In article <3l9inm$id6@News1.mcs.com> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:
|I stand corrected that Microsoft is the leading mover and shaker behind
|C++. Their developers are doing far more with Visual Basic than C++.

Actually, I think most commonly internal MS developers are using VC++
as their primary development tool.  MS has goodly sized VC++ and VB
development teams working on each of these products themselves.  MS
has very large developer communities using each of the VB and VC++
products [hundreds of thousands of developers in each category, from
what I understand].  I would guess that more MS customers use VB than
VC++ simply because of the huge business community using VB.

I do think it a fair statement to say however, that the MS developers
who are members of the ANSI committee are not the "movers and shakers"
behind the continued expansion of the C++ standard.

In article <D6MIro.I41@microsoft.com>, jimad@microsoft.com says...
>
>In article <3l9inm$id6@News1.mcs.com> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming)
writes:
>|I stand corrected that Microsoft is the leading mover and shaker behind
>|C++. Their developers are doing far more with Visual Basic than C++.
>
>Actually, I think most commonly internal MS developers are using VC++
>as their primary development tool.
[snip]
>MS has goodly sized VC++ and VB
>development teams working on each of these products themselves.

Is VB written in VC++? I assume that VB is NOT written in VB...

>I do think it a fair statement to say however, that the MS developers
>who are members of the ANSI committee are not the "movers and shakers"
>behind the continued expansion of the C++ standard.
>

Who are the "movers and shakers" behind the continued expansion of the C++
standard?

FYI, people have sent me mail, claiming that HP is the only "interested"
player, because Sun will clearly go with Java and Spring.

Others have told me that Bjarne Stroustrup has nothing to do with the
standard any more and does not even have a vote. Also, it appears that
some more of the C++ "heavies" have left AT&T Bell Labs. (No surprise)

Other people have pointed out that the real movers and shakers are
Tom Plum and P.J. Plauger, they are in need of a standard to be able
to market their class libraries.

Another group of people have pointed out that C++ is clearly "over the hill"
and we all need to turn our attention to other options and C++ will die
the same slow death as PL/I. As we turn our attention to other options,
less light will be shed on C++ (good or bad) and the market will not see
it on the billboards any longer. What managers do not see, they will not
request. Just because an ANSI standard appears, may not mean anything.

Still another group has pointed out that the real battle line is not
the C++ standard, which is clearly going to be a "camel" (a horse designed
by committee). (BTW, camels are great in certain limited areas and for
limited uses) This last group has pointed out that the "real" battle is
going to be with the merging of C++ back on the original ANSI C standard.
Evidently the ANSI C camp is split on the merits of a merged C/C++
standard. Evidently, some "deals" have been cut, because some of the same
players from the ANSI C++ standards work control the ANSI C standard.

What is amazing about all of this is, that none of it addresses the
real issues of reuse, higher quality software engineering, higher
productivity environments, world wide software distribution strategies,
etc. All of the standards work appears to be mostly turf battles for
small patches of grass, that many do not know exist.

For people that have been around OO for more than a few years, they
realize that the real frontier is reusable class libraries. Anyone or
any company that is not currently tooling up a reusable library which
can be translated into Smalltalk, Eiffel and C+? is probably three years
behind. As the OO industry progresses, it will be impossible to recover
from that sort of deficit. That will be true justice for those that
followed C++ over the cliff and find themselves stranded between a rock
and a hard place surrounded by ANSI committee members, none of whom seems
to claim to have a "real" vested interest in the ANSI 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_|

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Mr. Neal Gafter, apparently of Sun Soft or Sun Microsystems has
responded to some of the points in this posting...I would like
to ammend some of my statements, based on his comments...JF
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

