From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 22 21:19:39 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 900C316A400 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2006 21:19:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dugger@hotlz.com) Received: from www.hotlz.com (freedom.hotlz.com [209.20.218.52]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35B5443D45 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2006 21:19:39 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dugger@hotlz.com) Received: from [172.27.240.45] (henry.local.hotlz.com [172.27.240.45]) by www.hotlz.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k3MLJX9Y027044; Sat, 22 Apr 2006 14:19:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dugger@hotlz.com) Message-ID: <444A9DE6.4070203@hotlz.com> Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 14:19:34 -0700 From: Don Dugger User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Macintosh/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org References: <44490663.3040506@hotlz.com> <86d5f9pno8.fsf@xps.des.no> <444A652E.5010403@kanga.org> <864q0lplro.fsf@xps.des.no> In-Reply-To: <864q0lplro.fsf@xps.des.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= 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 21:19:39 -0000 Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: >David Cuthbert writes: > > >>Dag-Erling Smørgrav 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 > > Not that any of this really matter's, but this was not the way I remembered it happening so I did a little looking. Bjarne Stroustrup says in his book "The C++ Programming Language" Third Edition (I think he had something do with c++) on page 11 that the ISO standard was taken from the ANSI standard and "From 1990, these joint C++ standards committees have been the main forum for the evolution of C++ and the refinement of its of its definition." I also noticed that the g++ compiler has a "-ansi" option. BTW where's Bjarne from? In the book he mentions Murray Hill, New Jersey but with that name I think he from somewhere else. And let me say this is not important other I used the term ANSI and maybe I should have just said standards committee which was my point. Don 8)