3 ms·

Well Objective C was a preprocessor extension as this proposal is so it's one and the same. Both are extensions. Yes we all know where vendors that do that got

by meaty 14y ago

Well Objective C was a preprocessor extension as this proposal is so it's one and the same. Both are extensions. Yes we all know where vendors that do that got us: -moz-gradient: -ms-gradient: gradient: -webkit-gradient: Oh and Microsoft with their C++ CLR extensions and middle finger to C99.

msbarnett 14y ago
> Well Objective C was a preprocessor extension as this proposal is so it's one and the same. Both are extensions. This is daft. Objective-C has been implemented using a full-fledged compiler for decades. Is C++ "just an extension to C" because it was once a pre-processor on top of C? Is Common Lisp "an extension to C" because ECL transforms it into C? Utter lunacy. > Yes we all know where vendors that do that got us Yes; they got us tried and tested ways of implementing things like gradients, so that the standards body had something in the real world to base a successful standard off of. The alternative gets us things like C++98's export templates: unimplementable garbage that no vendors could support because they were invented on paper and any attempt to actually build them in the real world caused more problems than they solved. And just so we're clear what's going on here: The linked slides are about LLVM's implementation of Daveed Vandevoorde's proposal to the C++ committee (http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3347.pdf http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n334...). The C++ Standards Committee held off on adopting that proposal for C++11 because there were no implementations of it, and asked that vendors try implementing it, adapting it as necessary to make it feasible, and provide feedback so that informed decisions based on experience could be made in the final draft of C++17. Let me repeat that: LLVM is doing exactly what the standards committee asked them to do.
- _djo_ 14y ago
  Thanks for linking to Daveed Vandevoorde's proposal. I had no idea that he had originated this concept, else I would have worded the title differently.

by meaty 14y ago

msbarnett 14y ago

> Well Objective C was a preprocessor extension as this proposal is so it's one and the same. Both are extensions. This is daft. Objective-C has been implemented using a full-fledged compiler for decades. Is C++ "just an extension to C" because it was once a pre-processor on top of C? Is Common Lisp "an extension to C" because ECL transforms it into C? Utter lunacy. > Yes we all know where vendors that do that got us Yes; they got us tried and tested ways of implementing things like gradients, so that the standards body had something in the real world to base a successful standard off of. The alternative gets us things like C++98's export templates: unimplementable garbage that no vendors could support because they were invented on paper and any attempt to actually build them in the real world caused more problems than they solved. And just so we're clear what's going on here: The linked slides are about LLVM's implementation of Daveed Vandevoorde's proposal to the C++ committee (http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3347.pdf http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n334...). The C++ Standards Committee held off on adopting that proposal for C++11 because there were no implementations of it, and asked that vendors try implementing it, adapting it as necessary to make it feasible, and provide feedback so that informed decisions based on experience could be made in the final draft of C++17. Let me repeat that: LLVM is doing exactly what the standards committee asked them to do.

_djo_ 14y ago
Thanks for linking to Daveed Vandevoorde's proposal. I had no idea that he had originated this concept, else I would have worded the title differently.