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 485031
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Yet another standard...
by grendel on Mon 15th Aug 2011 09:19 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Yet another standard..."
grendel
Member since:
2011-08-15

"A. Microsoft removed in-line assembly because they want you to use compiler intrinsics instead. They have several advantages over custom written assembly such as allowing the compiler to actually optimize your assembly. And the best part is that even though these intrinsics aren't part of the C++ standard, most of them are part of an Intel standard that all the different compilers support. Truly write once use everywhere (for the x86 platform). So why are you using hand-written assembly again?
"

I hate when people assume that they know best about problems other people are facing.... *Sigh*.

You seem to be quite bitter in general - this kind of attitude doesn't help to get your point across, even though you might be right at points.

I do *not* *want* the compiler to optimize my *assembly* code. I relay on specific code order to ensure memory barriers and the last thing I could possibly want is to have the compiler mocking around with my code.

Then you should *really* consider moving that code outside the compiler's control, shouldn't you? Also, how really cross-platform code with inline assembly is? Sure, you can use the preprocessor macros to shoe in inline assembly for a dozen of CPUs, but why?

B. I don't use vargs or much complex macros, so I really wouldn't know. However if you are trying to write something cross platform its rather stupid to insist doing things you can't do cross platform, isn't it? Maybe you should reconsider your coding style to be more compatible with multiple compilers.


Re-read my previous post. I do write cross compiler code (read code that's compatible with the brain dead VS pre-processor)... I simply do not like it (E.g. using inline functions instead of macros due to VS's lack of macro-return-value support).

Then this is a matter of taste, not really superiority/inferiority of this or that compiler, isn't it? And de gustibus non disputandum est...

No, I'm not using nmake. I'm using GNU make.
... But to me (feel free to disagree), the lack of good make alternative is a good show-sign as for MS "commitment" for C/Cxx.

It's considered good mannered not to comment on things you don't use or know - doing that will gain you more ears than bitching.

"Thirdly, there's a very good reason why Microsoft want you to stop using them. They were the primary source of buffer overruns in their own software.
"

Sure. they only want whats best for us.
Why use standard size-secure functions that are supported by world+dog when you can invent a completely incompatible C-runtime.
I assume that this is the first time you hear about EEE, right?

And there we go again - why offend somebody who writes without bad intent? What is your point here? That *YOU* know what EEE is? Everybody's clapping hands, granted.

"Just because you don't know how to write portable C++ code doesn't mean it is the fault of Visual C++. Most of the things you complained about isn't even part of any C++ standard (i.e. assembly and nmake).
"

Hey boy, drop the I know best attitude.
Making such bold claims without knowing who I am and what I do for a living (and for how many years) may make you look like a complete condescending asshole.

Personally, I see it quite the opposite. We know what he does (clanlib is out there, you can look at it) and we don't know at all your code so, for what we can see, he's the person with some credentials and title to write about cross-platform C++ while you, kind sir, are not. Show us the code and let's keep discussing.

- Gilboa [/q]

Edited 2011-08-15 09:27 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Yet another standard...
by gilboa on Mon 15th Aug 2011 10:04 in reply to "RE[5]: Yet another standard..."
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

You seem to be quite bitter in general - this kind of attitude doesn't help to get your point across, even though you might be right at points.


Oh, I'm not bitter, at least as far as I know.
But OK, point taken never the less.

Then you should *really* consider moving that code outside the compiler's control, shouldn't you? Also, how really cross-platform code with inline assembly is? Sure, you can use the preprocessor macros to shoe in inline assembly for a dozen of CPUs, but why?


Simple. Far easier for 3'rd party users to interact with C/H files than asm objects.

Then this is a matter of taste, not really superiority/inferiority of this or that compiler, isn't it? And de gustibus non disputandum est...


I'm not sure if you answered my post or the post before that. (Plus, I don't speak Latin ;) )

It's considered good mannered not to comment on things you don't use or know - doing that will gain you more ears than bitching.


Oh, wait a minute:
Where did I say that I never **used** nmake in the past. (Or retry using it from time to time)
I do not use nmake *now* because I rather simply force my downstream users use GNU make as its simply far too hard to get the brain dead nmake (and I'm being -very- polite) do anything useful.
Again, assumptions, assumptions, assumptions.

And there we go again - why offend somebody who writes without bad intent? What is your point here? That *YOU* know what EEE is? Everybody's clapping hands, granted.


Call it lacking reading comprehension skills on my end... but... Ughhh... what?
(The point is that Microsoft could have simply used standard methods to write "safe" functions but instead, like 10^6 times before, choose to invent a new and completely incompatible API. [Don't get me started about the so-called-POSIX-layer])

Personally, I see it quite the opposite. We know what he does (clanlib is out there, you can look at it) and we don't know at all your code so, for what we can see, he's the person with some credentials and title to write about cross-platform C++ while you, kind sir, are not. Show us the code and let's keep discussing.


