Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2021 20:52:24 -0400
Regarding Microsoft, my point was that maybe they are competing but there's a huge difference with competing and innovating. And I don't see much of the latter in their case.
-- Phil Bouchard Founder C.: (819) 328-4743 > On Aug 4, 2021, at 6:44 PM, Jason McKesson via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 6:28 PM Phil Bouchard via Std-Proposals > <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote: >> >> >>> On 8/4/21 5:03 PM, Emile Cormier wrote: >>> It's ironic that you complain about Microsoft embracing and extending standards for their own profit, while you propose to do the same thing by embracing C++ and extending it with the apparent motive of earning profit off of your (pending) patent. >> >> So if you want to judge people I suggest you measure them based on their merit. >> >> >> Let's recapitulate on Microsoft, a for profit company: >> >> - Visual Basic: embraced and extended already existing BASIC; >> >> - Windows 3.1: embraced and extended Macintosh; >> >> - Microsoft Word: embraced and extended Wordperfect; >> >> - Microsoft Excel: embraced and extended Lotus 1-2-3; >> >> - Internet Explorer: embraced and extended Netscape; >> >> - DirectX: embraced and extended OpenGL; >> >> - Microsoft Teams: embraced and extended Zoom; > > OK, this is kind of getting off the subject, but it's *really* > important to note that you're largely misusing the term "embrace and > extend". This is a phrase used to indicate that the party in question > has taken a standard, either de-facto or de-jure, and created a > program that implements that standard along with proprietary > extensions. The fact that it implements the original standard is > *important* here. The whole problem with "embrace and extend" is that > other programs that use the same standard are incompatible with the > proprietary extensions, thus creating incompatible data. > > If Direct3D was compatible with OpenGL but added new stuff, it would > be "embrace and extend". But it wasn't; it was a completely different > API that did the same thing. That's called "competition", not "embrace > and extend". > > Microsoft Teams does not "implement" Zoom; it's just an application > like Zoom. Internet Explorer did not extend Netscape (you could claim > that it "extended" HTML, but so did Netscape. That's still a common > thing today). Etc. > > In your list, the only instances of actual "embrace and extend" are > Word&Excel, since it actually implemented reading WordPerfect/Lotus > files, but had their own features outside of those formats. Even > Visual Basic doesn't really count, since BASIC hadn't been just one > language; it was a set of common tropes among dozens of languages > called "BASIC". Microsoft just put their own spin on it. > > It really seems like you just have a personal bugbear about Microsoft > creating competitors to products. > > Also... you never *actually* answered the point. Namely, that you're > talking about "embracing" C++ and "extending" it with > patent-proprietary technologies that will ensure that anyone trying to > implement it will only be able to do so if they agree to your terms. > -- > Std-Proposals mailing list > Std-Proposals_at_[hidden] > https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
Received on 2021-08-04 19:52:31