On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 2:04 PM Phil Bouchard via Std-Proposals <
std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>
> On 8/4/21 1:44 PM, Andrey Semashev via Std-Proposals wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> Well it depends on the importance of the problem that is being fixed. But
> in no way Microsoft will embrace and extend my efforts anymore.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> Well yeah other than minor compile time fixes that may be needed, if the
> kernel is recompiled from scratch including all modules then it's all good.
> It's way better this way than rewriting and testing everything in Rust and
> way more convenient on the developer's learning curves and work loads.
>
>
>
You should do that then, and show the results, and let pen-testers give it
a go.


> --
>
> *Phil Bouchard*
> Founder & CTO
> C.: (819) 328-4743
>
> [image: Fornux Logo] <http://www.fornux.com>
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>

-- 
Be seeing you,
Tony