Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #148344 > unrolled thread

"Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software"

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2019-12-02 13:59 -0600
    Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Pankaj Jangid <p4j@j4d.net> - 2019-12-03 09:21 +0530
      Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Cholo Lennon <chololennon@hotmail.com> - 2019-12-03 02:03 -0300
        Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2019-12-03 09:40 +0000
          Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-03 11:40 +0100
            Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-12-03 03:05 -0800
              Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-03 16:29 +0100
            NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software") gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2019-12-03 11:33 +0000
              Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software") David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-03 16:24 +0100
                Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software") Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2019-12-03 17:13 +0100
              Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software") Stuart Redmann <DerTopper@web.de> - 2019-12-04 14:32 +0100
                Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-04 16:53 +0000
                  Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2019-12-04 09:57 -0800
                    Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-12-04 18:59 +0100
                      Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-12-04 18:17 +0000
                      Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2019-12-04 10:58 -0800
                        Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-12-04 20:06 +0100
                          Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2019-12-04 11:11 -0800
                            Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2019-12-05 09:19 -0600
                  Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2019-12-04 18:34 +0000
                    Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-05 12:51 +0000
              Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software") legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2019-12-08 04:21 +0000
                Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software") chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2019-12-09 06:10 -0800
        Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2019-12-03 04:14 -0800
        Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-12-03 17:05 -0800
    Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-12-05 02:56 -0800
      Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" "A. K." <minforth@arcor.de> - 2019-12-05 11:29 -0800
      Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2019-12-05 12:29 -0800
    Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-12-06 22:11 -0800
      Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-12-07 07:28 +0100
        Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-01-11 09:37 -0800
    Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" "A. K." <minforth@arcor.de> - 2019-12-08 23:22 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#148344 — "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software"

"Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software"
    https://www.infoq.com/news/2019/11/microsoft-exploring-rust-safety/

I doubt it.

Lynn

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#148350

Actually, it is considering implementing a new language inspired by
Rust. https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-were-creating-a-new-rust-based-programming-language-for-secure-coding/

--
Pankaj Jangid

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148352

On 12/3/19 12:51 AM, Pankaj Jangid wrote:
> Actually, it is considering implementing a new language inspired by
> Rust. https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-were-creating-a-new-rust-based-programming-language-for-secure-coding/
> 
OMG! I didn't know that, another programming language and what's worse, 
created/sponsored by Microsoft :-O

I've already seen this several times... a company needs to have the 
control of the tool (Microsoft/VisualBasic/VisualJ/C#/TypeScript/F#, 
Sun/Java, Google/Go/Dart, JetBrains/Kotlin, etc)


--
Cholo Lennon
Bs.As.
ARG

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148356

In article <qs4qb5$1qt5$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
Cholo Lennon  <chololennon@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 12/3/19 12:51 AM, Pankaj Jangid wrote:
>> Actually, it is considering implementing a new language inspired by
>> Rust.
>https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-were-creating-a-new-rust-based-programming-language-for-secure-coding/
>> 
>OMG! I didn't know that, another programming language and what's worse, 
>created/sponsored by Microsoft :-O
>
>I've already seen this several times... a company needs to have the 
>control of the tool (Microsoft/VisualBasic/VisualJ/C#/TypeScript/F#, 
>Sun/Java, Google/Go/Dart, JetBrains/Kotlin, etc)

Not Invented Here Syndrome.

-- 
Just for a change of pace, this sig is *not* an obscure reference to
comp.lang.c...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148357

On 03/12/2019 10:40, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <qs4qb5$1qt5$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
> Cholo Lennon  <chololennon@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/3/19 12:51 AM, Pankaj Jangid wrote:
>>> Actually, it is considering implementing a new language inspired by
>>> Rust.
>> https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-were-creating-a-new-rust-based-programming-language-for-secure-coding/
>>>
>> OMG! I didn't know that, another programming language and what's worse, 
>> created/sponsored by Microsoft :-O
>>
>> I've already seen this several times... a company needs to have the 
>> control of the tool (Microsoft/VisualBasic/VisualJ/C#/TypeScript/F#, 
>> Sun/Java, Google/Go/Dart, JetBrains/Kotlin, etc)
> 
> Not Invented Here Syndrome.
> 

Not /Controlled/ Here Syndrome.

MS were quite happy to support Java as long as they could make their own
incompatible version.  When the courts said they were not allowed to do
that (and still call it "Java"), they went off in a huff and made C# as
their own alternative to Java which /they/ controlled.

