 |
C++Talk.NET
C++ language newsgroups
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
David Eng
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2004 2:39 pm Post subject: The future of C++ |
 |
|
| Quote: | For many years now enterprise business application development has
been the core area for the use of C++.
Today a significant share to this segment has already been lost to
SUN's Java technology and with MS now abandoning C++ in favour if its
proprietery .NET and C# technology, how long can we except C++ to hold
on against these might competitors?
Has C++ become a dying language?
What is the future of C++?
|
As I posted in CORBA group, I believe the future of C++ depends on
CORBA (the same is true that the future of CORBA depends on the future
of C++). Applications are built today are distributed applications
instead of stand alone applications. For C++ to success in this
environment, it has to have a middleware platform. C++ has a
disadvantage comparing to Java and C# which both have a middleware
platform. However, CORBA can become the middleware platform for C++.
CORBA's strength is built on programming language independence. There
is need for Java or C# to talk to C++. If C++ doesn't have a future,
why applications need to talk to C++? If no applications talk to C++,
then why people need to use CORBA since Java has EJB middleware and C#
has .NET? The answer is clear, the C++ standard committee and OMG
must work together to create a better mapping and association between
C++ and CORBA. They must understand that the future of C++ and CORBA
is dependent on each other. If they realize this relationship, I
believe the future of C++ and CORBA is bright. The reason is simple:
together, C++ and CORBA can build mission critical applications which
Java and C# cannot even think about.
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Edward Diener
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2004 9:21 pm Post subject: Re: The future of C++ |
|
|
David Eng wrote:
| Quote: | For many years now enterprise business application development has
been the core area for the use of C++.
Today a significant share to this segment has already been lost to
SUN's Java technology and with MS now abandoning C++ in favour if
its > proprietery .NET and C# technology, how long can we except C++
to hold > on against these might competitors?
Has C++ become a dying language?
What is the future of C++?
As I posted in CORBA group, I believe the future of C++ depends on
CORBA (the same is true that the future of CORBA depends on the future
of C++).
|
Hardly.
C++ thrives very well, thank you, for a wide variety of platforms,
compilers, and standard libraries despite Sun's, Microsoft's, and Borland's
attempts to treat it as a second-rate language in order to promote their own
favored computer programming languages. It can adapt itself to CORBA, DCOM,
and most whatever other middleware comes down the road. Getting caught up in
the politics of software development hype is, thankfully, not what C++ is
all about.
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bryan Bullard
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2004 9:21 pm Post subject: Re: The future of C++ |
|
|
"David Eng" <davideng2004 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote
| Quote: |
For many years now enterprise business application development has
been the core area for the use of C++.
Today a significant share to this segment has already been lost to
SUN's Java technology and with MS now abandoning C++ in favour if its
proprietery .NET and C# technology, how long can we except C++ to hold
on against these might competitors?
Has C++ become a dying language?
What is the future of C++?
As I posted in CORBA group, I believe the future of C++ depends on
CORBA (the same is true that the future of CORBA depends on the future
of C++). Applications are built today are distributed applications
instead of stand alone applications. For C++ to success in this
environment, it has to have a middleware platform. C++ has a
disadvantage comparing to Java and C# which both have a middleware
platform. However, CORBA can become the middleware platform for C++.
CORBA's strength is built on programming language independence. There
is need for Java or C# to talk to C++. If C++ doesn't have a future,
why applications need to talk to C++? If no applications talk to C++,
then why people need to use CORBA since Java has EJB middleware and C#
has .NET? The answer is clear, the C++ standard committee and OMG
must work together to create a better mapping and association between
C++ and CORBA. They must understand that the future of C++ and CORBA
is dependent on each other. If they realize this relationship, I
believe the future of C++ and CORBA is bright. The reason is simple:
together, C++ and CORBA can build mission critical applications which
Java and C# cannot even think about.
|
One of the primary strengths of C++ is that it is general purpose and
doesn't try to conform to all the latest bells and whistles (like Java
does). In 10 or 15 years when all the technologies that are built into Java
have become obsolete what good will Java be?
...
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Walt Karas
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2004 4:01 pm Post subject: Re: The future of C++ |
|
|
[email]davideng2004 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com[/email] (David Eng) wrote in message news:<6b74193f.0404130754.5c40f511 (AT) posting (DOT) google.com>...
| Quote: | For many years now enterprise business application development has
been the core area for the use of C++.
Today a significant share to this segment has already been lost to
SUN's Java technology and with MS now abandoning C++ in favour if its
proprietery .NET and C# technology, how long can we except C++ to hold
on against these might competitors?