In article <3m1qbk$878@News1.mcs.com>, jim.fleming@bytes.com says...
>
>In article <D6MIro.I41@microsoft.com>, jimad@microsoft.com says...
>>
>>In article <3l9inm$id6@News1.mcs.com> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming)
>writes:
>>|I stand corrected that Microsoft is the leading mover and shaker behind
>>|C++. Their developers are doing far more with Visual Basic than C++.
>>
>>Actually, I think most commonly internal MS developers are using VC++
>>as their primary development tool.
>[snip]
>>MS has goodly sized VC++ and VB
>>development teams working on each of these products themselves.
>
>Is VB written in VC++? I assume that VB is NOT written in VB...
>
>>I do think it a fair statement to say however, that the MS developers
>>who are members of the ANSI committee are not the "movers and shakers"
>>behind the continued expansion of the C++ standard.
>>
>
>Who are the "movers and shakers" behind the continued expansion of the C++
>standard?
>
>FYI, people have sent me mail, claiming that HP is the only "interested"
>player, because Sun will clearly go with Java and Spring.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Mr. Gafter has indicated that Java has been placed in the public domain
by Sun because Sun does not intend to support it. Also, Mr. Gafter has
pointed pointed out that Spring is not a language. Please note, I never
said it was, it is a micro-kernel and the combination of Spring and a
language like C+@ (or Java) will clearly give Sun a shot at the other
players.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>Others have told me that Bjarne Stroustrup has nothing to do with the
>standard any more and does not even have a vote. Also, it appears that
>some more of the C++ "heavies" have left AT&T Bell Labs. (No surprise)
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
I am NOT encouraging Bjarne Stroustrup to drop out of the standards
activity. On the contrary, I feel that he and his company AT&T need
to see this through to the end. If AT&T feels that C++ gives them
bad PR, (like UNIX), and they try to pawn C++ off on someone else,
they should NOT be allowed to wash their hands of this mess.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>Other people have pointed out that the real movers and shakers are
>Tom Plum and P.J. Plauger, they are in need of a standard to be able
>to market their class libraries.
>

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Mr. Gafter has indicated that Tom Plum does not market class libraries
but rather "test suites". I suggest that people check the bottom of
page XIV of the book, "The Draft Standard C++ Library", by P.J. Plauger
as well as the postcard in the back, as well as info@plumhall.com.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>Another group of people have pointed out that C++ is clearly "over the
hill"
>and we all need to turn our attention to other options and C++ will die
>the same slow death as PL/I. As we turn our attention to other options,
>less light will be shed on C++ (good or bad) and the market will not see
>it on the billboards any longer. What managers do not see, they will not
>request. Just because an ANSI standard appears, may not mean anything.
>
>Still another group has pointed out that the real battle line is not
>the C++ standard, which is clearly going to be a "camel" (a horse designed
>by committee). (BTW, camels are great in certain limited areas and for
>limited uses) This last group has pointed out that the "real" battle is
>going to be with the merging of C++ back on the original ANSI C standard.
>Evidently the ANSI C camp is split on the merits of a merged C/C++
>standard. Evidently, some "deals" have been cut, because some of the same
>players from the ANSI C++ standards work control the ANSI C standard.
>
>What is amazing about all of this is, that none of it addresses the
>real issues of reuse, higher quality software engineering, higher
>productivity environments, world wide software distribution strategies,
>etc. All of the standards work appears to be mostly turf battles for
>small patches of grass, that many do not know exist.
>
>For people that have been around OO for more than a few years, they
>realize that the real frontier is reusable class libraries. Anyone or
>any company that is not currently tooling up a reusable library which
>can be translated into Smalltalk, Eiffel and C+? is probably three years
>behind. As the OO industry progresses, it will be impossible to recover
>from that sort of deficit. That will be true justice for those that
>followed C++ over the cliff and find themselves stranded between a rock
>and a hard place surrounded by ANSI committee members, none of whom seems
>to claim to have a "real" vested interest in the ANSI C++ standard.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Mr. Gafter has indicated that he has a vested interest in the C++
standard and is willing to take ownership. I am not sure what the vested
interest is, but I am glad that he has corrected my above statement...
at least there is one person on the planet earth that is going to sign
the document.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>--
>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 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 <3l9inm$id6@News1.mcs.com> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:

[I picked at random this idiotic paragraph among many to quote]

>Once again, it looks like the world is "using" the U.S. as a "stage"
>to rehearse their "academic" plays. I am not sure that the U.S. citizens
>really want to be used in this manner, but it is clear that this is the
>"role" we get to play whether we like it our not.

I have no idea whether C+@ is a great, good, fair, or lousy programming
language, but your utterly clueless attacks on the C++ standardization
process will only do harm to whatever image people have of C+@.

Of course there are some legitimate grounds for disagreement with how C++
is being standardized, many of them contradictory (it's taking too long,
or there's too much pressure to finish; too much is being added, or some
fundamental flaws are going unfixed; the process is not open enough,
or there's no screening test for committee members; etc.).  This is
inevitable.  But your last few posts on the subject have been hopelessly
off-target.

