In article <fj8uvv$3d1$1@news.datemas.de>,
Victor Bazarov <v.Abazarov@comAcast.net> wrote:
>We discuss portable programming. Cross-platform implies that some
>platforms are covered, but [usually] not all. C++ is not a cross-
>platform language. It's a language for no specific platform[s], it
>is platformless.

I would say that no language is completely "platformless", but that some
applications using some languages may be. If you never program anything
that depends on what platform you are on, most languages (other than
assembly) are "platformless". Unfortunately many of the most interesting
things depend on the hardware.

I also see nothing in the way of C++ being a cross-platform language,
just as C can be. There is nothing inherent in C++ that makes it
cross-platform, but I don't think there are any languages that are
inherently cross-platform.

However, that has little to do with the proposal. It seems clear to
me that the proponent is looking for "portable libraries" and not
"cross-platform libraries".

>There are issues that are borderline, no doubt. For example, if
>somebody asks, "I have this code, it compiles with <some compiler>,
>is it legal, or should I expect problems porting it to a different
>compiler?" While a particular compiler is mentioned, the issue is
>not with that compiler. Plenty of other examples can be found.

How does comp.std.c++ fit into this? It is for discussion of Standard C++
and the libraries. Doesn't a comp.lang.c++ that limits itself to standard
C++ and the libraries duplicate that group?