Has C++ become a dying language?
What is the future of C++?
As I posted in CORBA group, I believe the future of C++ depends on
CORBA (the same is true that the future of CORBA depends on the future
of C++). Applications are built today are distributed applications
instead of stand alone applications. For C++ to success in this
environment, it has to have a middleware platform. C++ has a
disadvantage comparing to Java and C# which both have a middleware
platform. However, CORBA can become the middleware platform for C++.
CORBA's strength is built on programming language independence. There
is need for Java or C# to talk to C++. If C++ doesn't have a future,
why applications need to talk to C++? If no applications talk to C++,
then why people need to use CORBA since Java has EJB middleware and C#
has .NET? The answer is clear, the C++ standard committee and OMG
must work together to create a better mapping and association between
C++ and CORBA. They must understand that the future of C++ and CORBA
is dependent on each other. If they realize this relationship, I
believe the future of C++ and CORBA is bright. The reason is simple:
together, C++ and CORBA can build mission critical applications which
Java and C# cannot even think about.
|
In many ways, comparing Java or C# to C++ is not an apples-to-apples
comparison. Java and C# are ultimately products. C++ is more like
a "movement". Java and C# have tightly-coupled approaches to
distributed applications because this is financially advantageous
to their makers. I don't see how this is advantageous to language
users.
The C++ of today is a very different and much more powerful language
than the C++ of the 1980s. We continue to call it C++ because it
is backward-compatible that older language, and it has evolved
more or less in-step with the needs and thinking of a large community
of software developers. We probably would be calling the language "C"
had it not caused a schism in the community of software developers
using C.
Twenty years from now, I would guess there will still be an important
language called C++. That's assuming no one comes up with a
general-purpose computer achitecture that's radically different and
better than the von Neumann architecture.
C++, Java and C# all have the attraction of being relatively new and
causing some controversy. I know next to nothing about laundry soap,
so I buy a recognizable, heavily-marketed brand, to avoid buying
a product that completely sucks. For similar reasons, people who
don't know that much about software development gravitate to Java
and C#. Java and C# are attractive because they are somewhat smaller
languages and have fewer library options. (Freedom From Choice is often
more attractive than Freedom Of Choice.) But, after seeing the
usefulness of C++ features that Java and C# leave out, it seems like
as good an idea as cutting your leg off to reduce excess weight.
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Le Chaud Lapin
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2004 4:07 pm Post subject: Re: The future of C++ |
|
|
[email]davideng2004 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com[/email] (David Eng) wrote in message news:<6b74193f.0404130754.5c40f511 (AT) posting (DOT) google.com>...
| Quote: | As I posted in CORBA group, I believe the future of C++ depends on
CORBA (the same is true that the future of CORBA depends on the future
of C++). [snip]
CORBA's strength is built on programming language independence. [snip]
|
Yuck. Please don't take this perosonally, but I find distrbuted
polylingual polymorphic objects disgusting. After years of duking it
out with Microsoft COM abominations, I am convinced that some
boundaries are not meant to be blurred, and making an
all-encompassing, super model for "distributed objects" is gross if it
comes with box of duct tape and chicken wire.
Every language has a distinct type space, and no matter what trickery
is employed, if programs written in two different languages must
communicate with each other, at some point, the boundary between the
type spaces must be dealt with. Any attempt to smooth over the
interface without regard for the fact that the type spaces *are*
distinct results in cumbersome tools like data marshallers and weird
compilers that require perturbation of the host languages.
If multilingual interaction is required, it would be much better to
find a way to get data from node A to node B, entirely within the
framework of one prescribed language [why not C++?], then provide
specific mechanisms to translate from the prescribed language to a
target language as necessary, and if possible. After all, the
boundary will have to be crossed by someone at some point anyway, so
why make everyone suffer when it is the polyglot who is asking for it?
You might say, "Well, there is an enormous benefit of having
language-independent objects accessible from any node by any
language." I would agree if it were actually possible to have such a
thing.
No unified typespace can scale to the mode of aggregation that complex
(not complicated) systems demand without the need to think carefully
about what happens when aggregate objects need to cross from the
unified type space to a specific type space. I doubt that it is
possible to go from
Associative_Polyarchy<String_, Associative_List
Polyarchy >
on a node running C++ to the same thing on a node running C# while
keeping the data structure in one piece. The problem is that I use my
source language to construct things, and if the elements of
construction do not exist in the target language, then I must somehow
manually syntesize the construct anyway. If it is stipulated that I
must choose from a particular set of primitives, and use them in a
certain way in my source language, then guess what? I am no longer
speaking my native language. This fact can be seen by reading between
the lines on Microsoft's MSDN site. They openly profess .NET's
language independence while surreptitiously attempting to displace C++
in favor of C#, which, among other things will allow to them to
provide platforms and tools on Unix & Company undermining their market
dominance.