--
Jonathan Schilling Novell, UNIX Systems Group jls@summit.novell.com

In article <3l94sa$7it@hpsystem1.informatik.tu-muenchen.de>,
schuenem@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE says...
>
>
>In article <3kma72$smd@News1.mcs.com>, jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming)
writes:
>[..]
>|> It seems to me that ANSI is a rather sacred body. Implied in any ANSI
>|> process is a notion that what is being standardized is needed, desired,
>|> and *most* importantly in need of a standard description on a national
>|> (and international) level to get people marching to the same drummer.
>|> Implied in this last statement is that the *majority* of people in
>|> America desire to march to the same drummer or benefit by marching to
>|> the same drummer.
>
>I can't see what you mean with this metaphor. Why should people of
>Canada, USA, Mexico, Columbia, Venezuela, Brasilia, Argentinia, Chile etc
>want to march to a drummer? Why not also the rest of the world?
>Is ANSI the drummer? :-)
>

Based on your comments below, it appears that ISO is the drummer. ANSI
just rubber stamps your efforts.

Therefore, I assume that the upcoming meeting in Monterey California
is an ISO meeting. The people that call it an ASNI meeting must be
using that term "loosely".

Can you tell me what the membership fees are for ISO?
Can you give me the names of the ISO committee members?


>[..]
>|> Even though the ANSI process is clearly costly and time consuming, we
>|> have to bear in mind that this alone does not prevent someone with the
>|> time and money to create an ANSI standard. Besides this, there should
>|> be some "need" identified and more importantly some "national need".
>|> If the process is extended to the international community, then there
>|> should be some "international need".
>
>It seems that you are misinformed:
>The ISO (International Standardistation Organisation) is developing
>the C++Standard. National standardisation organisations from all over
>the world are taking part in that process. I heared that ANSI has a
>special role, but I don't know which. After ISO has accepted the
>standard as an international standard, ANSI has promissed to
>accept the same paper as an US-standard (for formal reasons).
>So it's not "extended to the international community", but
>'shrinked' [what's the opposite of 'extended'?] to the US-community ;-)
>

This is beginng to become more clear. ISO is the real standards body and
"ANSI has promissed to accept the same paper as an US-standard".

Who makes that promise on behalf of ANSI?
Why does ANSI meet if they just really need to wait for ISO.
 The price of a rubber stamp is about $5.00, les than the $60 million
  that has been spent to date.
   (based on estimates of ANSI members)

Based on other postings and the numerous e-mail messages I have received
things are becoming more clear.

I stand corrected that Microsoft is the leading mover and shaker behind
C++. Their developers are doing far more with Visual Basic than C++.

Based on e-mails, it appears that HP is viewed as the driving force
behind C++, at least in the U.S. Several of you have indicated that
AT&T and Novell have little to do with the future of C++. If there is
one company that we need to look to for leadership, it is Hewlett Packard.
They appear to have an international contingent working on this activity
which seems consistent with the observations above that ISO is really
the "umbrella" organization and ANSI rides in the back seat.

Once again, it looks like the world is "using" the U.S. as a "stage"
to rehearse their "academic" plays. I am not sure that the U.S. citizens
really want to be used in this manner, but it is clear that this is the
"role" we get to play whether we like it our not.

As a U.S. Citizen it is difficult for me to sit around and watch our
"technological" future becoming the topic of academic circles around the
world with very little concern for what the U.S. may want. It is sad to
hear that our American National Standards Institute would support activities
which require us to rubber stamp something that was not a product of the
technical community in the U.S.

Please do not interpret these comments as any statement against the ISO. On
the contrary, I think that the ISO is a great organization just like I think
the Internet is a great global resource. My main point is that international
software and standards work should take into consideration the entire planet
and should begin and end with that premise. Let's not confuse the issue by
making U.S. Citizens think they have any more "power" than any citizen on
the planet.

Likewise, I think that any standards efforts (for anything) that are
launched on the Internet, should be considered, Internet Standards. The
Internet (or Cyberspace) can almost be viewed as a separate country. When
people cross the boundary from their machines and enter the Internet this
should be like entering a foreign country. Maybe in the future there will
be a "customs" office at the gates to the Internet. U.S. Citizens should
realize that they are just one human on the "net" and the fact that they
are a U.S. Citizen does not give them any additional rights.

Comments are always welcome.



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 <3l94sa$7it@hpsystem1.informatik.tu-muenchen.de>, schuenem@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Ulf Schuenemann) says:
>
>It seems that you are misinformed:
>The ISO (International Standardistation Organisation) is developing
>the C++Standard. National standardisation organisations from all over
>the world are taking part in that process. I heared that ANSI has a
>special role, but I don't know which. After ISO has accepted the
>standard as an international standard, ANSI has promissed to
>accept the same paper as an US-standard (for formal reasons).
>So it's not "extended to the international community", but
>'shrinked' [what's the opposite of 'extended'?] to the US-community ;-)

The ANSI committee's special role is that it serves as technical advisor
to the ISO committee. In practice this doesn't mean much, since most
decisions are made by concensus, with the formal vote merely a
confirmation.
 -- Pete

In article <3kma72$smd@News1.mcs.com>, jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:
[..]
|> It seems to me that ANSI is a rather sacred body. Implied in any ANSI
|> process is a notion that what is being standardized is needed, desired,
|> and *most* importantly in need of a standard description on a national
|> (and international) level to get people marching to the same drummer.
|> Implied in this last statement is that the *majority* of people in
|> America desire to march to the same drummer or benefit by marching to
|> the same drummer.

