Lambda the Ultimate

inactiveTopic The Revised C++ Language Design Supporting .NET
started 12/2/2003; 1:32:31 AM - last post 12/2/2003; 1:58:38 PM
Ehud Lamm - The Revised C++ Language Design Supporting .NET  blueArrow
12/2/2003; 1:32:31 AM (reads: 10189, responses: 2)
The Revised C++ Language Design Supporting .NET
How should we declare and use a .NET reference type? It differs significantly from the C++ Object Model: different memory model (garbage collected), different copy semantics (shallow copy), different inheritance models (monolithic, rooted to Object, supporting single inheritance only with additional support for Interfaces).

Stanley Lippman has a blog, ee i ee io.

If you want to see the answer visit Stanley's next entry.

This might be a good time to point out that the Microsoft lingua-bloggers (e.g., Brad Abrams, Brandon Bray, Chris Brumme, Eric Gunnerson and Paul Vick) are changing the landscape of language design. More transparency, more community involvement, and perhaps most importantly for us: giving language design the status it deserves.

Note: I am no Microsoft fan, and the last sentence isn't intended to imply that the resulting languages are any good. Only that the process is a bit different than it was only a couple of years ago.

It is well worth asking whether language design benefits from this sort of openness, or whether a lone developer has a better chance of coming up with a coherent and usable language (think of your favorite language designer). Even if you favor openness, keep in mind that most programmers lack experience in language design. They may have good ideas for libraries, APIs etc. But do they really understand the implications of their suggestions on the compiler, the type system, or even on the run time system? Some obviously do. But aren't these the same people who were involved all along (via ISO, CS departmental seminars, conferences, etc.)?

Posted to cross-language-runtimes by Ehud Lamm on 12/2/03; 1:44:09 AM

DocOlczyk - Re: The Revised C++ Language Design Supporting .NET  blueArrow
12/2/2003; 10:38:54 AM (reads: 467, responses: 0)
Three points:

I fear for the future of C++ due to Microsofts involvement in the standardisation process. Stan Lipmann has completely become a shill for Microsoft. With Herb Sutter the case for shillness (???) is not quite as clear, but when there is tension between ANSI C++ and .Net, he always seems to chose the .Net way.

The second point is that "community involvement" is often not a good way to get feedback on anything. Community involvement can be manipulated. ( Observe Microsofts "astroturfing" efforts. ) Even when it's not, community involvement seems to give more credence to the loudest voices not the best.

The third is more of a question. I have been avoiding learning much C#, principly because of "vendor lockin". Since I made that decision, I have been seeing more and more references to C# features. Is there a way of learning ( and thriving ) C# with out Windows lockin? ( Note, I am not asking whether it is possible to do C# without Windows, but whether it is possible to be successful doing C# without Windows, and without .Net. )

Jeff Cutsinger - Re: The Revised C++ Language Design Supporting .NET  blueArrow
12/2/2003; 1:58:38 PM (reads: 422, responses: 0)
To me, this is a prime example of how poor cross language development is really supported, in this case by .Net- it'll support your language, as long as it's C# (or very very similar to C#). Other cross language development schemes seem to suffer this same fate.