Linked by David Adams on Sun 14th Aug 2011 22:41 UTC, submitted by subterrific
General Development The final ISO ballot on C++0x closed on Wednesday, and we just received the results: Unanimous approval. The next revision of C++ that we've been calling "C++0x" is now an International Standard! Geneva will take several months to publish it, but we hope it will be published well within the year, and then we'll be able to call it "C++11."
Thread beginning with comment 485015
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by kaiwai
by moondevil on Mon 15th Aug 2011 07:57 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai"
moondevil
Member since:
2005-07-08

FYI, there are two open source Obj-C compilers (gcc and LLVM/Clang) and open source software can linked against either the OSX library stack or GNUstep.

So, by your standard, one could call C++ proprietary, since most software C++ software is written for a proprietary platform.


C++ is not proprietary. How the language looks like and what libraries are available by default is defined by ANSI and ISO standards.

While Objective-C is defined by Apple's documentation. The compilers you mention only offer partial Objective-C 2.0 support for example.

Plus none of them offer base libraries for the language. Outside Apple systems you are left with GNUStep, which still tries to mimic the NeXTStep environment.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by kaiwai
by Hypnos on Mon 15th Aug 2011 08:40 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by kaiwai"
Hypnos Member since:
2008-11-19

C++ is not proprietary. How the language looks like and what libraries are available by default is defined by ANSI and ISO standards.

Very few languages are ISO standardized. That does not mean the rest are proprietary.

While Objective-C is defined by Apple's documentation. The compilers you mention only offer partial Objective-C 2.0 support for example.

Languages defined by documentation, and having partial compiler support, are also not uncommon.

Plus none of them offer base libraries for the language.

Why does that matter? glibc is separate from gcc, for example.

Outside Apple systems you are left with GNUStep, which still tries to mimic the NeXTStep environment.

While you can assemble a desktop that is some facsimile of NeXTStep using GNUstep, the GNUstep classes now track Cocoa. This is so that OSX apps can be ported to GNUstep platforms (such as Windows), which I think is useful.

***

Perhaps to have a more useful discussion, we should agree on what constitutes a "non-proprietary language standard." How about the Open Source Initiative's definition? Then, which criteria does Obj-C fail to meet?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by kaiwai
by moondevil on Mon 15th Aug 2011 09:32 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by kaiwai"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

The languages without ISO standards usually have open source implementations and are not driven by companies.

A language implementation requires runtime library support, without it, it is meaningless.

Reply Parent Score: 2