Python on the desktop

[Cliff Wells]

On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 07:39:32 GMT
Courageous <jkraska at san.rr.com> wrote:
> Standard C++ shall not^H^H^H include a GUI toolkit nor^H^H^H and
> shall it^H^H likewise be bound to a specific operating system
> [insert:, chosen from amongst the following sensible choices:
> Windows/98, Windows/NT, Windows/ME, Windows/2000, Windows/XP, and
> Windows/CE]. Standard C++ shall not^H^H^H be limited to a specific

Sensible?  98/Me/NT????  Yikes.  After supporting these OS's in a networked environment (not to mention all my friends who call for help with their hosed 9x/Me systems) these can never be called sensible.  That said, Win2000 is pretty good and I haven't used XP enough to say either way. Unfortunately I can't say that my RedHat box makes me too happy these days, either... it must be the bane of the GUI... trade stability for "ease-of-use" =(

> hardware platform [insert: , include x86 derivitives and other
> hardware platforms as designated by the Microsoft Corporation].
> Compiler vendors will be held to strict requirements for adhering
> to the standard [insert: , except for the Microsoft Corporation,
> who shall be permitted to build a superior compiler, Visual C++,
> as they so see fit].

superior ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hsuperfluously nonstandard.  An article in Windows Developers Journal prompted a flood of complaints from developers who use VC++ and were aggravated by its inconsistent implementation of the ANSI standard.   I guess if you're only writing screen savers for Windows 95 it doesn't matter much, just don't expect to buy a book on C++ and believe it will apply to VC++.  If you use the /Za switch you can't even compile windows.h - you might think /Za just disables "extensions", but in fact without it, it is sometimes not possible to compile code that strictly follows the ANSI standard!  This example is from C/C++ Users Journal:

for (int i;;)
    ;
for (int i;;)
    ;

With /Za this will compile.  Without /Za it won't.  VC++ complains that i is multiply defined (this particular "extension" may have changed since the article is from 1999).

Browse Windows Developer's Journal "Bug++ of the Month" articles sometime and then see if you still think VC++ is "superior".  Maybe it superior to something, but not C++ compilers - that would be comparing apples to oranges.

Regards,

-- 
Cliff Wells
Software Engineer
Logiplex Corporation (www.logiplex.net)
(503) 978-6726 x308
(800) 735-0555 x308