In article <3orut9$546@nova.umuc.edu> COATES@EUROPA.UMUC.EDU (Ell)
writes:

|> In <3ornv6$63a@punchdown.zocalo.com> kal@chromatic.com writes:

|> Regarding Plaugher book's copyright to portions of the C++ standard:

|> >          I don't know about the software (maybe it's been updated)
|> >          but the book is obsolete. It doesn't have STL, Locales,
|> >          auto_ptr etc. Iostreams have been templatized and a lot
|> >          different from what is in the book. Exception hierarchy
|> >          is different and basic_string is now STL compliant. I
|> >          can't think of anything in the book that exactly conforms
|> >          to the standard. The book seems to me to have been "hastily
|> >          written" and has some trivial and avoidable errors. You
|> >          can refer to a very good review (in the editorial in C++
|> >          Report) by Stan Lippmann (no longer an AT&T employee :-)).

|> Great!

Plauger had a bit of bad luck in that the library section underwent a
major redesign right after the book hit the presses.  I'm sure Plauger
would have preferred otherwise, but he does not control the committee.

This said, from a usage point of view: 1) while the details actually
vary considerable, much of this is transparent to the typical user,
and 2) the library you have with your current compiler is probably
closer to what Plauger describes that to the proposed standard.  As
such, I think that the book is a useful reference.  And of course,
Plauger's description of design issues remains valid regardless of
what the final standard library looks like.
--
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

jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) wrote:
>In article <3o8qgb$d3c@punchdown.zocalo.com>,

kal@chromatic.com says...
dard" as distributed.
>>>
>>>Also, it is not clear from the standard how other companies


  >>would
  >>>provide alternative class libraries and not end up violating


    >>the
    >>>P.J. Plauger copyrights which Bjarne asks everyone to
    >>"respect".

    I am not sure but as far as I know the copyright of Plauger
    on the library parts is limited to the text in the draft

    standard. I.e no library vendor can supply the text in the
    draft standard in their documentation. This is confusing

    though. Because I believe there's an ARM in C by Shildt and
    he has qouted fully from the standard and his book sells for
    a lot less than the standard!
    Though this is a bit confusing as I always thought
    that ANSI committee holds the copyright. In fact that seems
    to be case with other standards eg C. Also the draft C++
    standard used to be sold by the ANSI committee. Could somebody
    clarify the copyright situation.

    >>
    >>While it doesn't make sense to react to each of Fleming's
    >>accusations and misinformation, but I think it is important
    >>to clarify the premises (all wrong) based on which Fleming's
    >>accusations are based. Most of the misinformation Fleming has
    >>been spreading stems from the lack of awareness of the
    >>standarization process (for most people). I think a few
    >>clarifications are in order, though I am not the appropriate
    >>person for that task.
    >>
    >>Premise 1: AT&T has a major say in C++ standard.
    >>
    >@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

    @@@@@@@@@
    >The DRAFT standard was released from by Bjarne Stroustrup and
    >Andrew Koenig on a machine at (@) research.att.com...

    It is voluntary and unpaid.

    >
    >If you do not think that AT&T has a huge "emotional" stake in

    C++
    >then you clearly have not walked the halls of AT&T and

    encountered
    >what are now openly called, "The C++ Police", by AT&T

    employees...:)
    >@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

    @@@@@@@@@
    >
    >>All the companies participating in the standarization have
    >>just one vote, be it AT&T, Sun or a consultant (eg Ron
    >>Guilmette, of bullet-proof shoes fame :-)). Also any
    >>organization involved with C++ in any way could have been a


     >>part of the standardization committee.
     >>
     >@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

     @@@@@@@@@
     >One vote...give me a break...I was on an ANSI committee, the

     "deals"
     >are made well before any vote...I am not surprised by your

     various
     >comments here that you would not be aware of the "deals".

     Maybe you
     >ought to pay a little more attention to the action behind the

     scenes.

     It is true that some individuals (eg Bjarne) have a greater
     say in the voting but that is solely because of the merit of
     their arguments.

     >For example, maybe you ought to check out how the class

     libraries were
     >"selected" and "added" to the C++ standard.

     Could you substantiate your claim?

     >@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

     @@@@@@@@@
     >
     >>Premise 2: The draft standard is an "elitist" effort being
     >>forced on the programming masses.
     >>
     >>Nothing could be farther from the truth. The reason C++ has
     >>been so well accepted in diverse areas, is so well defined

     and
     >>free of major structural defects is because of the fact it
     >>has been produced as a result of the combined effort of the
     >>compiler vendors, programmers in areas as diverse as telecom.
     >>databases, library developers, test suite developers and so
     >>on. Before any major extensions, the proposed features were
     >>implemented and similar experiences were analyzed (eg. in
     >>templates, exceptions etc) to avoid potential problems. This
     >>has also been aided by the fact that most compiler vendors
     >>weren't far behind in implementing the changes and thus
     >>possible problems could be identified from programmer

     feedback
     >>etc. Refer to D&E for details.
     >>
     >@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

     @@@@@@@@@@
     >D&E by an AT&T employee...royalties donated to charity I

     bet...right?

