makes any mistakes they can be blamed on him, not on
>the committee.
>

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

AH, I see, once again the committee is this elusive mystery group that
no one can identify. They do not have e-mail, as some have indicated.
They prefer to use paper and pencil as others have stated. They meet
several times per year in resort locations to "discuss" the progress.
And, in between, people like Bjarne seem to do all of the work.

It sounds like this committee has a tough life. We certainly would not
want them to be blamed for anything. I guess it is very noble of Bjarne
to protect them from blame or public exposure.

BTW, what is the purpose of the committee? Please refresh my memory..:)

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

>>Why have other ANSI members indicated that there are administrative
>>       problems which have caused delays and why is Bjarne jumping the
>>       gun and not waiting for these administrative ANSI problems to
>>       be solved?
>
>Presumably these problems do not affect the content of the draft.  See the
>posting by Andrew Koenig, where he says that this draft is the one that the
>committee has approved for use in the public review.
>

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

That is an interesting presumption. What else is there besides the
"content of the draft"?

At least one committee member has indicated that some changes will be
anticipated. How will these changes be incorporated?

Do the administrative delays have anything to do with whether the
committee will get the tee times they want at Pebble Beach? I could
see how that would not affect the content of the draft....:)

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

>>What is the purpose of having a committee if one person (who admits not
>>       to be an "officer" of the committee) is able to promote something
>>       for public comment evidently without the committee's approval?
>
>His message is not announcing the start of the official public review.  He
>merely posted the location of the text that he knows will be used in that
>review.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
..."he knows"..."WILL BE USED"...just like the AT&T ads...YOU WILL...
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>--
>Barry Margolin
>BBN Planet Corporation, Cambridge, MA
>barmar@bbnplanet.com

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

You seem to be very well informed...

When does the "official" public comment period start?

Which parts of the "text" that Bjarne gave the "location" of are
 copyrighted by P.J. Plauger?

In P.J. Plauger's book he states..."I retain all rights"...
 Is this still the case?

Hewlett Packard and their STL copyright information is not mentioned
 in the "text that HE knows will be used"...
 What is the status of HP and STL?

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
%Techno Cat I        /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
Penn's Landing      /   |  \    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
                 \__/-------\__/       e-mail: jim.fleming@bytes.com
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

The draft C++ standard is now generally available.

To get it, go to

 research.att.com, directory dist/c++std/WP

There are seven files there; one is a README which explains the
rest and the rules for using the text. I expect several more
ftp sites to ``come on line'' with the draft over the next few days.

The C++ standards committees' (ANSI XJ316, ISO SC22-SG21) purpose of
making the draft available this way is to get feedback on the language
and standard library as described and in particular on the details of
that description:

 is the description clear?

 is the description complete?

 is the description comprehensible?

 can the language as described be used in the areas
 where C++ is used?

 can the standard as described be used in the areas
 where C++ is used and where the standard library
 is applicable?

A  public review is primarily an exercise for language lawyers.
The members of the committee makes this draft available because they
feel that the language and library is reasonably complete and that the
framework for the description is reasonably clear. Now is the time to
pick nits and polish the presentation; it is not the time to try to
redesign the language or the library according to new principles.

Let me give a few examples of suggestions that I personally think
would stand little chance of acceptance at this stage:

 banning the preprocessor

 adding concurrency

 generalizing the switch statement to select based on a string

 requiring automatic garbage collection

 requiring 100% ISO C compatibility

 adding a regular pattern matching library

 adding a persistence library

Naturally every comment will be considered, and equally naturally the
chance of a change increases if the suggestion is constructive, specific,
fits with the rest of the language, is of general utility, is easily
implementable and hasn't already been considered and rejected by the
committee.

The way to make official comments will be posted in a few days when
the US public review officially starts. Please note that many committee
members read the net, but that postings to the net are not formal comments:
they can easily be overlooked in the volume of traffic. So can private
mail to members. To be sure your comments are not lost, use the official
ANSI channels.

I suggest that the best place for discussion of the draft standard
is comp.std.c++. Please remember that an agreement between a few posters
doesn't constitute a majority of the committee or of the C++ community.
The C++ community is unimaginably diverse, and most C++ users don't
take part in net discussions.

Note that as far as ANSI and ISO is concerned, you have had five years
to make your comments and contributions and for the committee to have
considered them. Starting to learn about the language and the standards
procedure now is rather late in the day.

Note that the standard in not a tutorial; it is not expected that you can
learn C++ programming, object-oriented programming, generic programming,
string manipulation using international character sets, etc., from the
draft standard. Do not expect to be able to make contributions to the
standard related to a form of programming in which you are not already
an expert. In my opinion, precision and formality were in places achieved
at the cost of some accessibility. I don't particularly like that, but
I don't see an alternative.