(I don't think MS are as bad at this as they used to be, and I am not
implying that other companies are necessarily better.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148358

On Tuesday, December 3, 2019 at 12:40:55 PM UTC+2, David Brown wrote:
> On 03/12/2019 10:40, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> > In article <qs4qb5$1qt5$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
> > Cholo Lennon  <chololennon@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 12/3/19 12:51 AM, Pankaj Jangid wrote:
> >>> Actually, it is considering implementing a new language inspired by
> >>> Rust.
> >> https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-were-creating-a-new-rust-based-programming-language-for-secure-coding/
> >>>
> >> OMG! I didn't know that, another programming language and what's worse, 
> >> created/sponsored by Microsoft :-O
> >>
> >> I've already seen this several times... a company needs to have the 
> >> control of the tool (Microsoft/VisualBasic/VisualJ/C#/TypeScript/F#, 
> >> Sun/Java, Google/Go/Dart, JetBrains/Kotlin, etc)
> > 
> > Not Invented Here Syndrome.
> > 
> 
> Not /Controlled/ Here Syndrome.
> 
> MS were quite happy to support Java as long as they could make their own
> incompatible version.  When the courts said they were not allowed to do
> that (and still call it "Java"), they went off in a huff and made C# as
> their own alternative to Java which /they/ controlled.
> 


At least formally Microsoft does not control C# to the same degree Oracle controls Java.

> (I don't think MS are as bad at this as they used to be, and I am not
> implying that other companies are necessarily better.)

I think, they are *much* worse now than they used to be.
Lazier. Doing less of original tech, good or bad.
Besides, Microsoft always *wanted* to be Apple, but at least recognized their own historical areas of strength. But today? Today are *obsessed* at becoming another Apple.
Their new friendliness to OSS that you appear to admire, most likely due to ideology rather than practical reasons, is just a sign of company losing character.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148363

On 03/12/2019 12:05, already5chosen@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 3, 2019 at 12:40:55 PM UTC+2, David Brown
> wrote:
>> On 03/12/2019 10:40, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>>> In article <qs4qb5$1qt5$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Cholo Lennon
>>> <chololennon@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 12/3/19 12:51 AM, Pankaj Jangid wrote:
>>>>> Actually, it is considering implementing a new language
>>>>> inspired by Rust.
>>>> https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-were-creating-a-new-rust-based-programming-language-for-secure-coding/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 
OMG! I didn't know that, another programming language and what's worse,
>>>> created/sponsored by Microsoft :-O
>>>> 
>>>> I've already seen this several times... a company needs to have
>>>> the control of the tool
>>>> (Microsoft/VisualBasic/VisualJ/C#/TypeScript/F#, Sun/Java,
>>>> Google/Go/Dart, JetBrains/Kotlin, etc)
>>> 
>>> Not Invented Here Syndrome.
>>> 
>> 
>> Not /Controlled/ Here Syndrome.
>> 
>> MS were quite happy to support Java as long as they could make
>> their own incompatible version.  When the courts said they were not
>> allowed to do that (and still call it "Java"), they went off in a
>> huff and made C# as their own alternative to Java which /they/
>> controlled.
>> 
> 
> 
> At least formally Microsoft does not control C# to the same degree
> Oracle controls Java.
> 
>> (I don't think MS are as bad at this as they used to be, and I am
>> not implying that other companies are necessarily better.)
> 
> I think, they are *much* worse now than they used to be. Lazier.

Lazier may mean less actively being bad.  You can't boil an entire
company down into "good/bad" or "better/worse".  I certainly didn't
suggest anything like that.  All I noted is that MS is less controlling
about languages than it used to be - at least some of C# is controlled
by standards groups outside of MS, and they are much better at working
with the standard groups for C++ (and even C) than they were.

> Doing less of original tech, good or bad. Besides, Microsoft always
> *wanted* to be Apple, but at least recognized their own historical
> areas of strength. But today? Today are *obsessed* at becoming
> another Apple. Their new friendliness to OSS that you appear to
> admire, most likely due to ideology rather than practical reasons, is
> just a sign of company losing character.
> 

I did not make the slightest suggestion that I admire their new
friendliness to OSS.  You seem to have a point you want to make, and
have invented an argument so that you can make it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148359 — NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software")

In article <qs5e3e$91s$1@dont-email.me>,
David Brown  <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
...
>> 
>> Not Invented Here Syndrome.
>
>Not /Controlled/ Here Syndrome.
>
>MS were quite happy to support Java as long as they could make their own
>incompatible version.  When the courts said they were not allowed to do
>that (and still call it "Java"), they went off in a huff and made C# as
>their own alternative to Java which /they/ controlled.