-Chaud Lapin-
By the way, French is language-independent. All you have to do is
learn how to get from French to English, French to German, French to
Swahili...
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nikolai Borissov
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2004 4:10 pm Post subject: Re: The future of C++ |
|
|
"David Eng" <davideng2004 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote
| Quote: |
For many years now enterprise business application development has
been the core area for the use of C++.
Today a significant share to this segment has already been lost to
SUN's Java technology and with MS now abandoning C++ in favour if its
proprietery .NET and C# technology, how long can we except C++ to hold
on against these might competitors?
Has C++ become a dying language?
What is the future of C++?
As I posted in CORBA group, I believe the future of C++ depends on
CORBA (the same is true that the future of CORBA depends on the future
of C++). Applications are built today are distributed applications
instead of stand alone applications. For C++ to success in this
environment, it has to have a middleware platform. C++ has a
disadvantage comparing to Java and C# which both have a middleware
platform. However, CORBA can become the middleware platform for C++.
CORBA's strength is built on programming language independence. There
is need for Java or C# to talk to C++. If C++ doesn't have a future,
why applications need to talk to C++? If no applications talk to C++,
then why people need to use CORBA since Java has EJB middleware and C#
has .NET? The answer is clear, the C++ standard committee and OMG
must work together to create a better mapping and association between
C++ and CORBA. They must understand that the future of C++ and CORBA
is dependent on each other. If they realize this relationship, I
believe the future of C++ and CORBA is bright. The reason is simple:
together, C++ and CORBA can build mission critical applications which
Java and C# cannot even think about.
|
Yes this is important, indeed! It's not just about a competition between
different languages; it's about conceptual changes in information
processing. Clear, at least to me that distributed computing becomes a
mainstream. And the importance of middleware, which supports distributed
computing, must not be underestimated (regardless of any languages).
The trend is that middleware becomes a sort of virtual informational
environment independent of operating systems and hardware, evolving
according to its own internal logic and logic of the Web. Lower levels
(hardware, firmware, OS) will become dependent on this logic and will
evolve in the direction of supporting it. We all heard about His vision
that in 10 years hardware will be almost free. I think he's right now,
it'll be a cheap vehicle with the only purpose of running distributed
software on numerous devices around us.
If C++ is not integrated in the middleware as a key component it will
become marginalized and die in misery. Less perfect languages will thrive
as long as they provide the required support for middleware. But if C++
or its successor serves as a keystone for middleware and distributing
computing it'll live a long life and die in glory. Therefore it becomes
very important to evolve C++ in that direction. Perhaps new C++ (C+++ or
C3P ??) should not be concerned about backward compatibility. It's more
important to preserve the spirit of C++ (than compatibility with C) and
make it a natural language for distributed processing.
I'm not a COBRA expert, but if C++/COBRA may indeed be a successful
marriage the chance must not be wasted.
Nikolai Borissov
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
llewelly
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2004 6:29 am Post subject: Re: The future of C++ |
|
|
[email]wkaras (AT) yahoo (DOT) com[/email] (Walt Karas) writes:
[snip]
| Quote: | The C++ of today is a very different and much more powerful language
than the C++ of the 1980s. We continue to call it C++ because it
is backward-compatible that older language,
|
Really? I bet the hello world example in TC++PL2 (1988, I believe)
does not compile on a conforming compiler. Recall that the
standards comittee dropped the .h / .hpp extention on header
names, moved all iostream names into namespace std::, and made
many other lesser but still non-backward compatible changes.
[snip]
| Quote: | Java and C# are attractive because they are somewhat smaller
languages and have fewer library options.
[snip] |
What do you mean 'have fewer library options?' Last I checked, the
Java standard library was much, much, larger than the C++ standard
library; it includes DBI, GUI, xml, a component architecture, a
kitchen sink, and a bathtub.
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Walt Karas
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2004 12:39 am Post subject: Re: The future of C++ |
|
|
llewelly <llewelly.at (AT) xmission (DOT) dot.com> wrote
| Quote: | wkaras (AT) yahoo (DOT) com (Walt Karas) writes:
[snip]
The C++ of today is a very different and much more powerful language
than the C++ of the 1980s. We continue to call it C++ because it
is backward-compatible that older language,
Really? I bet the hello world example in TC++PL2 (1988, I believe)
does not compile on a conforming compiler. Recall that the
standards comittee dropped the .h / .hpp extention on header
names, moved all iostream names into namespace std::, and made
many other lesser but still non-backward compatible changes.
|
By "backwards-compatible" I meant "mostly backwards-compatible"
not "100% backwards compatible". To me, 100% backwards-compatibility
is not a reasonable expectation, because it would even exclude any
new reserve words.
| Quote: |
[snip]
Java and C# are attractive because they are somewhat smaller
languages and have fewer library options.
