On 2011-03-04 04:30:22 Nuno Magalhães wrote: >What's the latest "official" "release"? ISO/IEC 14882:2003 Programming Languages -- C++ >C++02? C++03? It's not official, but the above specification is also called "C++03". It includes "TR1", which was library extensions on top of the first C++ standard. The first C++ standard was informally called "C++98". (The full name was ISO/IEC 14882:1998 Programming Languages -- C++.) >Has Boost been >"officialized"? Parts of boost were included in ISO/IEC 14882:2003, but they were moved to the "std" or "std::tr1" namespace. Like most ISO working groups, the C++ standard developers survey existing implementations to determine the what directions to take the language. However, the standardized version does not always match the behavior of your favorite implementation, even if that implementation was the originator/innovator. It is likely that a new revision of ISO/IEC 14882 comes out this year. Last time I checked, it had standardized a number of features based on the boost implementation. The also extended the language syntax in a number of ways. >What about C#? I know it's not directly related, but >how do you figure fits the picture? C# doesn't compete with C++, it competes with Java. Both C# and Java are good languages for a number of purposes. However, their object model (in particular, their inheritance model) is not as rich as C++, so there may complex systems where C++ saves the developers significant work. Managed C++ (a.k.a. C++/CLI) is more interesting. I'm not sure if MS is actively maintaining it; I know that initially it was a non-conforming variant of C++. I think the working group is actually interested in making it possible to compile standard C++ onto the CLI. That might let you use all the power of C++ from within .Net containers (Moonlight or mod_mono). -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. email@example.com ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.