C ++标准委员会审查不同意见

我是C ++ / CLI的原因非常简单。如果C ++绑定到CLI，那么 C ++不应该被更改。绑定应该通过库 而不是改变C ++语法。 CLI就像CORBA一样。 C ++和CORBA之间的绑定 从不需要更改C ++。为什么C ++和CLI之间绑定 需要C ++更改？当然，它是微软， the bigot。人们称赞CLI，称其为独立平台。 请屏住呼吸。由于Windows是专有操作系统，因此总是只有一个供应商才能获得。即使CLI成为标准，也没有人能够在Windows中实现它。如果微软不喜欢 CLI中的某些功能，她可能在Windows中没有实现，因此功能 将毫无用处。此外，如果CLI标准委员会充满了微软和她的sycophants，你怎么能让CLI供应商和 平台独立？通过改变C ++语法将C ++与.NET联系起来会导致C ++，IMO的最终死亡。一些C ++ 标准委员会帮助微软污染C ++的原因，正如我所看到的，是关于钱的问题。您拥有Herb Sutter委员会主席，其中为微软工作，成员PJ Plauger将图书馆出售给微软。 这导致了我的结论。我们应该解散C ++标准 委员会并组建一个C ++ Foundation作为开源。在C ++ Foundation下，以标准方式合并一些C ++技术，包括C ++语言的，C ++运行时环境和C ++中间件平台。 如果我们能做到这一点，我看到了C ++的光明前景。OH,yea! You are the one who vigorously promote C++/CLI. It iscertain that you can sell more C++/CLI libraries to Microsoft. ForC++ programmers, we get more ugly syntax and confusion, and lessspirit of C++. I think you have created a perfect shoe for yourselfto wear.-------------------------------------------------------------------The reason for rejection was flame. But why they never reject P.J.Plauger''s flame posting? Certainly, I just tell the truth: P.J.Plauger and his company sell C++/CLI libraries to Microsoft and that''swhy he supports Microsoft to pollute C++.We all see C++ is declining. However, if someone criticizes C++standard committee, they either censor different opinions or shut upcriticism by saying "no participate and no voice". As one posterstated, it was waste time to participate C++ standard process sincethe C++ standard committee never achieved anything after C++ wasstandardized in 1999. I concur! The reason of C++ declining, IMO, isC++ is lack of libraries in a standard way for common programmingtasks into applications, such as thread library. The committeeresponded to this criticism was they didn''t have time or no oneparticipated. But there are plenty good open source libraries, forexample, ACE has a nice thread implementation. If they areincompetent to create one, why do they just accept one from opensource? If you put open source technology QT/KDE for desktop, ACE forrun-time environment, TAO for CORBA middleware implementation, ApacheC++ implementation for XML and Web Services together under C++ roof,IMO, it is far superior to J2EE and .NET. Why they have to tie C++ to..NET instead of standardizing the above technologies so that C++ cancompete with Java and .NET?The reason I am againt C++/CLI is very simple. If C++ binds to CLI,C++ shouldn''t be changed. The binding should be through libraryinstead of changing C++ syntax. CLI is just like CORBA. The bindingbetween C++ and CORBA never requires C++ change. Why does the bindingbetween C++ and CLI require C++ change? Certainly, it is Microsoft,the bigot. People praise CLI, calling it platform independent.Please hold your breath. Since Windows is a proprietary OS, there isalways one single vendor. Even if CLI becomes standard, no one canimplement it in Windows. If Microsoft doesn''t like some features inCLI, she could have no implementation in Windows so that the featureswould be useless. Also, if CLI standard committee is full ofMicrosoft and her sycophants, how could you make CLI vendor andplatform independent? Tying C++ to .NET by changing C++ syntax wouldlead to the ultimate death of C++, IMO. The reason for some C++standard committee to help Microsoft to pollute C++, as I can see, isabout money. You have the chairman of the committee Herb Sutter whoworks for Microsoft, and member P.J. Plauger who sell libraries toMicrosoft.That leads to my conclusion. We should dissolve C++ standardcommittee and form a C++ Foundation as an open source. Under C++Foundation, merge some C++ technologies in a standard way consistingof C++ language, C++ run-time environment and C++ middleware platform.If we can do it, I see a bright future for C++.推荐答案 你'你手上有太多时间了！我坚信 如果你有足够的精力，尽量不要发动叛乱 但是参与治理结构并对其进行修改来自内部的系统。如果你找不到任何其他的方式，但燃烧 新闻组中的某人（主持或其他）并要求当前 [工作]委员会''s解散，然后就是所有热空气。 想想形成你的另类基础在你自己然后看看 它的票价（以及你得到多少粉丝）以及它是否会导致委员会最终的下降。只有这样才能证明你的方式更好。 只是我的You''ve got waaaay too much time on your hands! I strongly believethat if you have plenty of energy to spare, try not to start a rebellionbut instead participate in governing structures and make changes to thesystem from inside. And if you can''t find any other ways but flamingsomebody in a newsgroup (moderated or otherwise) and calling for a current[working] committee''s dissolution, then it''s just all hot air.Think of forming your alternative "foundation" on your own and then seehow it fares (and how many followers you get) and whether it will lead tothe committee''s eventual decline. Only that will prove that your way isbetter.Just my 我在clc ++中设置了一个类似的线程，标题为C ++ / CLI 标准。请回复那里，以便能够在一个线程中进行交谈！ 你的意思是被审查了。我的消息需要大约12个多小时才能显示在clc ++ m中。 我将在C ++ / CLI线程中回答您的其余消息。 /> 问候， Ioannis VranosI have set a similar thread here in clc++, under the title C++/CLIstandard. Please reply there so as to be able to talk in one thread!What do you mean it was censored. My messages take about 12+ hours toappear in clc++m.I will answer you for the rest of your message in the C++/CLI thread.Regards,Ioannis Vranos 这篇关于C ++标准委员会审查不同意见的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持！ 上岸，阿里云！