     I'm happy to notice that you have no argument here.

     >@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

     @@@@@@@@@@
     >
     >>premise 3: All the participants in the standardization are
     >>there for commercial benefit.
     >>
     >>Tha fact is that the C++ community owes a lot to the
     >>individuals who put so much of effort in bringing
     >>out the standard and all this for absolutely no monetary
     >>benefit.
     >>
     >@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

     @@@@@@@@@@@
     >What a joke. Have you looked at "their" pay checks, royalty

     checks,
     >payments from "selling" software, from consulting gigs....???
     >@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

     @@@@@@@@@@@
     >

     Certainly none of it comes from working on the standard. This
     work is done in the spare time and weekends etc.


     >>Premise 4: The draft working paper and the committee
     >>deliberations have been a closely guarded secret.
     >>
     >>Not exactly. The reflector messages can be ftp'ed by anybody.
     >>The interaction was by mailing lists because not all members
     >>had access to internet. Also one can imagine what would have


       >>happened to the standard had the likes of Fleming got into

       it.
       >>The DWP could have been purchased by anybody (though it is a


         >>moot point as the draft standard is available for public

         review
         >>now). However I feel the draft standard should have been
         >>freely availbale to the public as most compilers have been
         >>implementing the changes.
         >>
         >@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

         @@@@@@@
         >I guess a "not exactly" means you had little defense to hide

         the fact
         >that at least one member of the ANSI C++ committee has already

         stated
         >here in this very newsgroup that the he felt the *copyright

         issues*
         >should have been "hidden from the public".
         >@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@


         I am unaware of any such statement. Could you please enlighten

         me
         on this.

         >
         >>Premise 5: C++ standardization has been a slow process.
         >>
         >>Look at what C++ was 3 years back and what it is now. In my
         >>opinion the standardization has been very fast. eg. Plauger's
         >>"Draft Standard C++ library" was obsolete by the time it hit
         >>the market.
         >>
         >@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

         @@@@@@@@@@
         >Is it really obsolete?
         >Are the order forms to "buy" the software from Plum Hall, Inc.

         obsolete?
         >Are the comments that P.J. Plauger made regarding the fact

         that he
         >retains all copyright rights obsolete?
         >@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

         @@@@@@@@@@
         >

         I don't know about the software (maybe it's been updated)
         but the book is obsolete. It doesn't have STL, Locales,
         auto_ptr etc. Iostreams have been templatized and a lot
         different from what is in the book. Exception hierarchy
         is different and basic_string is now STL compliant. I
         can't think of anything in the book that exactly conforms
         to the standard. The book seems to me to have been "hastily
         written" and has some trivial and avoidable errors. You
         can refer to a very good review (in the editorial in C++
         Report) by Stan Lippmann (no longer an AT&T employee :-)).

         - Kalyan

In <3ornv6$63a@punchdown.zocalo.com> kal@chromatic.com writes:

Regarding Plaugher book's copyright to portions of the C++ standard:

>          I don't know about the software (maybe it's been updated)
>          but the book is obsolete. It doesn't have STL, Locales,
>          auto_ptr etc. Iostreams have been templatized and a lot
>          different from what is in the book. Exception hierarchy
>          is different and basic_string is now STL compliant. I
>          can't think of anything in the book that exactly conforms
>          to the standard. The book seems to me to have been "hastily
>          written" and has some trivial and avoidable errors. You
>          can refer to a very good review (in the editorial in C++
>          Report) by Stan Lippmann (no longer an AT&T employee :-)).

Great!

Elliott

In article <3opj7i$4po@News1.mcs.com> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:

   >You're right, there's lots of compromising behind the scenes.  Creating an
   >ANSI standard is a political process.  But it's no less democratic than US
   >government.  Just about any process that tries to get a large group to form
   >a concensus is bound to run into this problem.
   >
   @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

   Thank God we agree that the deals are made "behind the scenes"...

   Can you give us some background on how the C++ class library was
   selected?

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

No , but can you?

In article <3oka3j$gb7@News1.mcs.com> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:
>In article <3o8qgb$d3c@punchdown.zocalo.com>, kal@chromatic.com says...
>>Premise 1: AT&T has a major say in C++ standard.
>>
>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>The DRAFT standard was released from by Bjarne Stroustrup and
>Andrew Koenig on a machine at (@) research.att.com...

