🚀 go-pugleaf

James Kanze US/ESC 60/3/141 #40763 wrote:
> I believe that the simple answer is that Windows programs operate in a
> unhosted environment.  

	This is a clear condemnation of the Standard,
Windows is obviously a hosting operating system.

> |> But if a compiler does not accept
> 
> |>      int main() { return 0; }
> 
> |> as a complete program, then that compiler is not a conforming C or C++
> |> implementation.


This is the crux of the problem. More important, when I
try to use "cout" the program won't link. This is 
important to me -- I've scrapped Win3.11 in favour
of NT mainly because of this deficiency (in Win3.1 wrt
the Standard).

In my opinion, program startup and environment
shouldn't be part of the language standard at all.

Instead, requirements should be created for creating
a BINDING to a particular environment, and then
bindings created.

For example, a POSIX binding would be popular;
but MS would still be free to create a Windows
binding.

In effect, there are _industry_ standards which
supercedes the ISO one, which is clearly
inadequate for modern needs. Unfortunately,
none of the "standards" are portable, _including_
the ISO one.

The distinction between "hosted" and "unhosted"
systems is better than nothing -- but it was more
useful 20 years ago than it is now, when it is
simply far too weak. (I.e two levels is just
not a good enough design any more)


-- 
John Max Skaller               voice: 61-2-566-2189
81 Glebe Point Rd              fax:   61-2-660-0850
GLEBE NSW 2037                 web: http://www.maxtal.com.au/~skaller/
AUSTRALIA                      email: skaller@maxtal.com.au
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy is
  in http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html. ]