There is no rationale. We tried several times to organize an effort to
write one, but the resources of the committee - that is the voluneteer
time and effort offered - didn't stretch to both getting the standard
written an to write a rationale.

For people who are interested in the workings of the committee, the
reasoning behind many of its decisions, and the design of C++ in general,
I recommend:

 Bjarne Stroustrup
 The Design and Evolution of C++
 Addison Wesley, ISBN 0-201-54330-3.

The standard is large (700+ pages), but that is not large compared to
other standards for modern programming languages. Similarly, the time
taken by the C++ standards effort so far compared favorably with other
standards efforts.

The draft is the result of a sustained effort by many volunteers.
My personal opinion is that the draft is better than many thought
possible. It isn't perfect, but then it couldn't be, and it is still
just a draft. If enough people help by making constructive comments
on the draft, the standard will be better yet. Please help by making
constructive comments, by making the draft standard understood, and
by opposing the inevitable ignorant screaming in a dignified manner.

Note that several standards organizations make various claims on the
copyright of standards and draft standards. In addition, the rights of
holders of copyrights of base documents must be considered. Furthermore,
the standards organizations are - quite reasonably - most concerned
that people don't mistake a draft standard for a standard, and also that
quotes from a draft standard don't find their way into the literature
where they can get mistaken for references to a standard. In other
words, the draft standard is made available for comments as a part
of the standards process and not for any other purposes. Please respect
that.

 - Bjarne

PS For the legalistically minded, I must point out that I am not an
officer of any of the C++ committees, so this message is not a
formal communication from those committees. It is simply a personal
effort to help us get us a good and timely C++ standard.

Colin James III (The Rt Rev'd) (cjames@cec-services.com) wrote:
: What's so funny about the dither over C++ is that it is widely used only
: in two places in North America:  USA and Canada.  In other words, who
: cares.  No one in Europe uses it if they can help it !

<cough>

In <D7x30A.55H@edg.com>, jsa@edg.com wrote this with possible deletions.
>
>In article <3o3b5t$b9g@News1.mcs.com> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim
Fleming) write>>The C++ standards committees' (ANSI XJ316, ISO SC22-SG21)
p
>>>making the draft available this way is to get feedback on the language
>>>and standard library as described and in particular on the details of
>>>that description:
>>>
:
mad stuff by Adamczyk deleted
:
>
>Steve Adamczyk
>Edison Design Group
>

What's so funny about the dither over C++ is that it is widely used only
in two places in North America:  USA and Canada.  In other words, who
cares.  No one in Europe uses it if they can help it !

The hah-hah is on Adamczyk et al for defending C++.  Even Stroustroup has
to defend it because AT&T is going to C+@ (pronounced "kat").


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Colin James III, Principal Scientist    cjames@cec-services.com
CEC Services, 2080 Kipling St, Lakewood, CO  80215-1502   U S A
303.231.9437  Voice;  303.231.9438  Facsimile
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In article <3o3b5t$b9g@News1.mcs.com>, jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:
|> In article <D7vrG5.Mvs@research.att.com>, 9758-26353 says...
|> >

<worthless invective edited>

Mr. Fleming, spare us all a lot of time.  Just what is _YOUR_ agenda here?  Are you trying to improve C++ and make it more useful?  Strange way of going about it, attacking the process, Ansi committee, and Mr. Stroustrup.  What do you want?  What would your perfect "end game" be?  Do you want everyone to throw out their C++ compilers and projects?  You want to personnally rewrite C++ in your image?

I will make it simple for you.  If you do not like C++, then do not use it, and stop trying to convert everyone in c.s.c++ and c.l.c++.  You are more than welcome to use any other language you can find that is supported on your platform of choice.  You can even take the initiative, and if you are talented enough, create your own language that precisely suits your needs.  The rest of us here are trying to use/improve C++ to the best of our abilities.  If you do not like where C++ is going then that is just too bad.  If you can, make sensible, well-reasoned arguments for the changes to C++ that you would like to see.  If they are incorporated great, if not, drop it.  Everyone has a responsibility to help the process, but we are not entitled to trash it because we are a dissatisfied minority.

I appologize to the rest of c.s.c++ since this isn't really on-topic.  Over the past couple of weeks I've had all of Mr. Flemming I can take, even to the point of using a kill file for some of the most worthless discussions.