Well, they controlled it because they had invented it.

I don't think we really disagree much here.

P.S.  People often talk as if C# was invented by itself, as a standalone
language.  In fact, C# is just one member of the .NET/CLR family.  I think
of VB.NET as the primary .NET language.  I suppose C# comes next after VB.

-- 
To my knowledge, Jacob Navia is not a Christian.

    - Rick C Hodgin -

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148362 — Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software")

On 03/12/2019 12:33, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <qs5e3e$91s$1@dont-email.me>,
> David Brown  <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> ...
>>>
>>> Not Invented Here Syndrome.
>>
>> Not /Controlled/ Here Syndrome.
>>
>> MS were quite happy to support Java as long as they could make their own
>> incompatible version.  When the courts said they were not allowed to do
>> that (and still call it "Java"), they went off in a huff and made C# as
>> their own alternative to Java which /they/ controlled.
> 
> Well, they controlled it because they had invented it.

Actually, I believe a fair amount of the work on dotnet / CLR was by
Borland originally, within their Delphi range.  But I am not sure about
that (and it's getting a good deal off-topic here, even though they made
C++ compilers).

> 
> I don't think we really disagree much here.

Not much, no, but you have the logic reversed.  It is not "MS made C#,
so they get to control that language" - it is "MS wanted a language they
controlled, so they made C#".

> 
> P.S.  People often talk as if C# was invented by itself, as a standalone
> language.  In fact, C# is just one member of the .NET/CLR family.  I think
> of VB.NET as the primary .NET language.  I suppose C# comes next after VB.
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148364 — Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software")

On 12/3/2019 4:24 PM, David Brown wrote:
> On 03/12/2019 12:33, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>> In article <qs5e3e$91s$1@dont-email.me>,
>> David Brown  <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Not Invented Here Syndrome.
>>>
>>> Not /Controlled/ Here Syndrome.
>>>
>>> MS were quite happy to support Java as long as they could make their own
>>> incompatible version.  When the courts said they were not allowed to do
>>> that (and still call it "Java"), they went off in a huff and made C# as
>>> their own alternative to Java which /they/ controlled.
>>
>> Well, they controlled it because they had invented it.
> 
> Actually, I believe a fair amount of the work on dotnet / CLR was by
> Borland originally, within their Delphi range.  But I am not sure about
> that (and it's getting a good deal off-topic here, even though they made
> C++ compilers).

C# was developed "originally" by Microsoft, but the lead architect of 
the project was (still is?) Anders Hejlsberg, who formerly was the chief 
architect of Turbo Pascal and Delphi at Borland.

> 
>>
>> I don't think we really disagree much here.
> 
> Not much, no, but you have the logic reversed.  It is not "MS made C#,
> so they get to control that language" - it is "MS wanted a language they
> controlled, so they made C#".

Sounds pretty much like two sides of the same story.

Bottom line is that they control the runtime, so they ensure that C# 
applications need the Windows ecosystem to run (Mono looks far too 
limited as far as I have seen).

> 
>>
>> P.S.  People often talk as if C# was invented by itself, as a standalone
>> language.  In fact, C# is just one member of the .NET/CLR family.  I think
>> of VB.NET as the primary .NET language.  I suppose C# comes next after VB.
>>
> 

I think VB.NET was the primary target from the marketing point of view, 
i.e. VB is a huge market for Microsoft, thus of primary relevance.
I doubt that C# can be seen as a derivative of VB.NET (which I know 
little about, I have to admit), although contamination is evident.
I think it is mostly because of the need for interoperability, rather 
than language derivation, though - one of the goals of C# was to talk 
easily with VB and remove the complexity of COM.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148370 — Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software")

Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
> In article <qs5e3e$91s$1@dont-email.me>,
> David Brown  <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> ...
>>> 
>>> Not Invented Here Syndrome.
>> 
>> Not /Controlled/ Here Syndrome.
>> 
>> MS were quite happy to support Java as long as they could make their own
>> incompatible version.  When the courts said they were not allowed to do
>> that (and still call it "Java"), they went off in a huff and made C# as
>> their own alternative to Java which /they/ controlled.
> 
> Well, they controlled it because they had invented it.
> 
> I don't think we really disagree much here.
> 
> P.S.  People often talk as if C# was invented by itself, as a standalone
> language.  In fact, C# is just one member of the .NET/CLR family.  I think
> of VB.NET as the primary .NET language.  I suppose C# comes next after VB.
> 

Note that MS also made the integration of unmanaged C++ code into the
managed DotNet world very simple, something that is much harder to achieve
with Java (co-workers of mine constantly struggle with this, whereas I
enjoy the easy C++/CLI coding :-)

IMHO, this makes C# more than just a Java clone. I have done three large
projects (> 100kLOC) with C++/C#, and I enjoyed it very much.