I can't see what you mean with this metaphor. Why should people of
Canada, USA, Mexico, Columbia, Venezuela, Brasilia, Argentinia, Chile etc
want to march to a drummer? Why not also the rest of the world?
Is ANSI the drummer? :-)

[..]
|> Even though the ANSI process is clearly costly and time consuming, we
|> have to bear in mind that this alone does not prevent someone with the
|> time and money to create an ANSI standard. Besides this, there should
|> be some "need" identified and more importantly some "national need".
|> If the process is extended to the international community, then there
|> should be some "international need".

It seems that you are misinformed:
The ISO (International Standardistation Organisation) is developing
the C++Standard. National standardisation organisations from all over
the world are taking part in that process. I heared that ANSI has a
special role, but I don't know which. After ISO has accepted the
standard as an international standard, ANSI has promissed to
accept the same paper as an US-standard (for formal reasons).
So it's not "extended to the international community", but
'shrinked' [what's the opposite of 'extended'?] to the US-community ;-)

[..]
|> I ask these questions "because" I care...
|>  "because" I care about *my* country's future...
[..]

Ulf Schuenemann

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ulf Sch   nemann
Institut f   r Informatik, Technische Universit   t M   nchen, Germany.
email: schuenem@informatik.tu-muenchen.de

jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:
>As you can see these goals run from the near-sighted view of the designers...
>It seems to me that ANSI is a rather sacred body...
>Clearly the ANSI standards process is lengthy and costly...
>It seems critical to me that any ANSI activity should first...
>Assuming that some "needs analysis" was done...
>Even though the ANSI process is clearly costly and time consuming...
>I ask these questions "because" I care...

For someone who isn't prepared to volunteer their own time, effort and expense
to the standards process, you certainly seem to be pretty critical of those
that do.  Even your understanding of the basic standards process appears
apallingly weak, especially considering the strong tone with which you aim
your "questions".  You don't have any God-given right to be informed of what's
happening with regards to the C++ standardization via the net for free, you
know.  If you want to be informed and have your say, pay your dues like
everyone else, or be prepared to rely on the generosity and seemingly
unbounded patience of those committee members who do take the time to post
what's happenning to Usenet occasionally, yet seem to cop nothing but ignorant
flames or loaded questions in return.

Unimpressed,
Graham
--
Graham Stoney
Promotions Manager,
CISRA Ice & Inline Skate Spectaculars

Again, I would first like to thank those people who have sent e-mail
to explain their view of what is going on here. I appreciate their
comments and I would assume that everyone would understand that some
people are not in a position to post their views to the "net".

Continuing...a question has come up regarding the "primary goal" of
the ANSI committee which is currently working to standardize C++.

Here are some of the options:

1. Is the goal to standardize the language because C was standardized
 and this appears to be the next logical step in the "history"
 of the language and the designers would like the ANSI "seal of
 approval"?

2. Is the goal to use the ANSI standards "process" as a mechanism to
 get people to come together on common ground so that programs
 written for one compiler and system will work on another?

3. Is the goal to once and for all plant a stake in the ground for
 all American programmers that the American National Standard
 for OO programming in a language with a "C syntax" is C++.

4. Is the goal to lay the groundwork for a major national agenda of
 encouraging software reuse and therefore to create a standard
 form of packaging of intellectual ideas for "export" to the
 world market?

As you can see these goals run from the near-sighted view of the designers
to the world market view of the entire planet. There is likely a continum
of positions that people could take, in terms of an answer.

It seems to me that ANSI is a rather sacred body. Implied in any ANSI
process is a notion that what is being standardized is needed, desired,
and *most* importantly in need of a standard description on a national
(and international) level to get people marching to the same drummer.
Implied in this last statement is that the *majority* of people in
America desire to march to the same drummer or benefit by marching to
the same drummer.

Clearly the ANSI standards process is lengthy and costly. Also, it is
clear, based on recent postings to this group, that the process is not
really an "open" forum. If the forum were open, simple lists, agendas,
meeting notes, etc. would be periodically posted here to keep the
"silent majority" updated on what is being developed as "their" next
standard.