--
Phil Staite
pstaite@vnet.ibm.com

In article <3o3b5t$b9g@News1.mcs.com> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) write>>The C++ standards committees' (ANSI XJ316, ISO SC22-SG21) purpose of
>>making the draft available this way is to get feedback on the language
>>and standard library as described and in particular on the details of
>>that description:
>>
>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>Translation:
> The above files are NOT the official standard, just some files
> that Bjarne put together. ANSI and ISO have yet to release the
> "official" DRAFT standard. This is Bjarne's attempt to get the
> ball rolling, even though he does not represent any of the C++
> committees (see below). Yes, that is correct, the committee has
> been pushed aside to allow Bjarne to railroad this process.
>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

I'm sure that anyone who has seen anything at all of comp.std.c++ over the
past several weeks will already be ignoring Mr. Fleming's rantings,
except perhaps out of morbid fascination.  So maybe this doesn't need to
be said, but ...

Yes, the document made available via ftp is the official document for
the ANSI public review period.  Mr. Fleming is correct in saying that
it is not the official standard -- it is an early proposed version of
that standard made available for comments -- but it is not "just some
files that Bjarne put together."  It was produced by the standards
committee, and it's being put out by the whole committee.

Steve Adamczyk
Edison Design Group

In article <3o3fc7$174n@locutus.rchland.ibm.com>,
pstaite@powertool.rchland.ibm.com says...
>
>In article <3o3b5t$b9g@News1.mcs.com>, jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim
Fleming) writes:
>|> In article <D7vrG5.Mvs@research.att.com>, 9758-26353 says...
>|> >
>
><worthless invective edited>
>
>Mr. Fleming, spare us all a lot of time.  Just what is _YOUR_ agenda
here?

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

It is one thing to create a language, to deceive a large number of people
about it's capabilities, to get a large segment of the computing industry
to offer substantial commercial support, and to get a bunch of companies
interested in creating a "standard" version. You are all free to do that
as consenting adults in the privacy of your offices and homes. I
encourage
you to do that. You do not need ANSI or ISO to create a standard, just a
word processing program and someone that knows something about language
design. Why don't all 12 of the hard-core C++ advocates in the world go
and do that?

It is quite another thing to "use" (or abuse) a national and
international
standards process to continue this activity. The ANSI and ISO processes
are primarily "political" activities. Any group that brings a technical
proposal before these bodies had better have 99% of the technical details
worked out by working together in the privacy of your homes and offices.
The ANSI and ISO process is not the place to try to design a language
to match your compiler. It is shocking that companies have spent millions
allowing their engineers to be sucked in by this process, and have not
evaluated the results.

By definition anything that comes before the ANSI and ISO bodies has an
"implied" endorsement by a majority of the people in an industry. There
is an "implied agreement" that the governments that support ANSI and ISO
are behind the activity. If this is not the case, then the procedures
set up by ANSI and ISO will expose the activity as orchestrated by a
self-serving (hard-working) minority that stands to gain substantial
financial benefit by having the "blessing" of the technical community
around the world.

The trick with ANSI and ISO is to try to get your technical material
rubber stamped through the process before any concerned citizens notice.
Once through the process, then the insiders can release their "wares"
and can place large labels on the works with marketing hype such as
"Certified ANSI Compliant", "Official ISO Sanctioned". All of these
slogans can be interpreted by the unknowing general public as some sort
of "blessing" direct from the government bodies.

The ANSI and ISO procedures have been established to make it very
difficult for a small number of people to gain the type of national
and international endorsement they are seeking without the "public"
taking notice. In the case of C++, extraordinary measures have been
taken to avoid allowing the "public" to be part of the process. The
reason for this is because anyone with any background in computer
systems and/or language design will recognize that C++ and its hodge
podge of libraries certainly does not deserve to have the endorsement
at the national and international levels.

We have to be very careful in political activities like ANSI and ISO.
We can not take the rapid commercial success of something like C++ and
immediately translate that into the need for a national and international
standard. If that were the case, we could be arguing that Microsoft
Windows should become an ANSI and ISO standard and everyone around the
world will benefit from having a common look and feel GUI.

Commercial success does not drive the need for a standard. In fact,
commercial success in some cases negates the need for a standard or the
benefits of a standard. Often times a standard causes the vendors to
be reduced to commodity suppliers and the vendor interest in innovation
is reduced because they can not easily step outside of the boundaries
imposed by a standard.

The standards process is not intended as a way to create merit badges
to pin on "eagle scouts" and to have society OOH and AH at the geeks
that created the standard. That sort of activity should be the domain
of companies and trade show promoters. In the case of C++, there has
been a tremendous amount of this type of hype. Again, just because the
hype has been successful, the next step is not to enshrine the hype in
in an ANSI or ISO standard.

