DConf 2013 Closing Keynote: Quo Vadis by Andrei Alexandrescu

[CJS]

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!