Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Stan Lippman On Version 2 Of Managed C++

Posted by timothy on from the onward-and-upward dept.

Lansdowne writes "Stan Lippman, one of the founding fathers of C++ and currently a language architect at Microsoft, has prepared an exhaustive translation guide, comparing old Managed C++ to the revised CLI/.NET version of C++. According to Lippman, "There are a number of significant weaknesses in the original language design (Version 1), which we feel are corrected in the revised language design (Version 2).""

3 of 40 comments (clear)

  1. Re:I don't understand by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 0, Troll

    It's all about Microsoft lock-in. Don't kid yourself otherwise.

    --
    You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  2. Re:What's happening to C++?! by QuantumG · · Score: 1, Troll

    Unfortunately the C++ standards commitee has always been a corrupt bunch of language lawyers. You just have to look at all the money that Plum Hall make selling updates to their test suite and then trace back who on the commitee actually proposed and championed the changes to the standard in the first place to see that.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  3. Re:What's happening to C++?! by Animats · · Score: 0, Troll
    Someone remarked the other day, possibly on this very board, along the lines of "the C++ standardisation committee is now full of template-loving metaprogramming fans" who are more concerned with fixing their pet superlibraries than they are with fixing the more glaring flaws in C++ as a modern programming language. I'm sure anyone who follows developments around the language, particularly the serious Usenet groups, will see at least an element of truth in that claim.

    Yes. The top priority of the C++ standards committee is adding obscure template features few would trust in production code. There's active hostility to any attempt to increase the safety of the language. There's denial, led by Strostrup, that C++ has major problems.

    The latest thing over there is to introduce a really clever lock-free thread synchronization concept. It improves performance slightly at the cost of making concurrent programming as complex as distributed multiprocessor cache design.

    Some serious effort should be given to working through the IEEE to redirect, or remove if necessary, the existing C++ committee.