On 8/4/21 8:15 PM, Phil Bouchard via Std-Proposals wrote:
>
> On 8/3/21 11:41 PM, Phil Bouchard via Std-Proposals wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 8/3/21 11:07 PM, Emile Cormier via Std-Proposals wrote:
>>> Sorry, but who do you expect to get involved in a C++ language
>>> extensions encumbered by patents? Does your "C++ Superset" allow a
>>> patent-free, open-source implementation?
>>
>> Part of what I mentioned is patent pending but I can certainly loosen
>> restrictions, but the Root Pointer headers will remain patented.
>>
> BTW thank God software can now be patented. Here's my anecdote:
>
> - I was working for Corel Linux back in 2000 until Microsoft dissolved it;
>
> - I wrote my own Fornux Powercalc and proposed it to Microsoft but got
> silently embraced and extended my Microsoft Powertoys:
>
> https://github.com/philippeb8/fcalc
>
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6f/Powercalc.PNG
>
> - Herb Sutter from Microsoft almost embraced and extended the logic of
> Root Pointer:
>
> https://github.com/hsutter/gcpp
>
>
> So sorry for the patent implications but this is the only way to protect
> ourselves these days.

Patents are a good way to bury your software and ideas in the sand. Sane
people will be very cautious about using patented stuff and some won't
even touch it with a ten feet pole. IMO, a language (extension) that
builds on top of a patented technology is DOA.

If you want to make profit, that's fine, but creating new programming
languages is not the way. You can create tools that make the language
safer - compilers, static analyzers, instrumenters, etc. - and sell
those. If you want to make the language itself better then you work on
that in a way that makes as easy to employ and distribute across the
widest possible variety of tools, developers, applications across the
industry, and patents are a major blocker in this.

>> Obviously following ISO standards is the way to go on the long term
>> and to have robust support from other commercial compilers is
>> desirable at the same time.
>>
>> Again:
>>
>> - 70% of cybersecurity problems are memory safety issues;
>>
>> - memory management is the leading cause of security vulnerabilities
>> in Google Chrome;
>>
>> So 1 + 1 = 2. If we do not solve these problems then we'll have a huge
>> national security issue with legacy code.
>>
>> So this is my contribution to the community at the same time.
>>
>>
> Also Linus Torvalds said that "C++ solves the wrong problems" and
> perhaps he was right if he was referring to memory management, but not
> anymore. He can just run a C++ Superset compiler over his kernel and be
> done with memory leaks and segfaults.

I would be curious to see Linus' response to this idea. For some reason
I don't think he would be very enthusiastic. Nor do I believe in claims
about another magic tool that will fix everyone's code.