Sorry, I must have missed that "show us the code before posting" warning sign, sorry.
You do understand that, well, whether I'm a competent C/C++ developer has nothing to do with the point I've made, and the only personal comment was by the previous poster and you, and in both case, tend to be a clear sign of having a weak argument to being with, right?

- Gilboa

Edited 2011-08-15 10:11 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Yet another standard...
by grendel on Mon 15th Aug 2011 10:32 in reply to "RE[6]: Yet another standard..."
grendel Member since:
2011-08-15

"You seem to be quite bitter in general - this kind of attitude doesn't help to get your point across, even though you might be right at points.


Oh, I'm not bitter, at least as far as I know.
But OK, point taken never the less.
"
Good ;) , always a nice thing to come to mutual understanding

"Then you should *really* consider moving that code outside the compiler's control, shouldn't you? Also, how really cross-platform code with inline assembly is? Sure, you can use the preprocessor macros to shoe in inline assembly for a dozen of CPUs, but why?


Simple. Far easier for 3'rd party users to interact with C/H files than asm objects.
"
Fair point, but considering that 99% of 3rd party users have no idea about assembly these days... kind of moot ;) I still think putting assembler code in separate files is a much better approach (and discussing it quite beyond the scope of this thread ;) )

"Then this is a matter of taste, not really superiority/inferiority of this or that compiler, isn't it? And de gustibus non disputandum est...


I'm not sure if you answered my post or the post before that. (Plus, I don't speak Latin ;) )
"
Your post, and the Latin sentence in free translation means "one does not discuss the tastes" ;)

"It's considered good mannered not to comment on things you don't use or know - doing that will gain you more ears than bitching.


Oh, hold your horses there, there.
Where did I say that I never **used** nmake in the past. (Or retry using it from time to time)
I do not use nmake *now* because I rather simply force my downstream users use GNU make as its simply far too hard to get the brain dead nmake (and I'm being -very- polite) do anything useful.
"
*You* know *you* do not use make *now* - we don't know that about you. All you said was "I don't use nmake" which for all the readers means just that... How on earth should we know whether or not you used it before?

"And there we go again - why offend somebody who writes without bad intent? What is your point here? That *YOU* know what EEE is? Everybody's clapping hands, granted.


Call it lacking reading comprehension skills on my end... but... Ughhh... what?
"
You throw in a TLA and expect everybody to know it (or not) and if somebody doesn't you go "Oh, so I guess you haven't heard about it... doh". As many things in your post(s), this doesn't buy you friends or understanding, makes you look like a show-off.

(The point is that Microsoft could have simply use the standard method to write "safe" functions but instead, like 10^6 times before, choose to invent a new and completely incompatible API. (And don't get me started about MS' POSIX layer)

They could have, they didn't - so what. Being all up in rage about it won't change a thing. I'm also not in love with MS platform as far as native coding goes (until 3 days ago I had successfully stayed out of its way for 10+ years) but bitching never gets you farther than just coding your stuff. In my experience there's always another way to do something you do - and if your way of doing somethig is becoming more and more tedious and burdensome, then there's something wrong with it.

"Personally, I see it quite the opposite. We know what he does (clanlib is out there, you can look at it) and we don't know at all your code so, for what we can see, he's the person with some credentials and title to write about cross-platform C++ while you, kind sir, are not. Show us the code and let's keep discussing.


Sorry, I must have missed that "show us the code before posting" warning sign, sorry.
"
There's no such policy in place, of course, but you attacked a person who showed his "credentials" while you haven't shown yours. Makes you a bit less credible, at least IMO.

You do understand that, well, whether I'm a competent C/C++ developer has nothing to do with the point I've made, and the only personal comment was by the previous poster and you, and in both case, tend to be a clear sign of having a weak argument to being with, right?

You commented on something which requires at least some working knowledge of C++. Also, your comment was written as if coming from somebody who knows C++ in and out - that puts it in a different perspective, doesn't it? As for the personal comments - the way you presented your point was offensive and confrontational for no real reason. And it did look like the usual anti-MS trolling (so 1990s IMO). And before you comment on the last sentence - I've been using Linux since literally its beginning, I used to "hate" MS in the GNU zealot style but I grew up. Let me offer you a piece of advice here - just get your stuff done, don't waste time on bitching about things you can't change. I suppose you consider yourself to be a hacker. If yes, behave like one - work around limitations, change stuff you don't like, invent new ways of doing things and "code boldly when no-one has coded before" ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1