From 7874302054053487975 X-Google-Thread: f78e5,ea98f3a176444971 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gid7894ca11fe,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news2.google.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 17:20:01 -0500 Return-Path: To: (Usenet) From: Gennaro Prota Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: Any hopes for export ? Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Sender: cppmods@cs.rpi.edu Approved: james.dennett@gmail.com Message-ID: References: <4c4b9020$0$274$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed X-Original-Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 14:36:05 +0200 X-Submission-Address: std-c++@netlab.cs.rpi.edu Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 17:12:50 CST Lines: 54 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-eFp4LjzI1plMsf20FKcIwazcD9j9qcJRovSb44KF0BQwi74zOsCRgS8dO9fQH5nYhhpEtlSyrK2TD2n!gFWuFkqgVShZUfweLs/kYFPpGQQW6ZkgRL4om6vMvcPyCE7vYdXdm4LB X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.std.c++:2818 On 26/07/2010 20.08, Francis Glassborow wrote: [...] >> >> P.S. >> Please bear with me and do not find this new post of my too >> aggressive (many people have had it with endless debate on export). >> I have a general feeling people are against export because it is >> controversial and not for solid reasons. >> Please replay on comp.lang.c++.moderated. > > I think you are mistaken. People are against export because it was > ill-conceived (you may not realise it but it was a largely political > solution, unwanted by most implementers) One day, someone should grab a chair and write "The True Story of Export". I've read everything and its contrary about it, and I have probably seen one thousandth of the newsgroup threads on the topic (which *has* been enough to wear me out, really; in some of them, people who had attended the same meeting carried completely opposite recollections on what happened and its whys; absurd...). I think there are three points we can't really argue about: * the claim that it's too expensive to implement is an excuse. It's just that companies want to spend their time on other things (CLI, Java...). And it becomes absolutely ridiculous when the comparison is done with the effort it took to EDG: it's true that they are a lot better than the competition but, guys, they were just three people! (AFAIK, the implementation was done before William Miller joined them. Or they were four people.) * language users need a way to use templates without bringing in all the dependencies; no politics here * the removal of export sets a terrible precedent: companies send their representatives, discuss things ad infinitum --delaying an international standard for all of us to enjoy-- then wake up a morning and decide that they don't want to implement something. What if they get used to the game? -- Gennaro Prota | name.surname yahoo.com Blog: Breeze C++ (preview): Do you need expertise in C++? I'm available. [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@netlab.cs.rpi.edu] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html ]