Amusing Microsoft C++ ad

**David B. Held** · Jul 19 '05, 07:00 PM

Re: Amusing Microsoft C++ ad

"Bob Nelson" <bnelson@nelson be.com> wrote in message
news:48Ogb.2146 $av5.1475@newsr ead3.news.pas.e arthlink.net...[color=blue]
> [...]
> - The amusing part is the declaration of ``main'' in an example
> showing support for function template specialization:
>
> void main()[/color]

Yet further proof that "void main()" is legal C++ because
Microsoft says so! The Sage has had the last laugh on
us all!!!

Dave

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 9/23/2003

**Herb Sutter** · Jul 19 '05, 07:01 PM

Re: Amusing Microsoft C++ ad

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 06:28:16 GMT, Bob Nelson <bnelson@nelson be.com> wrote:[color=blue]
>The November 2003 edition of the ``C/C++ Users Journal'' contains a
>multi-paged advertising section for Microsoft's Visual C++. NET 2003
>product.
>
>One section focuses on the compiler as being one of the most ISO compliant
>on any platform. Overall, the ad is rather interesting and has some
>worthwhile code snippets.
>
>- The amusing part is the declaration of ``main'' in an example showing
> support for function template specialization:
>
> void main()[/color]

I thought that was amusing too. :-)

FYI, since VC++ 7.0, under /Za you get the following for such code:

warning C4326: return type of 'main' should be 'int' instead of 'void'

And everyone should use /Za by default now. In VC++ 7.x the documentation
writers also did a sweep through all the docs to get rid of "void main()".
Maybe some escaped (it's always possible to miss a few), but I hope that
it has already disappeared from the docs.

Herb

---
Herb Sutter (www.gotw.ca)

Convener, ISO WG21 (C++ standards committee) (www.gotw.ca/iso)
Contributing editor, C/C++ Users Journal (www.gotw.ca/cuj)
Visual C++ architect, Microsoft (www.gotw.ca/microsoft)

**Alf P. Steinbach** · Jul 19 '05, 07:01 PM

Re: Amusing Microsoft C++ ad

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 13:19:26 -0700, Herb Sutter <hsutter@gotw.c a> wrote:
[color=blue]
>On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 06:28:16 GMT, Bob Nelson <bnelson@nelson be.com> wrote:[color=green]
>>The November 2003 edition of the ``C/C++ Users Journal'' contains a
>>multi-paged advertising section for Microsoft's Visual C++. NET 2003
>>product.
>>
>>One section focuses on the compiler as being one of the most ISO compliant
>>on any platform. Overall, the ad is rather interesting and has some
>>worthwhile code snippets.
>>
>>- The amusing part is the declaration of ``main'' in an example showing
>> support for function template specialization:
>>
>> void main()[/color]
>
>I thought that was amusing too. :-)
>
>FYI, since VC++ 7.0, under /Za you get the following for such code:
>
> warning C4326: return type of 'main' should be 'int' instead of 'void'
>
>And everyone should use /Za by default now.[/color]

Considering that VC is mostly used for Windows programming, and that VC
with option /Za chokes on non-standard constructs in the main Windows API
header files (such as anonymous unions), are you really sure?

[color=blue]
> In VC++ 7.x the documentation
>writers also did a sweep through all the docs to get rid of "void main()".
>Maybe some escaped (it's always possible to miss a few), but I hope that
>it has already disappeared from the docs.[/color]

T'would be nice if they could get the defaults right wrt. to that non-standard
beast "WinMain" also. When the GNU folks could, why not Microsoft? Okay, this
is off-topic, but then, it's one of the most used C++ compilers.

**Bob Bell** · Jul 19 '05, 07:02 PM

Re: Amusing Microsoft C++ ad

"David B. Held" <dheld@codelogi cconsulting.com > wrote in message news:<bm0ehg$71 6$1@news.astoun d.net>...[color=blue]
> "Bob Nelson" <bnelson@nelson be.com> wrote in message
> news:48Ogb.2146 $av5.1475@newsr ead3.news.pas.e arthlink.net...[color=green]
> > [...]
> > - The amusing part is the declaration of ``main'' in an example
> > showing support for function template specialization:
> >
> > void main()[/color]
>
> Yet further proof that "void main()" is legal C++ because
> Microsoft says so! The Sage has had the last laugh on
> us all!!![/color]

And not just any part of Microsoft, either. The marketing department says so.

Well, if that's good enough for The Sage it's good enough for me.

