From 7072246424171467407 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!news1.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: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 15:30:07 -0500 Return-Path: To: (Usenet) From: Francis Glassborow Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: Any hopes for export ? Organization: unknown Sender: cppmods@cs.rpi.edu Approved: austern@google.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 23:46:31 +0100 X-Submission-Address: std-c++@netlab.cs.rpi.edu Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 15:22:35 CST Lines: 88 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-l8QW53GZqyzsxmfGKNdCdZuC8K2EGJrxgT1Y0oEkKFQONZdJBy1q315FMlCfnBcxv3iYudVafXYFJA4!7+V2sh7Clm8zfQVBRgKs4F6041XLLWvycP6Ow2gv0tQywqQ2T3qxFrEjowgMsmCARqg7 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++:2821 Gennaro Prota wrote: > 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...). > Which their customers want them to focus on. Companies reasonably make commercial decisions that is what their owners expect them to do. > > 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.) > OK, but they did not exactly encourage others to implement it even knowing that without other companies supporting it their efforts were not going to reap much money even if it did give them a lot of kudos. > * language users need a way to use templates without bringing in > all the dependencies; no politics here > Indeed, but I said way back then that the 'export solution' just obstructed a proper solution (just as trigraphs got tin the way of a clean solution to character sets -- of course that was rather less important and was easy to implement but you should know that many thousands of hours were spent on that issue and it still creates problems today) > * 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? > No it isn't. Committees that refuse to admit their mistakes are far worse. You seem to have a weird view of what and IS is. It is something produced by consensus of those participating. I may be wrong but I am not aware of a single National Body objecting to the removal of export. I do know of several that are impatient to get the current FCD shipped as an IS so that they can start work on the next release (which many individuals hope will be shipped in a lot less than 10 years, and that is substantially because there is a backlog of things that WG21 want to work on without delaying the shipping the current work. That is exactly why Concepts got pulled, not with the intention of killing them but with the intention of not delaying all the other good stuff) -- [ 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 ]