[cpp-threads] C++ committee meeting in Mont Tremblant

[Peter A. Buhr]

Again, sorry for being so far behind in the discussion.

   Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 22:03:53 -0700
   From: "Herb Sutter" <hsutter at microsoft.com>
   Reply-To: C++ threads standardisation <cpp-threads at decadentplace.org.uk>
   Sender: cpp-threads-bounces at decadentplace.org.uk

   > It is not our responsibility to adjust what we believe to meet the
   > political agenda of the standards committee. It should be our job to do
   > what we think is right in terms of current knowledge in the area, and what
   > we believe is best for C++ in the long run. We should be pro-active and
   > push the standards committee as far as possible, backing off only when we
   > believe sufficient good science has been accepted. We are the experts, and
   > they should listen to what we have to say. If they choose to ignore us,
   > that's their loss.

   These and similar statements are quite out of touch, and demonstrate a
   profound lack of understanding of the committee and its participants,
   and of how to participate constructively as a part of a group.
   ...

I'm not trying to snip from the sidelines. In fact, there is nothing to snip at
with respect to the standards committee as they seem very open at this stage.
I am suggesting that arguments in this group like "I don't think the standards
committee wants X" are premature and should not affect our thinking at this
stage. We want scientific arguments that can be used for designing a
programming language. Let's base what we do on sound principles and logic, and
justify our decisions with strong examples in practice. If we decide the syntax
needs to be changed, we should not be afraid to say this to the standards
committee for fear of them ignoring our proposal.  Rather, if we explain why
changes are necessary, I'm sure they will listen and accept the change if it is
warranted.

   The solution is simple: If it's worth it, then be willing to invest the
   time to personally attend international meetings and propose solutions,
   accept feedback and refine the proposals, and so on over a couple of
   years or more (all with no guarantee that anything will be adopted even
   after it has been refined in line with committee feedback, but that's a
   fair bar because those same rules apply to everyone). If no one is
   willing to personally invest the time it takes, usually over several
   meetings == years, to propose and refine and repropose and do the work
   to build consensus, which _everyone_ has to do, then the feature frankly
   can't be that important.

Good grief! I've been working in C++ concurrency for 15 years. I think that
shows commitment. The C++ standards committee has not been interested in
concurrency until recently. It's hard to do all of the above, when the above
was not occurring. I'm in this for the long run, so you are stuck with me for a
while.

   FWIW, I agree with that point. But let me correct another misunderstanding
   here: I saw the "subcommittee" wording mentioned in the press a few months
   ago in an interview you gave, and it caused us a brief flurry of emails to
   which we had to respond that the statement was not accurate -- the original
   group on this list was never a subcommittee appointed by ISO or ANSI (which
   seems to have been implied and is not correct), they were a collection of
   interested experts offering input on their own initiative whom we looked
   forward to hearing from -- and still do. (If Lawrence is now on this list
   and running it, then it would be correct to characterize it as an ad-hoc sub
   working group of the Evolution working group of the ISO and ANSI
   committees.)

Sorry about that, Chief! You are probably referring to the interview I did in
TechWeb.  During the phone interview I tried to say something like "an ad-hoc
sub working group of the Evolution working group of the ISO and ANSI
committees" and there was silence on the other end of the phone. I then said
"you know, like a subcommittee", and the interview continued. So in the future
I will religiously use the term "ad-hoc sub working group of the Evolution
working group of the ISO and ANSI committees" when talking to the press, but
it's a mouthful and people are going to stare. ;-)

BTW, you should have talked to me immediately when this problem occurred so I
knew there was a issue with terminology.