From -7758553060496571903
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: f78e5,9011001c33401f25
X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public
From: Kalyan Kolachala <kal@chromatic.com>
Subject: Premises of Fleming's accusations
Date: 1995/05/03
Message-ID: <3o8qgb$d3c@punchdown.zocalo.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 102201692
references: <3o690v$mu@News1.mcs.com>
to: kal@chromatic.com
content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
organization: Zocalo Engineering - Berkeley, California, USA
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.std.c++
x-mailer: Mozilla 1.1b3 (Windows; I; 32bit)

 
jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) wrote: 
> 
>In scanning through the files released by AT&T only three   
names appear 
>in any of the material: 
> 
>		Bjarne Strustrup 
>		Andrew Koenig 
>		P.J. Plauger 
> 
>Is that the entire active ANSI C++ Committee? 
>Is that just the Working Group? 
> 
>Also, there does not appear to be the usual ANSI cover   
material and 
>other "official" language regarding the contents and usage of   
the 
>standard. 
> 
>The documents appear to be distributed by AT&T Bell   
Laboratories and 
>it is not clear whether there is a Copyright release from Plum   
Hall, Inc. 
>There is mention of copyrights held by P.J. Plauger but   
according to 
>P.J. Plauger's book, Plum Hall, Inc. is also involved. 
> 
>Normally, with an ANSI and ISO process, you see a fair amount   
of 
>legalistic material that ensures that there are no hidden   
agendas 
>in the process. This type of material does not seem to be part   
of 
>the "standard" as distributed. 
> 
>Also, it is not clear from the standard how other companies   
would 
>provide alternative class libraries and not end up violating   
the 
>P.J. Plauger copyrights which Bjarne asks everyone to   
"respect". 
 
While it doesn't make sense to react to each of Fleming's 
accusations and misinformation, but I think it is important  
to clarify the premises (all wrong) based on which Fleming's 
accusations are based. Most of the misinformation Fleming has 
been spreading stems from the lack of awareness of the  
standarization process (for most people). I think a few  
clarifications are in order, though I am not the appropriate 
person for that task. 
 
Premise 1: AT&T has a major say in C++ standard. 
 
All the companies participating in the standarization have  
just one vote, be it AT&T, Sun or a consultant (eg Ron  
Guilmette, of bullet-proof shoes fame :-)). Also any   
organization involved with C++ in any way could have been a   
part of the standardization committee.  
 
Premise 2: The draft standard is an "elitist" effort being  
forced on the programming masses. 
 
Nothing could be farther from the truth. The reason C++ has 
been so well accepted in diverse areas, is so well defined and  
free of major structural defects is because of the fact it  
has been produced as a result of the combined effort of the 
compiler vendors, programmers in areas as diverse as telecom. 
databases, library developers, test suite developers and so 
on. Before any major extensions, the proposed features were 
implemented and similar experiences were analyzed (eg. in 
templates, exceptions etc) to avoid potential problems. This 
has also been aided by the fact that most compiler vendors  
weren't far behind in implementing the changes and thus  
possible problems could be identified from programmer feedback 
etc. Refer to D&E for details. 
 
premise 3: All the participants in the standardization are  
there for commercial benefit. 
 
Tha fact is that the C++ community owes a lot to the   
individuals who put so much of effort in bringing  
out the standard and all this for absolutely no monetary 
benefit. 
 
Premise 4: The draft working paper and the committee  
deliberations have been a closely guarded secret. 
 
Not exactly. The reflector messages can be ftp'ed by anybody. 
The interaction was by mailing lists because not all members 
had access to internet. Also one can imagine what would have   
happened to the standard had the likes of Fleming got into it. 
The DWP could have been purchased by anybody (though it is a   
moot point as the draft standard is available for public review   
now). However I feel the draft standard should have been 
freely availbale to the public as most compilers have been  
implementing the changes. 
 
Premise 5: C++ standardization has been a slow process. 
 
Look at what C++ was 3 years back and what it is now. In my 
opinion the standardization has been very fast. eg. Plauger's 
"Draft Standard C++ library" was obsolete by the time it hit 
the market. 
 
I wonder what Fleming has to say to the *facts*. 
 
- Kalyan