On 4/2/2016 2:04 AM, degski wrote:
On 1 April 2016 at 23:52, Paul Mensonides <pmenso57@comcast.net> wrote:
Don't keep going on that it's all crap.
I am not referring to VC++. I am referring to clang intentionally conforming to VC++ rather than conforming to the Standard. That decision is crap and the mentality that produced it is also crap. The same is true for any other intentional nonconformance. What it says to me is either that clang's popularity is more important to the clang project than clang doing the right thing (i.e. decisions based on benefitting clang (popularity/adoption/etc.) not on benefitting the C++ community) or that the clang project's technical decision-making is extremely shortsighted--or both.
Microsoft does not get to decide what C++ is. The C++ standard committee
decides that.
I'm sure Herb Sutter keeps them in the loop on this one.
This is about what clang is doing, not Microsoft. Microsoft has intentionally disregarded the Standard repeatedly over a long period of time. They are getting better, slowly. That's old news. Clang, however, has now made a decision to intentionally disregard the Standard as well in order to attempt conform to Microsoft's definition of C++. Microsoft lost my respect a long time ago and has yet to regain it. Clang has now lost it as well.
Where VC++ is good or bad with respect to the conformance should be irrelevant to all other compilers.
And it could be, but where's libc++ for windows, f.e.?
Indeed (w/conforming C library). But not relevant when vendors are intentionally non-conforming (e.g. clang).
The standard each of them is measured against is not each other but, well, the Standard. That breeds competition rather than lock-in, and it is that competition that provides the motivation that ultimately yields improved time frames.
From the links above, the message I get is that M$ has taken op that challenge. It seems the mountain is coming to Mohammad. Give W10 and vs2015U2 a try, and be honest when giving your feedback.
Microsoft has "taken up the challenge" more times now than I can count. I will believe it when I see it. That is not to say that VC++ isn't improving (because it is), but the pace is slow, and I have yet to see anything that leads me to believe it comes from any sense of ethics (i.e. that Microsoft's trajectory is trustworthy because the forces that drive that trajectory are ethical). WRT W8+: That is a whole other issue. Attempting to artificially turn a product into a service is not only unethical but also exploitative. It is the software equivalent of a payday loan. Microsoft is hardly alone is doing this, but W8 is where it started WRT to Windows itself. I don't care how technically good it may or may not be at that point. Regards, Paul Mensonides