DConf 2013 Closing Keynote: Quo Vadis by Andrei Alexandrescu

[Walter Bright]

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.