[snip]
What do you mean 'have fewer library options?' Last I checked, the
Java standard library was much, much, larger than the C++ standard
library; it includes DBI, GUI, xml, a component architecture, a
kitchen sink, and a bathtub.
|
I meant considering libraries in general, not just the standard libraries.
I believe there are multiple C++ libraries for all of the above, both
proprietary and open source.
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steven T. Hatton
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2004 6:03 am Post subject: Re: The future of C++ |
|
|
Bryan Bullard wrote:
| Quote: | One of the primary strengths of C++ is that it is general purpose and
doesn't try to conform to all the latest bells and whistles (like Java
does). In 10 or 15 years when all the technologies that are built into
Java have become obsolete what good will Java be?
|
Which technologies are those? There is the core Java language as specified
in _The Java Language Specification_, by, James Gosling, Bill Joy, Guy
Steele, Gilad Bracha, and then there is a huge collection of fairly well
integrated supporting libraries. Note: that's the same Guy Steele who
coauthored the highly regarded _C: A Reference Manual, Fifth Edition_.
CORBA should not be part of the C++ language anymore than Enterprise
JavaBeans, or RMI are part of the Java Language Specification.
Nonetheless, CORBA represents the direct C++ counterpart of come of Java's
most successful technologies.
--
STH
http://www.kdevelop.org
http://www.suse.com
http://www.mozilla.org
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
llewelly
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2004 10:03 am Post subject: Re: The future of C++ |
|
|
[email]wkaras (AT) yahoo (DOT) com[/email] (Walt Karas) writes:
| Quote: | llewelly <llewelly.at (AT) xmission (DOT) dot.com> wrote
[email]wkaras (AT) yahoo (DOT) com[/email] (Walt Karas) writes:
[snip]
The C++ of today is a very different and much more powerful language
than the C++ of the 1980s. We continue to call it C++ because it
is backward-compatible that older language,
Really? I bet the hello world example in TC++PL2 (1988, I believe)
does not compile on a conforming compiler. Recall that the
standards comittee dropped the .h / .hpp extention on header
names, moved all iostream names into namespace std::, and made
many other lesser but still non-backward compatible changes.
By "backwards-compatible" I meant "mostly backwards-compatible"
not "100% backwards compatible". To me, 100% backwards-compatibility
is not a reasonable expectation, because it would even exclude any
new reserve words.
|
Yes, I should have read your statement that way in the first
place.
Btw, IMO, there is no keyword in C++ which caused as many backword
compatibility problems as moving the the library names into
namespace std.
| Quote: | [snip]
Java and C# are attractive because they are somewhat smaller
languages and have fewer library options.
[snip]
What do you mean 'have fewer library options?' Last I checked, the
Java standard library was much, much, larger than the C++ standard
library; it includes DBI, GUI, xml, a component architecture, a
kitchen sink, and a bathtub.
I meant considering libraries in general, not just the standard libraries.
I believe there are multiple C++ libraries for all of the above, both
proprietary and open source.
|
Thank you, now I understand your statement, and I agree; in Java,
nearly all programs use the standard library for things like DBI,
GUI, etc, but in C++ one must choose from a confusing multitude
of 3rd party libraries ...
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Walt Karas
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2004 10:24 am Post subject: Re: The future of C++ |
|
|
llewelly <llewelly.at (AT) xmission (DOT) dot.com> wrote
....
| Quote: |
Thank you, now I understand your statement, and I agree; in Java,
nearly all programs use the standard library for things like DBI,
GUI, etc, but in C++ one must choose from a confusing multitude
of 3rd party libraries ...
|
I could only agree with that argument if there is one good Java lib
option vs. many (all) bad C++ lib options. Which may be the case,
I wouldn't know enough about it to say. How widely a language is
used is more a matter of the baggage that comes with the language
than the language itself. My impression of Visual C++ is that it's
a trojan horse designed to obscure the elegance/power of ISO C++,
and push people to switch to C#. The original C language has many
merits on its own, but it also to some degree rode the coat tails
of the influence of UNIX and the byte-oriented PDP-11 architecture.
