Re: Standadised OO Language

["Howard W. LUDWIG" <howard.w.ludwig@lmco.com>]

Jon S Anthony wrote:
> 
> Matthew Daniel <matt@adelaide.on.net> writes:
> 
> > After Having a "discussion" with one of the engineers at work,  he is an
> > Ada "hater" and I am the Ada "lover", about standadised OO languages, I
> > said Ada95 was the only one, well at least 6 months ago, he said C++ has
> > an ANSI standard and has for a couple of years.
> >
> > I was just wondering if I was correct or totally wrong.
> 
> Neither.
> 
> C++ definitely has _NOT_ had _any_ standard 6months ago let alone 2
> years ago.  The guy is a clueless fool.
> 
> I've heard (a rumor) that within the last couple of months (maybe
> December) the latest draft C++ proposal (not the old one that was
> laying around for the last 2-3 years) was accepted.  I don't know if
> this is really true and if so if it is ANSI or ISO.
> 
> OTOH, Common Lisp/CLOS was (AFAIK) the first true standardized OO
> language (1994 as opposed to Ada's 1995), though it was ANSI and not
> ISO.
> 
> --
> Jon Anthony

Perhaps some specific dates and details would help:

CLOS (Common Lisp Object System)
  1994-12-08  ANSI X3.226:1994
  ----------  has not become an ISO standard

ISLISP (which I know very little about and haven't kept up with any
details, 
        other than it is supposed to be neither a subset nor a superset
of CLOS!!!)
  1997-??-??  ISO 13816:1997
  ----------  has not become an ANSI standard

[Thus, Lisp has the dubious distinction of being one of the few
languages for 
which both an ANSI standard and an ISO standard exist but they never
have matched 
nor does there seem to be any attempt to harmonize them.]

Ada
  1994-11-01  Final ISO draft approved
  1995-02-15  ISO/IEC 8652:1995 publication
  1995-04-10  ANSI approval for ANSI/ISO/IEC 8652:1995

[Thus, the dates show that CLOS became an ANSI standard after approval
of final 
ISO draft for Ada but before ISO publication.  Generally, CLOS is given
credit 
for being first overall, but Ada beat it (and all other OO languages) to
ISO 
approval.]

C++
  1997-11-14  Final ISO _Draft_ International Standard DIS 14882
approved unanimously
  1998-early  Final (hopefully) balloting on final draft
  1998-late   ISO publication expected
              ANSI assumedly will follow.

[It should be noted that earlier votes on C++ were contentious.  Minimum
(but 
with significant impact for compilers) acceptable fixes were made,
resulting 
in a unanimous approval of the final Committee Draft, with several
country 
representatives holding their nose with the attitude that the final
version 
had significant problems but was better than continuing the state of
_no_ 
standard.  Based on this, it seems very likely that the remaining steps
of 
ISO standardization will be formalities and, assumedly, ANSI will
follow.  
Compilers will take a while to catch up to the standard and mature, just
as 
they did for Ada.]

Regarding the original issue, apparently a debate over whether C++ is at 
the same level of standardization and maturity as Ada 95:

Ada 95 has been a published ISO standard for 3 years now (well, after
two 
more days, actually :), and this version is a revision of a previous ISO 
standard.  Mature compilers from several vendors for several
[understatement] 
platforms are available in a _validated_ form.  The validation process
for 
Ada 95 compilers has been growing in rigor, following a transition time
of 
relative laxness from Ada 83 to Ada 95.  GNAT, which runs on a wide
variety 
of platforms, implements the full (including all optional annexes)
language 
and passes _all_ relevant validation tests.

C++, on the other hand, is going through its first rigorous
standardization 
process.  It has achieved only Final _Draft_ International Standard
phase, 
not final approval and publication.  Compiler vendors are scrambling to 
incorporate the new features that have been added or changed over the 
last two to three years.  We can expect it will be 2000 before complete, 
compliant compilers are available with any degree of maturity (allowing 
the same two-year interval from completion of settling on a standard to 
compiler compliance which was the case for Ada and is typical for other
languages as well).  There is no mechanism in place to assure compliance 
of compilers to the standard (like Ada validation).  Since it is
expected 
that a revision to the C standard will be approved in 1999 or 2000 and 
C++ has been intricately coupled in structure with C [which is a whole 
other issue and a can of worms in itself], the C++ folks are already 
talking about mechanisms for C++ compiler vendors to modify their C++ 
compilers to handle the revisions to the C standard without adjusting 
the C++ standard!?#!  Wow!  What does it mean to have an ISO C++
standard 
document, then?  So much for compilers stabilizing and maturing in 2000, 
and so long portability!  What a deal!  Lots of suckers thinking so and 
grabbing it.

Howard W. LUDWIG
Working, but not speaking, for Lockheed Martin Electronics & Missiles
Co.