Regards,
Stuart

PS: I was lying a little bit. When my managed C++ libraries wouldn't load
because boost::thread uses TLS somewhere inside, I spent an awful great
amount of time figuring this out :-/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148372 — Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for

On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 14:32:37 +0100
Stuart Redmann <DerTopper@web.de> wrote:
>Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>> In article <qs5e3e$91s$1@dont-email.me>,
>> David Brown  <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> ...
>>>> 
>>>> Not Invented Here Syndrome.
>>> 
>>> Not /Controlled/ Here Syndrome.
>>> 
>>> MS were quite happy to support Java as long as they could make their own
>>> incompatible version.  When the courts said they were not allowed to do
>>> that (and still call it "Java"), they went off in a huff and made C# as
>>> their own alternative to Java which /they/ controlled.
>> 
>> Well, they controlled it because they had invented it.
>> 
>> I don't think we really disagree much here.
>> 
>> P.S.  People often talk as if C# was invented by itself, as a standalone
>> language.  In fact, C# is just one member of the .NET/CLR family.  I think
>> of VB.NET as the primary .NET language.  I suppose C# comes next after VB.
>> 
>
>Note that MS also made the integration of unmanaged C++ code into the
>managed DotNet world very simple, something that is much harder to achieve
>with Java (co-workers of mine constantly struggle with this, whereas I
>enjoy the easy C++/CLI coding :-)
>
>IMHO, this makes C# more than just a Java clone. I have done three large
>projects (> 100kLOC) with C++/C#, and I enjoyed it very much.
>
>Regards,
>Stuart
>
>PS: I was lying a little bit. When my managed C++ libraries wouldn't load
>because boost::thread uses TLS somewhere inside, I spent an awful great

Boost? Ugh. The sooner that hideous bloatware buggers off down the same rubbish
chute as Roguewaves APIs did back in the 00s the better. There's been little 
good reason to use it since c++14 came out.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148373 — Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for

On Wednesday, December 4, 2019 at 1:53:38 PM UTC-3, bol...@nowhere.co.uk wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 14:32:37 +0100
> Stuart Redmann > wrote:
> >Kenny McCormack  wrote:
> >> In article ,
> >> David Brown  wrote:
> >> ...
> >>>> 
> >>>> Not Invented Here Syndrome.
> >>> 
> >>> Not /Controlled/ Here Syndrome.
> >>> 
> >>> MS were quite happy to support Java as long as they could make their own
> >>> incompatible version.  When the courts said they were not allowed to do
> >>> that (and still call it "Java"), they went off in a huff and made C# as
> >>> their own alternative to Java which /they/ controlled.
> >> 
> >> Well, they controlled it because they had invented it.
> >> 
> >> I don't think we really disagree much here.
> >> 
> >> P.S.  People often talk as if C# was invented by itself, as a standalone
> >> language.  In fact, C# is just one member of the .NET/CLR family.  I think
> >> of VB.NET as the primary .NET language.  I suppose C# comes next after VB.
> >> 
> >
> >Note that MS also made the integration of unmanaged C++ code into the
> >managed DotNet world very simple, something that is much harder to achieve
> >with Java (co-workers of mine constantly struggle with this, whereas I
> >enjoy the easy C++/CLI coding :-)
> >
> >IMHO, this makes C# more than just a Java clone. I have done three large
> >projects (> 100kLOC) with C++/C#, and I enjoyed it very much.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Stuart
> >
> >PS: I was lying a little bit. When my managed C++ libraries wouldn't load
> >because boost::thread uses TLS somewhere inside, I spent an awful great
> 
> Boost? Ugh. The sooner that hideous bloatware buggers off down the same rubbish
> chute as Roguewaves APIs did back in the 00s the better. There's been little 
> good reason to use it since c++14 came out.

I never found a reason to use boost.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148374 — Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for

>> Boost? Ugh. The sooner that hideous bloatware buggers off down the same rubbish
>> chute as Roguewaves APIs did back in the 00s the better. There's been little
>> good reason to use it since c++14 came out.