So?  Just because they offered use of their FTP server they must be
controlling the content?  Even assuming AT&T made use of their FTP server
contingent on certain decisions going their way, what would be the point?
Do you think there was no one else on the committee who could have provided
an alternate server?

>If you do not think that AT&T has a huge "emotional" stake in C++
>then you clearly have not walked the halls of AT&T and encountered
>what are now openly called, "The C++ Police", by AT&T employees...:)

Are you speaking the same language as the rest of us?  There's a huge
difference between a "stake" and a "say".  The first means that you care
what happens, while the second means that you control what happens.  While
having a stake is likely to make one want to have a say, it doesn't mean
you'll get it.

>>All the companies participating in the standarization have
>>just one vote

>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>One vote...give me a break...I was on an ANSI committee, the "deals"
>are made well before any vote...

You're right, there's lots of compromising behind the scenes.  Creating an
ANSI standard is a political process.  But it's no less democratic than US
government.  Just about any process that tries to get a large group to form
a concensus is bound to run into this problem.

But this doesn't mean that all the decisions go the way any specific member
wants.  Eventually, everyone has to give in and compromise.

>>premise 3: All the participants in the standardization are
>>there for commercial benefit.
>>
>>Tha fact is that the C++ community owes a lot to the
>>individuals who put so much of effort in bringing
>>out the standard and all this for absolutely no monetary
>>benefit.
>>
>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>What a joke. Have you looked at "their" pay checks, royalty checks,
>payments from "selling" software, from consulting gigs....???
>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Many employers consider time spent at standards committee meetings almost
wasted; they would much rather that the employees be home, actually writing
code, helping customers, etc.  If they were more "productive" they would
probably get larger raises.

>>"Draft Standard C++ library" was obsolete by the time it hit
>>the market.
>>
>Is it really obsolete?
>Are the order forms to "buy" the software from Plum Hall, Inc. obsolete?

Just because you can buy something doesn't mean it isn't obsolete.  If you
buy SunOS 4.x you'll still get a non-ANSI C compiler.  I would consider
that incredibly obsolete, not just by a year or so like Plauger's book.

>Are the comments that P.J. Plauger made regarding the fact that he
>retains all copyright rights obsolete?

I don't see what Plauger's copyright has to do with the fact that his book
describes an early version of the language.  If someone had written a book
describing Newtonian mechanics the year before relativity was discovered,
its copyright would still have been valid afterward.
--
Barry Margolin
BBN Planet Corporation, Cambridge, MA
barmar@bbnplanet.com

In article <3opcai$mfa@tools.near.net>, barmar@nic.near.net says...
>
>In article <3oka3j$gb7@News1.mcs.com> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming)
writes:
>>In article <3o8qgb$d3c@punchdown.zocalo.com>, kal@chromatic.com says...
>>>Premise 1: AT&T has a major say in C++ standard.
>>>
>>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>>The DRAFT standard was released from by Bjarne Stroustrup and
>>Andrew Koenig on a machine at (@) research.att.com...
>
>So?  Just because they offered use of their FTP server they must be
>controlling the content?  Even assuming AT&T made use of their FTP server
>contingent on certain decisions going their way, what would be the point?
>Do you think there was no one else on the committee who could have provided
>an alternate server?
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Where is the final editing done?
Is there one "true" source document?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>>If you do not think that AT&T has a huge "emotional" stake in C++
>>then you clearly have not walked the halls of AT&T and encountered
>>what are now openly called, "The C++ Police", by AT&T employees...:)
>
>Are you speaking the same language as the rest of us?  There's a huge
>difference between a "stake" and a "say".  The first means that you care
>what happens, while the second means that you control what happens.  While
>having a stake is likely to make one want to have a say, it doesn't mean
>you'll get it.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
OK...so we agree AT&T has a "stake"...
You seem to think they do not have much say...
...can you verify that...?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>>>All the companies participating in the standarization have
>>>just one vote
>
>>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>>One vote...give me a break...I was on an ANSI committee, the "deals"
>>are made well before any vote...
>
>You're right, there's lots of compromising behind the scenes.  Creating an
>ANSI standard is a political process.  But it's no less democratic than US
>government.  Just about any process that tries to get a large group to form
>a concensus is bound to run into this problem.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Thank God we agree that the deals are made "behind the scenes"...

Can you give us some background on how the C++ class library was
selected?