The need for any standard should be driven from *above* not from below.
There should be a clearly articulated need for "society" to get together
to endorse a common process, procedure, design, or "standard". In the
case of C++, this social need has never been articulated. Just because
a small group of people have decided that they need to work together,
this does not trigger a standards process and it certainly does not
guarantee that a standard will be developed.

It is amazing that the C++ developers assume that it is a foregone
conclusion that a standard will be approved. They seem to base this on
the fact that they have "worked hard" to develop a standard. They act as
if this is some Ph.D. program, or some junior achievement project.

The C++ developers have entered the domain of national and international
politics. In this domain they better be prepared and they better have a
good reason for being here. In my opinion C++ does qualify for
standardization partly because it is such a technical disaster and
also because no one has been able to articulate a wide-spread benefit
to society for having a standard.

In the case of C++, it has been absolutely shocking that the designers
at the "bottom" have taken it upon themselves to place themselves at the
"top" to manipulate this political process to their advantage. Insiders
at AT&T Bell Laboratories are painfully aware that the language is not
highly regarded and the promoters do not have the support of their peers.
It is no wonder the designers and promoters turned to the rest of the
world for "endorsement" and have not reported on any of the internal
failures of C++.

It has been clear from many of the postings in this newsgroup as well
as others, that many people involved in this activity do not have a
clue regarding their responsibility to society. They somehow think that
an ANSI or ISO process is "cool" and some sort of post-grad "project".
They do not see through the hype and the manipulation used by the small
group of promoters and they do not understand that society has been
set back at least 10 years by this monster and will be set back another
10 if elevated to the level of a national and international standard.

The one saving grace in all of this is that many people have recognized
that just because something makes it through the ANSI (and or ISO)
process, it does not guarantee that it will be used. Many other ANSI
and ISO efforts have fallen into disuse and many of those efforts were
not surounded by the controversy that has plagued C++. (As an aside,
back in 1985 at AT&T Bell Labs, I remember very well people sitting
around and discussing the fact that C++ was a joke and that serious
computer scientists would quickly cast aside...as the years unfolded
it became clear that the joke was not going to disappear...as the
controversy grew the designers and developers interpreted that as a
sick form of endorsement...their confidence grew with the controversy
and we now have the situation where they are completely immune from
any discussion on the subject...the result is that thousands of people
at AT&T Bell Laboratories never open their mouths with their true
feelings about C++..)

It is somewhat ironic that the development of C++ has fueled many
other serious OO efforts. The outrage of many *true* scientists and
academics over the industry's endorsement of the C++ kludge has been
enough to keep people going and those efforts have paid off. This is
probably one of the major benefits of C++. Unfortunately, some of these
alternatives have been actively derailed by the C++ designers and
developers so that the public can only see one solution. Once again
from an academic stand-point this has been shocking and the industry
seems unconcerned that they have been presented a one-sided story.

Maybe the industry only wants to hear the one-sided C++ story because
they realize that they have been sucked into a vortex for the past
10 years and there is no escape. Many of these people are probably
some of the same people who avoided being sucked into the mainframe
vortex 20 years ago. They probably thought that they were at the
leading edge and that C++ would continue to keep them there. Little
do they know that C++ has set them back 10 years and is starting on
the next 10 years.

I feel fortunate to have been associatted with AT&T Bell Laboratories
and to have been able to work with a group of people that recognized
the limitations of C++ over 10 years ago. It is a shame that AT&T Bell
Laboratories was blinded by the C++ hype like the rest of the industry
and now will be swept into the vortex. The people at AT&T Bell Labs
will ultimately be the big losers. When the rest of the world continues
to work with leading edge technology, they will have to live under the
oppressive environment created by the C++ zealots.

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

> Are you trying
> to improve C++ and make it more useful?  Strange way of going about it,
attacking the pro
>cess, Ansi committee, and Mr. Stroustrup.  What do you want?  What would
your perfect "end
> game" be?  Do you want everyone to throw out their C++ compilers and
projects?  You want
>to personnally rewrite C++ in your image?
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
No, I would suggest that the vendors interested in C++ get together and
design something that works. As I have stated, they do not need ANSI or
ISO's endorsements to meet on these topics.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>I will make it simple for you.  If you do not like C++, then do not use
it, and stop tryin
>g to convert everyone in c.s.c++ and c.l.c++.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
I am not trying to convert anyone. I am just participating in the ANSI
process as a concerned U.S. citizen that pays taxes to support this
type of activity.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