> I never found a reason to use boost.

You're using it at least for the parts that semantically moved to the
C++-standard.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148376 — Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for

Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> writes:
>>> Boost? Ugh. The sooner that hideous bloatware buggers off down the same rubbish
>>> chute as Roguewaves APIs did back in the 00s the better. There's been little
>>> good reason to use it since c++14 came out.
>
>> I never found a reason to use boost.
>
>You're using it at least for the parts that semantically moved to the
>C++-standard.
>

Not necessarily.  Like everything else in the standard c library, you
don't have to use it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148379 — Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for

On Wednesday, December 4, 2019 at 2:59:35 PM UTC-3, Bonita Montero wrote:
> >> Boost? Ugh. The sooner that hideous bloatware buggers off down the same rubbish
> >> chute as Roguewaves APIs did back in the 00s the better. There's been little
> >> good reason to use it since c++14 came out.
> 
> > I never found a reason to use boost.
> 
> You're using it at least for the parts that semantically moved to the
> C++-standard.

In 2006 I implemented a version of std::tr1::shared_ptr and std::tr1::function.
I never wanted to include a huge library (boost) just to add two headers
in my projects.
So the problem was not all the items of boost but the size.
And in general I think boost was and still unnecessarily complex.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148380 — Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for

> I never wanted to include a huge library (boost) just to add two headers
> in my projects.

boost isn't a huge library. You can use its parts individually.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148381 — Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for

On Wednesday, December 4, 2019 at 4:06:23 PM UTC-3, Bonita Montero wrote:
> > I never wanted to include a huge library (boost) just to add two headers
> > in my projects.
> 
> boost isn't a huge library. You can use its parts individually.

I guess if this is true, this was not the situation in 2006.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148389 — Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for

On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 11:11:08 -0800 (PST), Thiago Adams
<thiago.adams@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, December 4, 2019 at 4:06:23 PM UTC-3, Bonita Montero wrote:
>> > I never wanted to include a huge library (boost) just to add two headers
>> > in my projects.
>> 
>> boost isn't a huge library. You can use its parts individually.
>
>I guess if this is true, this was not the situation in 2006.


I think it's always been true, but the default download and
installation is the whole thing.  Some parts of boost do bring in
other parts.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148378 — Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for

On 04/12/2019 16:53, boltar@nowhere.co.uk wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 14:32:37 +0100
> Stuart Redmann <DerTopper@web.de> wrote:
>> Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>>> In article <qs5e3e$91s$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> David Brown  <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Not Invented Here Syndrome.
>>>>
>>>> Not /Controlled/ Here Syndrome.
>>>>
>>>> MS were quite happy to support Java as long as they could make their own
>>>> incompatible version.  When the courts said they were not allowed to do
>>>> that (and still call it "Java"), they went off in a huff and made C# as
>>>> their own alternative to Java which /they/ controlled.
>>>
>>> Well, they controlled it because they had invented it.
>>>
>>> I don't think we really disagree much here.
>>>
>>> P.S.  People often talk as if C# was invented by itself, as a standalone
>>> language.  In fact, C# is just one member of the .NET/CLR family.  I think
>>> of VB.NET as the primary .NET language.  I suppose C# comes next after VB.
>>>
>>
>> Note that MS also made the integration of unmanaged C++ code into the
>> managed DotNet world very simple, something that is much harder to achieve
>> with Java (co-workers of mine constantly struggle with this, whereas I
>> enjoy the easy C++/CLI coding :-)
>>
>> IMHO, this makes C# more than just a Java clone. I have done three large
>> projects (> 100kLOC) with C++/C#, and I enjoyed it very much.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Stuart
>>
>> PS: I was lying a little bit. When my managed C++ libraries wouldn't load
>> because boost::thread uses TLS somewhere inside, I spent an awful great
> 
> Boost? Ugh. The sooner that hideous bloatware buggers off down the same rubbish
> chute as Roguewaves APIs did back in the 00s the better. There's been little
> good reason to use it since c++14 came out.

That's because a good deal of boost is now part of C++; if boost was rubbish that wouldn't have happened, idiot.

/Flibble

-- 
"Snakes didn't evolve, instead talking snakes with legs changed into snakes." - Rick C. Hodgin

“You won’t burn in hell. But be nice anyway.” – Ricky Gervais

“I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who doesn’t believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens.” – Ricky Gervais

"Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God," Byrne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?"
"I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied.
"How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil."
"Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web