Ion Gaztañaga <igaztanaga@gmail.com> writes:
What do you expect of library vendors that want to sell their implementation? There were fears that certain C++ features would make it less useful for embedded developers (be it memory bloat or what else) so they came up with EC++, which helped them sell to the embedded world.
It was always funny to see pjp and the dinkum folks defending EC++ on comp.languages.c++ :)
I didn't know that EC++ was created without C++ comittee consensus, but I think achieving a well-defined subset of C++ is good for C++.
Why?
This involves analizing performance aspects of C++ and can push C++ forward.
How?
This happens in C and other languages.
Example, please?
Obviously you can argue that this is only to sell libraries, but as a embedded developer I don't see any problem in defining a subset for embedded systems because C++ is very extense.
There are good arguments against subsetting; it tends to weaken the standard.
Obviously, it would be better to count with C++ comittee.
I didn't want to start a war regarding EC++, so I maybe I should start talking about "embedded" instead.
Maybe. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com