  You are more than welcome to use any other
>language you can find that is supported on your platform of choice.  You
can even take the
> initiative, and if you are talented enough, create your own language
that precisely suits
> your needs.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Thanks for giving me permission to do this. We have done that over the
past 10 years. I can tell you that OO is fun, it works, reuse is possible
and that C++ is not even close.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

The rest of us here are trying to use/improve C++ to the best of our
abiliti
>es.  If you do not like where C++ is going then that is just too bad.
If you can, make se
>nsible, well-reasoned arguments for the changes to C++ that you would
like to see.  If the
>y are incorporated great, if not, drop it.  Everyone has a
responsibility to help the proc
>ess, but we are not entitled to trash it because we are a dissatisfied
minority.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@
Be careful, the number of C++ advocates willing to stand behind the
design is very small. Those that are willing to collect fees for telling
people how to use it is a larger number. Those people will quickly shift
to other technology when that serves their need for financial
compensation.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@
>
>I appologize to the rest of c.s.c++ since this isn't really on-topic.
Over the past coupl
>e of weeks I've had all of Mr. Flemming I can take, even to the point of
using a kill file
> for some of the most worthless discussions.
>
>--
>Phil Staite
>pstaite@vnet.ibm.com

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
By the way Phil, are you a member of the ANSI C++ Committee?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology,
Inc.
%Techno Cat I        /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd.
#100
Penn's Landing      /   |  \    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
                 \__/-------\__/       e-mail: jim.fleming@bytes.com
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12
<-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the
OuterNet_|

In article <D7x30A.55H@edg.com>, jsa@edg.com says...
>
>In article <3o3b5t$b9g@News1.mcs.com> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming)
write>>The C++ s
>tandards committees' (ANSI XJ316, ISO SC22-SG21) purpose of
>>>making the draft available this way is to get feedback on the language
>>>and standard library as described and in particular on the details of
>>>that description:
>>>
>>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>>Translation:
>>       The above files are NOT the official standard, just some files
>>       that Bjarne put together. ANSI and ISO have yet to release the
>>       "official" DRAFT standard. This is Bjarne's attempt to get the
>>       ball rolling, even though he does not represent any of the C++
>>       committees (see below). Yes, that is correct, the committee has
>>       been pushed aside to allow Bjarne to railroad this process.
>>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>
>I'm sure that anyone who has seen anything at all of comp.std.c++ over the
>past several weeks will already be ignoring Mr. Fleming's rantings,
>except perhaps out of morbid fascination.  So maybe this doesn't need to
>be said, but ...
>
>Yes, the document made available via ftp is the official document for
>the ANSI public review period.  Mr. Fleming is correct in saying that
>it is not the official standard -- it is an early proposed version of
>that standard made available for comments -- but it is not "just some
>files that Bjarne put together."  It was produced by the standards
>committee, and it's being put out by the whole committee.
>
>Steve Adamczyk
>Edison Design Group
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Then why doesn't Bjarne or some "official" member of the committee post
 an official notice?

Why is Bjarne going to the trouble of pointing out that he is doing this
 on his own?

Why have other ANSI members indicated that there are administrative
 problems which have caused delays and why is Bjarne jumping the
 gun and not waiting for these administrative ANSI problems to
 be solved?

What is the purpose of having a committee if one person (who admits not
 to be an "officer" of the committee) is able to promote something
 for public comment evidently without the committee's approval?

Since we still do not have a list of members of the committee and can
 not tell who is in charge of the committee activities, it is
 very difficult to determine what is going on. The following
 words from Bjarne make it clear that he is acting as a committee
 of one.

---------------------Quoted from Bjarne Stroustrup------------------------
BS> PS For the legalistically minded, I must point out that I am not an
BS> officer of any of the C++ committees, so this message is not a
BS> formal communication from those committees. It is simply a personal
BS> effort to help us get us a good and timely C++ standard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
%Techno Cat I        /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
Penn's Landing      /   |  \    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
                 \__/-------\__/       e-mail: jim.fleming@bytes.com
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

In <D7vrG5.Mvs@research.att.com>, bs@research.att.com (Bjarne Stroustrup <9758-26353> 0112760) writes:
>The standard is large (700+ pages), but that is not large compared to
>other standards for modern programming languages. Similarly, the time
>taken by the C++ standards effort so far compared favorably with other
>standards efforts.

   Hoo boy howdy! 700 pages! My printer's going to be needing a new toner
cartridge after this. Well, congradulations to you and the committee for getting
it out. I really feel that this is going to have a dramatic impact on the quality of
tools that will be made available to those of us whose incomes derive greatly
from this fantastic little language.
  ... never figured 700 pages though ... whew! How big is ANSI C's?

  later,

 Ben Scherrey
 Proteus Technologies, Inc.