On Saturday, 29 June 2013 at 08:37:48 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
I agree with your post, I just want to make a couple of minor
corrections.
On 6/27/2013 4:58 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Do you really think C++ took off because there are commercial
implementations?
I got into the C++ fray in the 1987-88 time frame. At the time,
there was a great debate between C++ and Objective-C, and they
were running neck-and-neck. I was casting about looking for a
way to get a competitive edge with my C compiler, and
investigated.
Objective-C was put out by Stepstone. They wanted royalties
from anyone who implemented a clone, and kept a tight fist over
the licensing.
C++ only existed in its AT&T cfront implementation. I wrote a
letter to AT&T's lawyers, asking if I could create a C++ clone,
and they phoned me up and were very nice. They said sure, and I
wouldn't have to pay any license or royalties.
So I went with C++. I don't really know if cfront was open
source at the time or not, but I never looked at its source. I
think cfront source came with a paid license for unix, but I'm
not positive.
Anyhow, I wound up implementing the first native C++ compiler
for the PC. Directly afterward, C++ took off like a rocket. Was
it because of Zortech C++? I think there's strong evidence it
was. A lot of programmers turned up their noses at the peasants
programming on DOS, but that's where the action was in the
1980's, and ZTC++ had no realistic competitors.
You could also see the results in Usenet. Postings about C++
and O-C were neck-and-neck until ZTC++ came out, and then
things tilted heavily in C++'s favor, and O-C disappeared into
oblivion (later to be resurrected by Steve Jobs, but that's
another tale).
ZTC++ was so successful that Borland and Microsoft (according
to rumor) abandoned their efforts at making a proprietary OOP
C, and went with C++.
ZTC++ was closed source, as were Borland's Turbo C++ and
Microsoft C++.
Do you think being a standardized language didn't help?
C++ wasn't standardized until 1998, 10 years later. The 90's
were pretty much the heyday of C++.
Do you think the fact that there was a free implementation
around that
it supported virtually any existing platform didn't help? Do
you think
the fact was it was (almost) compatible with C (which was born
freeish,
since back then software was freely shared between
universities) didn't
help?
ZTC++ was cheap as dirt, and at the time people didn't mind
paying for compilers. Those days are over, though. People have
different expectations today.
No. A standard is something that was standardized by a standard
committee which, ideally, have some credits to do so. C++ is
standardized by ISO. I guess Walter and Andrei can give you
more
details, since I think they both were involved in the
standardization of
C++.
I've attended a few ISO C++ meetings, but I never became a
voting member, and have had pretty much zero influence over the
direction C++ took after the 1980's.
The bottom line was the open source movement was not a very
significant force in the 1980's when C++ gained traction. Open
source really exploded around 2000, along with the internet. I
wonder if open source perhaps needed the internet in order to
be viable.
Wow. That's interesting reading. Thanks for the history lesson!