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thomas Richter
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2004 2:28 pm Post subject: Re: The future of C++ |
|
|
Hi,
| Quote: | As I posted in CORBA group, I believe the future of C++ depends on
CORBA (the same is true that the future of CORBA depends on the future
of C++). Applications are built today are distributed applications
instead of stand alone applications. For C++ to success in this
environment, it has to have a middleware platform. C++ has a
disadvantage comparing to Java and C# which both have a middleware
platform. However, CORBA can become the middleware platform for C++.
|
Oh well. For that to happen, the OMG should possibly do its homework
first. I'm using CORBA with its C++ bindings here, and I'd to read the
"standard literature" for that task, the Henning/Vinoski book, and the
C++ CORBA bindings are *still* giving me headaches. Does it really
have to be *that* complicated? I wouldn't have problems with two
mappings, or a layered design with a simple, general purpose
top-layer, and a specialized layer that provides all the fancy
extensions I rarely need. Currently, CORBA and its C++ mapping is both
too special and too general at once.
I also feel that CORBA does its job possibly only half the way it could.
For example, it nicely runs new threads for me serving my objects, but
at the same time it doesn't provide necessary services for keeping
object states consistent amongst the threads - there are no "mutex"
specifications in CORBA.
On the plus side, CORBA provides lots of language bindings, so I can
really interact with Java, Python, Perl,..., but the integration into
the C++ language really deserves a cleanup.
| Quote: | The answer is clear, the C++ standard committee and OMG
must work together to create a better mapping and association between
C++ and CORBA.
|
Bingo.
So long,
Thomas
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
llewelly
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:26 am Post subject: Re: The future of C++ |
|
|
[email]wkaras (AT) yahoo (DOT) com[/email] (Walt Karas) writes:
| Quote: | llewelly <llewelly.at (AT) xmission (DOT) dot.com> wrote
...
Thank you, now I understand your statement, and I agree; in Java,
nearly all programs use the standard library for things like DBI,
GUI, etc, but in C++ one must choose from a confusing multitude
of 3rd party libraries ...
I could only agree with that argument if there is one good Java lib
option vs. many (all) bad C++ lib options.
|
For me, multiple options are more confusing if they are all good
options. Bad options are less difficult to eliminate. Fewer
options is a different story; it's easy as long as there's an
appropriate option, but quite frustrating if there isn't an
appropriate option.
| Quote: | Which may be the case,
I wouldn't know enough about it to say.
|
No. I think for most purposes, there enough third party C++ libs,
that more than one can be considred 'good' for a particular
project's constraints.
In Java you have one good choice, but it's not always appropriate,
and it's your ownly choice.
| Quote: | How widely a language is
used is more a matter of the baggage that comes with the language
than the language itself.
[snip] |
Completely agreed.
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Eng
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2004 3:48 pm Post subject: Re: The future of C++ |
|
|
Thomas Richter <thor (AT) cleopatra (DOT) math.tu-berlin.de> wrote
| Quote: | I also feel that CORBA does its job possibly only half the way it could.
For example, it nicely runs new threads for me serving my objects, but
at the same time it doesn't provide necessary services for keeping
object states consistent amongst the threads - there are no "mutex"
specifications in CORBA.
|
I blame this for C++. The thread mode should be built into C++
instead of CORBA. I still cannot understand why C++ doesn't have a
standard thread library. We are moving to grid computing, yet C++
committee doesn't think it is important to standardize a thread
library. The another area bothers me is database access layer. All
these database vendors promote JDBC because there is no a standard C++
access library. If these vendors stop to support their proprietary
C++ API, who will use C++ in a distributed environment? I never head
C++ committee even has an initiative to standardize a database access
layer library. No matter how great C++ is, without a standard thread
and data access libraries, C++ will have a hard time to survive in a
distributed computing. Just to imagine how C++ can survive in a
system computing without an I/O library! If the committee thinks
proprietary libraries can do the job, I am sure that C++ will not be a
mainstream programming language; it will downgrade to a third class
language doing some limited applications.
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Abrahams
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2004 4:29 pm Post subject: Re: The future of C++ |
|
|
[email]davideng2004 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com[/email] (David Eng) writes:
| Quote: | We are moving to grid computing, yet C++
committee doesn't think it is important to standardize a thread
library.
|
Please. Did you submit a proposal for a standard threads library?
Did anyone? [hint: the answer is no]
The "C++ committee thinks" (as though we are all of one mind, but I'll
play along) that a threading library is important. I don't think we
have any threading experts with the time to bring forward a proposal
on it. If you think you're qualified, please do it yourself.
--
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
