4 ms·
"Apple's Module proposal..." Is Apple really who deserves credit here? Is there something I missed about Apple's management driving this, and not Gregor or the
by thwest 14y ago
"Apple's Module proposal..." Is Apple really who deserves credit here? Is there something I missed about Apple's management driving this, and not Gregor or the C++ standards committee?
- strmpnk 14y agoFirst slide. It seems like he's employed by Apple and being paid to work on this. So yes, I think calling it Apple's solution an apt description.
- thwest 14y agoHerb Stutter heads the C++ standards committee and credits his employer Microsoft [1]. Is C++11 or C++17 "Microsoft's"? [1] http://isocpp.org/std/the-committee http://isocpp.org/std/the-committee
- jlarocco 14y agoThe standards don't belong to anybody. Particular proposals are credited to the person or organization that propose them. This particular proposal is from Apple. When Herb Sutter/Microsoft make proposals for C++, it's phrased as "Microsoft's proposal for C++0x" or whatever.
- bonch 14y agoDoug Gregor is an Apple employee. They also have a major investment in Clang and LLVM and drive most of its development.
- rplacd 14y agoIf you want a little more precision, credit it to the Apple Compiler Group - they seem to operate with quite a bit more autonomy than, say, whoever's responsible for security there.