When the new C++ standard will be released.

[James Kanze]

Isn't that the case, for example, with the linux kernel? Yet
bug fixes come very fast when bugs are found. Usually in a
matter of days (or even faster).

Which goes a long way to explaining why Linux is so unstable.

You can't update a standard every few days. Otherwise, it isn't
a standard.

 

[James Kanze]

Stability and consensus.

For an international standard to be efficient, most nations
with an interest in the standard (represented by their
national standard bodies) must more or less agree that the
standard is correct and useful. Many contries will issue this
as a national standard as well, if they agree. What if they
don't?

A bit of bureaucracy can also be useful to assure that some
big companies don't form their own committee to get its
products approved as a standard. Oops...

There is (or at least was) a procedure for "fast tracking"
standards, to be used when a standard basically originated with
one company, and everyone was in agreement with it. Sun tried
it with Java, but too many national bodies objected, so it
didn't pass. (I don't think that Microsoft even bothered with
C#. Given what happened with Java.)

 

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* James Kanze:

There is (or at least was) a procedure for "fast tracking"
standards, to be used when a standard basically originated with
one company, and everyone was in agreement with it. Sun tried
it with Java, but too many national bodies objected, so it
didn't pass. (I don't think that Microsoft even bothered with
C#. Given what happened with Java.)

Uhm, I seem to recall that Sun pulled back from standardization for reasons of
their own, not that they didn't get the standardization track they wanted.

C# on the other hand is an ISO standard, updated at least once, and as I
understand it fast-tracked through ECMA.

This seems, on the surface, to sort of in a way weasel word weasel word and
weasel word contradict what you write above, for both Java and C#?


Cheers,

- Alf

PS: re C# standard the wording is mostly verbatim from Anders Hejlsberg's rather
informal language description -- no language lawyer needed .

 

[James Kanze]

* James Kanze:

Uhm, I seem to recall that Sun pulled back from
standardization for reasons of their own, not that they didn't
get the standardization track they wanted.

I don't know what Sun gave as the official reasons. They
obviously didn't come out an say: we're not getting to run the
whole show, so we're taking our ball and going home, and you
can't play with it. But that's effectively what happened.

C# on the other hand is an ISO standard, updated at least
once, and as I understand it fast-tracked through ECMA.

Is it an ISO standard. I thought it was just ECMA. (I've not
been as active in standardization the last couple of years as I
once was, so I may have missed it. But I'm still officially a
"technical expert" for AFNOR, and am normally informed of any
votes.)

This seems, on the surface, to sort of in a way weasel word
weasel word and weasel word contradict what you write above,
for both Java and C#?

Well, I don't know the exact status of C#. And I think that
there's more than one way of "fast tracking", as well (and that
the rules have changed fairly recently). With regards to Java,
however, I'm 100% sure of what I said. In France, there is only
one working group for all of the C-like languages: I was very
active in it at the time Sun tried to push Java on us, and we
were responsible for representing France with regards to Java.
It was very clear from the internal discussions that Sun wanted
Java to be an ISO standard, but they didn't want ISO to discuss
anything; what they wanted was just a rubber stamp. When the
French national body (and most others as well) refused, they
withdrew from the standardization proceedure, rather than allow
discussion which they didn't control 100%.

 

[Ioannis Vranos]

The new C++ standard will be release round the conner, but I am not
sure the time. Do anyone know this?

The new C++ standard was designed as C++09 and will be released at
2009. The exciting time is coming.
this standard will at least includes tow major core features, rvalue
references and type concepts.

I know the website of c++ standard committee http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/,
and so many issue proposed and approved lists in the page. But I
didn't what I should start to concert with the dynamic information.
Who has this experience, tell me please.

I want to discuss c++ standard with you, including the release time,
how to keep the trace to the development direction and related issue.
Come on!

Related Videos:

--
Ioannis Vranos

C95 / C++03 Developer

http://www.cpp-software.net

 

[Tony]

I know nothing about the standardization process, but I can't
understand why fixing some "bugs" in a standard draft would
take over a year of time.

If fixing bugs in a program would take that long it would be
rather ridiculous.

"The standard is, in some ways, a "law": it must be voted on, at
different levels. And the votes are by "national bodies", which
in turn have to meet, to decide how to vote. This is why the
delays, at least in part. The national body must receive the
document, then have time for its experts to study it and comment
on it, and then vote."

Quite a different process than was used for the 1100-page USA stimulus bill:
get it the night before, vote on it the following day! Of course that was
only for a measly 800 or so billion dollars so it's understandable.

Tony

 

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* Tony:

"The standard is, in some ways, a "law": it must be voted on, at
different levels. And the votes are by "national bodies", which
in turn have to meet, to decide how to vote. This is why the
delays, at least in part. The national body must receive the
document, then have time for its experts to study it and comment
on it, and then vote."

Quite a different process than was used for the 1100-page USA stimulus bill:
get it the night before, vote on it the following day! Of course that was
only for a measly 800 or so billion dollars so it's understandable.

The C++ standard is, of course, more important...


Cheers,

- Alf

 

[Ian Collins]

I don't know what Sun gave as the official reasons. They
obviously didn't come out an say: we're not getting to run the
whole show, so we're taking our ball and going home, and you
can't play with it. But that's effectively what happened.

Did it?

http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/

 

[Jerry Coffin]

James Kanze wrote:

[ ... ]

Did it?

http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/

Yes. I haven't checked if it's _still_ the case, but for quite a while
at least, the policy (if you looked carefully) was that you were welcome
to give Sun as many suggestions about Java as you wanted, but when you
did so, 1) you gave them all rights to them, and 2) they were under no
obligation to pay them any more attention than they felt like. They
allowed discussion of the future direction of Java, but anytime they
decided they didn't like the discussion, they could remove anybody who
they decided to, shut down entire discussions, etc.

That's nothing like the process for an ISO standard, not even the fast-
track version.

 

[James Kanze]

Did it?
Yes.

http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/

What does that have to do with it? I don't see anything there
which contradicts what I said. So they have "Open Source", and
throw out words like "community". That's good advertising, and
it doesn't change the fact that all of the final decisions
reside in Sun---anyone can participate, but in the end, it's Sun
(and not the community) which decides. And Java remains a very
propriatory language, unlike C++.