Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/10/29/12:57:30
On 10/29/97 11:20:22 AM Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Oct 1997, Paul Moore wrote:
>
>> Is GCC (and hence DJGPP) likely to come back up to speed on the
>> standard C++ implementation anytime soon?
>
>What ``standard'' are we talking about here? AFAIK, no ANSI C++
>standards were issued lately, they just keep introducing new features
>and significant changes into the Draft for what seems like forever.
>
No. The committee decided not to accept any new changes in the
language and the standard library. ANSI / ISO C++ is settled down.
(although not formally yet)
>IMHO, the ``current state of art'' is a hodgepodge of incompatible
>features and extensions produced because compiler vendors are trying
>to shoot a moving target--the evolving standard--and the target moves
>too fast. I have yet to see a C++ program using the ``state of the
>art'' that can be compiled without infinite #ifdef'ery with two
>different compilers, even if they both support these hot features.
>
It is not a moving-target now. The #ifdef'ery is still inevitable since
compilers are not
compatible with the standard.
>Personally, I refuse to work with a language (or features thereof) for
>which a reasonably-accepted standard doesn't exist. I find it a waste
>of my efforts to debug what in the end boils down to immature
>technology badly implemented by over-zealous vendors which try to
>throw in all of the hottest features mentioned in the last-night
>conference of the X3J16 comittee, so it looks better in the ads. I
>prefer to excercise will-power and do my job using more stable tools.
>
This is correct in general but not with STL. STL is around for three years
now,
and it is stable.
BTW, STL library was not designed by or written for X3J16 committee. It was
written
by a computer scientist (Stepanov) who studied generic programming for
years.
The committee just accepted the C++ implementation of his library as a part
of the standard library (with minor modifications)
Eyal.
- Raw text -