Bob

WW · Jul 19 '05, 07:02 PM

Re: Amusing Microsoft C++ ad

Bob Bell wrote:[color=blue]
> And not just any part of Microsoft, either. The marketing department
> says so.
>
> Well, if that's good enough for The Sage it's good enough for me.[/color]

He would be *very* good in marketing. All you should ensure is that he
works for the competitor. ;-)

--
WW aka Attila

**galathaea** · Jul 19 '05, 07:02 PM

Re: Amusing Microsoft C++ ad

"Herb Sutter" wrote:
: On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 06:28:16 GMT, Bob Nelson <bnelson@nelson be.com> wrote:
: >The November 2003 edition of the ``C/C++ Users Journal'' contains a
: >multi-paged advertising section for Microsoft's Visual C++. NET 2003
: >product.
: >
: >One section focuses on the compiler as being one of the most ISO
compliant
: >on any platform. Overall, the ad is rather interesting and has some
: >worthwhile code snippets.
: >
: >- The amusing part is the declaration of ``main'' in an example showing
: > support for function template specialization:
: >
: > void main()
:
: I thought that was amusing too. :-)
:
: FYI, since VC++ 7.0, under /Za you get the following for such code:
:
: warning C4326: return type of 'main' should be 'int' instead of 'void'
:
: And everyone should use /Za by default now. In VC++ 7.x the documentation
: writers also did a sweep through all the docs to get rid of "void main()".
: Maybe some escaped (it's always possible to miss a few), but I hope that
: it has already disappeared from the docs.

In 7.0 there are certainly quite a lot of MSDN help pages / docs/ etc. that
still have the void main(). In fact, there are some docs that have both int
main() and void main() on the same page!

--
/////////////////////////////////////////////

galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar

**David B. Held** · Jul 19 '05, 07:03 PM

Re: Amusing Microsoft C++ ad

"galathaea" <galathaea@exci te.com> wrote in message
news:sD%gb.996$ uT2.128534593@n ewssvr21.news.p rodigy.com...[color=blue]
> [...]
> In fact, there are some docs that have both int
> main() and void main() on the same page![/color]

Yet further proof that if the implementation allows "int main()",
then "void main()" is also legal! Will wonders never cease??

Dave

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 9/23/2003

**nospam@nospam.invalid** · Jul 19 '05, 07:09 PM

Re: Amusing Microsoft C++ ad

Hello Bob Nelson,

On 8-Oct-2003, Bob Nelson <bnelson@nelson be.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> - The amusing part is the declaration of ``main'' in an example showing
> support for function template specialization:
>
> void main()[/color]

I really don't understand how Microsoft managed to make the worlds most
powerful and easy to use OS's.

**Phlip** · Jul 19 '05, 07:09 PM

Re: Amusing Microsoft C++ ad

> > - The amusing part is the declaration of ``main'' in an example showing[color=blue][color=green]
> > support for function template specialization:
> >
> > void main()[/color]
>
> I really don't understand how Microsoft managed to make the worlds most
> powerful and easy to use OS's.[/color]

By letting others do their research for them, then skimming off what worked
and re-engineering it.

For example, everyone else's standard is "int main". So MS's standard is
"void main" - it's non-standard, a little "better", and addresses a known
market.

--
Phlip

WW · Jul 19 '05, 07:10 PM

Re: Amusing Microsoft C++ ad

Phlip wrote:[color=blue]
> For example, everyone else's standard is "int main". So MS's standard
> is "void main" - it's non-standard, a little "better", and addresses
> a known market.[/color]

It is not MS standard. It is backwards compatibility to their old
compilers.

--
WW aka Attila

**nospam@nospam.invalid** · Jul 19 '05, 07:10 PM

Re: Amusing Microsoft C++ ad

Hello WW,

On 13-Oct-2003, "WW" <wolof@freemail .hu> wrote:
[color=blue]
> It is not MS standard. It is backwards compatibility to their old
> compilers.[/color]

Are you serious?

**Attila Feher** · Jul 19 '05, 07:10 PM

Re: Amusing Microsoft C++ ad

nospam@nospam.i nvalid wrote:[color=blue]
> Hello WW,
>
> On 13-Oct-2003, "WW" <wolof@freemail .hu> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> It is not MS standard. It is backwards compatibility to their old
>> compilers.[/color]
>
> Are you serious?[/color]

Nope. I am Attila, who also calls himself White Wolf. And yes, it is a
backward compatibility thing.

--
Attila aka WW

Amusing Microsoft C++ ad

Amusing Microsoft C++ ad

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment