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