Re: [Semi-OT] Advice on whether a C++ book is still adequate



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. ,= ,-_-. =.
bss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-'
http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: Whats new in C?
    ... I'm not aware of any differences between it and the released standard. ... ISO/IEC 9899:1999/Cor 3:2007. ... Committee Draft — April 12, ... — additional strftime conversion specifiers ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: void * + unsigned int
    ... "Annexes D and F form a normative part of this standard; ... In accordance with Part 3 of the ISO/IEC ... examples are also for information only." ...
    (de.comp.lang.c)
  • Re: ISO 17799 vs BS 7799
    ... use of ISO/IEC 17799 in Canada", Sept. 2002, "There is no ... Any and all claims of a conformity assessment ... completed in time for approval of a new standard to replace ISO ... the ISO standard was finalized in late 2000 ...
    (comp.security.misc)
  • Re: compound propositions
    ... I will start by directing you to the ISO/IEC 2382 standard vocabularies so that you will have the necessary grounding to understand the differences between conceptual, logical and physical as well as the definitive difference between information and data. ... Which sections or portions refer to 'internal' for example? ... Personally as far a db is concerned, what is immeasurable is uninteresting. ...
    (comp.databases.theory)
  • Re: Pedants
    ... to help others with "general" C issues then good luck to them. ... is the C language as standardized by ISO/IEC. ... would be to not qualify a response to an off-topic post with such wording ... ``That's not REALLY a question about standard C.'' ...
    (comp.lang.c)