It seems critical to me that any ANSI activity should first focus on
the majority and some analysis should be done regarding the benefit
for the majority of having a standard. I would hope that the reverse
is not the case, where people slug out some complex and difficult
"standards document" and then because they spent a lot of time and
energy, they feel they "deserve" a gold star called an ANSI standard
and the "public" is expected to do a quick read and approve the thing
because of the amount of work that was done.

Assuming that some "needs analysis" was done before the time consuming
and costly process was started, I would assume that there are some
basic mission statements sitting in some ANSI file. If anyone has
happened to see such a document maybe it could be posted here so that
people at least have some idea of what the primary goal is for the
large number of people working to create an ANSI standard for C++.

Again, I would hope that the goal is not because people wanted to see if
they could fix the language to get it into a form where a standard
definition could be written. While this is an interesting challenge and
quite possibly and impossible task. From what I recall, the purpose of
creating an ANSI standard should not be satisfy people's need for
intellectual challenges and puzzle solving.

Even though the ANSI process is clearly costly and time consuming, we
have to bear in mind that this alone does not prevent someone with the
time and money to create an ANSI standard. Besides this, there should
be some "need" identified and more importantly some "national need".
If the process is extended to the international community, then there
should be some "international need".

In trying to determine a need, I would hope that some consideration be
given to the significance of the need. Also, I would hope that there be
some assessment of the economic impact once the need is satisfied. For
example, if people are currently pulling their hair out trying to get
their C++ programs to work and someone figures that by having an ANSI
standard we will shift more work to barbers because people will have
more hair and will need more hair-cuts, then we can put a dollar figure
on that. I am not sure that this need will pass the "significance" test
but it may pass the economic development test.

Besides need, I would also assume that people would understand that the
number of ANSI standards for a particular domain is small and in most
cases is likely one. For example, if people determine that they need a
standard character set, it is likely that they will benefit from one
standard character set or a family of character sets with well-defined
rules about how they are related. Again, I would hope that when people
determine what "domain" the ANSI C++ standard targets, then some
consideration should be given to whether it is the BEST standard for
that "domain". This assumes that for the good of the majority, there
should only be one standard for each identified domain and the priority
of having that standard should be based on need, social benefit, and
economic opportunity (for all).

If the domain of ANSI Standard C++ is narrowly defined to be, "a
standard definition of the C++ Programming Language" then it will
be more difficult to pass the "need" test. If on the other hand, the
"domain" is very broad, for example, "a world-wide language for the
definition of reusable software using object-oriented principles"
then ALL possible candidates for such a language would have to be
evaluated by the committee because assuming only ONE standard makes
sense, you certainly do not want to rush to elect a candidate for
that position because you will live with it for a long time.

If the domain of the ANSI Standard for C++ is narrowly defined then
there is very little risk in approving a standard. The public can do
a quick read, make sure that most of the typos are gone and push the
thing through for publication. Once published the market and users
will determine whether their needs are met and if not they will have
many other choices. If the domain is broadly defined then there has
to be a tremendous amount of attention paid not only to the details
of the syntax and semantics but also the standards process itself.
If this is not done and government contracts are let on the basis
of compliance, then someone is certainly going to ask how the government
arrived at their requirements, was it "need" or because of the existence
of an ANSI standard? If the government says, "because there is a
standard", then the next obvious question is, "how and why did the
standard come to be?".

At that stage of the game...I can assure you...
  ...a valid answer is not..."Because"...
...we can not have a government setting standards because of because...


I ask these questions "because" I care...
 "because" I care about *my* country's future...
 "because" I am concerned about the slow progress of our industry
  and the wasted human resources that are allowed to invent
  and reinvent the same wheels day after day, year after year,
  with apparently no concern from the population. (I think we
  could probably get more people concerned about recycling
  a single aluminum can than preventing the rewriting of the
  String class 1,000 times each year)
 "because" I am concerned that large companies have dominated this
  industry and seem to be unconcerned about the slow progress
  we have made and the global impact on society. They are
  making money and seem unconcerned about the benefit to
  society...
 "because" I am aware of superior solutions that have been hidden
  from society so that a very small number of people were
  able to showcase their academic credentials...
 "because" I think our world is at a unique point in history where
  the cold war is over, the Internet is expanding, where
  political boundaries are becoming blurred and the need
  is growing to make national and international discussions
  of important standards activities *open* to the public
  and accessible to more than the "rich and famous"...


--
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\______to the end of the OuterNet