From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 22 17:23:29 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B131116A400 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2006 17:23:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from tim.des.no (tim.des.no [194.63.250.121]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F27343D58 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2006 17:23:29 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from tim.des.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spam.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 778192083; Sat, 22 Apr 2006 19:23:24 +0200 (CEST) X-Spam-Tests: AWL,BAYES_00,FORGED_RCVD_HELO X-Spam-Learn: ham X-Spam-Score: -2.4/3.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on tim.des.no Received: from xps.des.no (des.no [80.203.243.180]) by tim.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3C132082; Sat, 22 Apr 2006 19:23:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: by xps.des.no (Postfix, from userid 1001) id B02A933C31; Sat, 22 Apr 2006 19:23:23 +0200 (CEST) From: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) To: David Cuthbert References: <44490663.3040506@hotlz.com> <86d5f9pno8.fsf@xps.des.no> <444A652E.5010403@kanga.org> Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 19:23:23 +0200 In-Reply-To: <444A652E.5010403@kanga.org> (David Cuthbert's message of "Sat, 22 Apr 2006 10:17:34 -0700") Message-ID: <864q0lplro.fsf@xps.des.no> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110003 (No Gnus v0.3) Emacs/21.3 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why is not more FreeBSD software written in C++? X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 17:23:29 -0000 David Cuthbert writes: > Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav writes: > > Don Dugger writes: > > > C++ and C are languages that are defined by ANSI > > No they're not. It may surprise you to learn that there is a whole > > world outside the USA which does not care one whit about ANSI. > This would be news to those involved in the standardization process, > who went through great pains to ensure that ISO C90 was the same as > ANSI C89, ANSI C++98 was the same as ISO C++98, and ANSI C2000 was > the same as ISO C99... Whatever you may think, C and C++ are not defined by ANSI. They're defined by ISO's JTC1/SC22, working groups 14 and 21, respectively. While it is very nice of ANSI to adopt the result of that work as national standards for the US, it is largely irrelevant for the remaining 6 billion people on the planet. And please get a proper MUA, so I don't have to fix your quoting when replying. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no