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

>But this doesn't mean that all the decisions go the way any specific member
>wants.  Eventually, everyone has to give in and compromise.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Of course after the deals are made behind the scenes, there is little
need for compromise at a meeting. This should allow more time for
sightseeing, golf, and relaxation... :)

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

>>>premise 3: All the participants in the standardization are
>>>there for commercial benefit.
>>>
>>>Tha fact is that the C++ community owes a lot to the
>>>individuals who put so much of effort in bringing
>>>out the standard and all this for absolutely no monetary
>>>benefit.
>>>
>>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>>What a joke. Have you looked at "their" pay checks, royalty checks,
>>payments from "selling" software, from consulting gigs....???
>>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>
>Many employers consider time spent at standards committee meetings almost
>wasted; they would much rather that the employees be home, actually writing
>code, helping customers, etc.  If they were more "productive" they would
>probably get larger raises.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
I think most employers view the cost as advertising...
...standards work is clearly more "marketing" than
technical...
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>>>"Draft Standard C++ library" was obsolete by the time it hit
>>>the market.
>>>
>>Is it really obsolete?
>>Are the order forms to "buy" the software from Plum Hall, Inc. obsolete?
>
>Just because you can buy something doesn't mean it isn't obsolete.  If you
>buy SunOS 4.x you'll still get a non-ANSI C compiler.  I would consider
>that incredibly obsolete, not just by a year or so like Plauger's book.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Do you think a standard should endorse copyrighted or patented software?

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

>>Are the comments that P.J. Plauger made regarding the fact that he
>>retains all copyright rights obsolete?
>
>I don't see what Plauger's copyright has to do with the fact that his book
>describes an early version of the language.  If someone had written a book
>describing Newtonian mechanics the year before relativity was discovered,
>its copyright would still have been valid afterward.
>--
>Barry Margolin

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

Does anyone know how many vendors currently sell source code
for the proposed standard ANSI C++ Class Libraries...?

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
--
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_|

jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) wrote:
>
>In scanning through the files released by AT&T only three
names appear
>in any of the material:
>
>  Bjarne Strustrup
>  Andrew Koenig
>  P.J. Plauger
>
>Is that the entire active ANSI C++ Committee?
>Is that just the Working Group?
>
>Also, there does not appear to be the usual ANSI cover
material and
>other "official" language regarding the contents and usage of
the
>standard.
>
>The documents appear to be distributed by AT&T Bell
Laboratories and
>it is not clear whether there is a Copyright release from Plum
Hall, Inc.
>There is mention of copyrights held by P.J. Plauger but
according to
>P.J. Plauger's book, Plum Hall, Inc. is also involved.
>
>Normally, with an ANSI and ISO process, you see a fair amount
of
>legalistic material that ensures that there are no hidden
agendas
>in the process. This type of material does not seem to be part
of
>the "standard" as distributed.
>
>Also, it is not clear from the standard how other companies
would
>provide alternative class libraries and not end up violating
the
>P.J. Plauger copyrights which Bjarne asks everyone to
"respect".

While it doesn't make sense to react to each of Fleming's
accusations and misinformation, but I think it is important
to clarify the premises (all wrong) based on which Fleming's
accusations are based. Most of the misinformation Fleming has
been spreading stems from the lack of awareness of the
standarization process (for most people). I think a few
clarifications are in order, though I am not the appropriate
person for that task.

Premise 1: AT&T has a major say in C++ standard.

All the companies participating in the standarization have
just one vote, be it AT&T, Sun or a consultant (eg Ron
Guilmette, of bullet-proof shoes fame :-)). Also any
organization involved with C++ in any way could have been a
part of the standardization committee.

Premise 2: The draft standard is an "elitist" effort being
forced on the programming masses.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. The reason C++ has
been so well accepted in diverse areas, is so well defined and
free of major structural defects is because of the fact it
has been produced as a result of the combined effort of the
compiler vendors, programmers in areas as diverse as telecom.
databases, library developers, test suite developers and so
on. Before any major extensions, the proposed features were
implemented and similar experiences were analyzed (eg. in
templates, exceptions etc) to avoid potential problems. This
has also been aided by the fact that most compiler vendors
weren't far behind in implementing the changes and thus
possible problems could be identified from programmer feedback
etc. Refer to D&E for details.

premise 3: All the participants in the standardization are
there for commercial benefit.

Tha fact is that the C++ community owes a lot to the
individuals who put so much of effort in bringing
out the standard and all this for absolutely no monetary
benefit.

Premise 4: The draft working paper and the committee
deliberations have been a closely guarded secret.

Not exactly. The reflector messages can be ftp'ed by anybody.
The interaction was by mailing lists because not all members
had access to internet. Also one can imagine what would have
happened to the standard had the likes of Fleming got into it.
The DWP could have been purchased by anybody (though it is a
moot point as the draft standard is available for public review
now). However I feel the draft standard should have been
freely availbale to the public as most compilers have been
implementing the changes.

Premise 5: C++ standardization has been a slow process.

Look at what C++ was 3 years back and what it is now. In my
opinion the standardization has been very fast. eg. Plauger's
"Draft Standard C++ library" was obsolete by the time it hit
the market.

I wonder what Fleming has to say to the *facts*.

- Kalyan