Interested in the upcoming Dec LO C++ Dev discussion, but I have a couple of questions:
Isn’t C++ proprietary? If so, why isn’t LO using a FOSS coding platform instead?
C++ is a programming language. It has its international standard. And it has both proprietary (MS VS) and FLOSS (gcc; clang) implementations.
Wrt possible “Why use proprietary MS Visual Studio to develop on Windows” - there’s description in LO development wiki on that. If someone wants to invest one’s energy into evaluating current clang to build LO on Windows, no problem with that.
Apologies for not leaving a reference. I’m typing on a cell phone. 
I haven’t read the link yet, but I think I understand your point. So I have to ask, does that mean LO for Linux IS written in FOSS C++?
I’m afraid you don’t understand what a programming language is. There’s no “FOSS C++” or “Proprietary C++”. There are FOSS and proprietary compilers that take a source code (written in a programming language; and having their own license), and convert it to machine codes (and they differ in if you have access to the conversion/optimization details used in the conversion process, not in what license does source code or compiled result have).
Mike, thanks for the clarification, but perhaps I am not being clear. First, I have written code in several different languages over the years, although FoxPro (Watcom C) is the only one that required me to manually compile, and that was many years ago and early in my coding journey. (I have also written code in VBA, Google Apps Script/JavaScript, PHP, LO Basic, and others.)
My concern has to do with relying on proprietary licenses in what is supposed to be FOSS software. I’m a CPA, not a professional programmer, so please forgive any faux pas in terminology. I realize that this can cause miscommunication.
Hopefully, I have rectified any misunderstandings caused by my earlier posts. Does this explanation help you to better answer my question?
Speaking of concerns, there’s no point to discuss something abstract. If you have some specific concerns, like some scenario, let’s discuss that.
Perhaps I should have written “questions” instead of “concerns” (communication again), and the questions I raise may be based more in my own ignorance than any real issue (that’s why I’m asking – so I can learn).
I understand TDF is working to replace Java code in LO, and I know that Oracle has recently changed licensing terms to begin charging in certain use cases. I’m wondering why TDF would use proprietary ANYTHING to construct a FOSS product. I mean, doesn’t that sort of run contrary to the whole FOSS philosophy? Am I missing something (probably)?
Sigh…
Has Oracle? As far as I remember, it didn’t change its licensing terms to start charging for something; rather, it changed terms to allow a different development model, so it could shorten support cycle.
As to philosophical questions about what what TDF should do because of ideology, better ask Italo 
- I only can say that as a Windows developer, I would be most sad if I had to replace Visual Studio with another development environment. And given the ~recent (about 8 years already!) record of MS open-source involvement, I respect them very much. I don’t think that ideology should make us blind and dump good solutions for worse without any evidence.
I respect your opinion – although as a recently reformed “Microsoft fanboy” I might trust Microsoft a bit less than you. (grin) In fact, I have almost completely left Windows for Linux.
I WILL agree with you, though, MS seems to be making good faith efforts in the area of open source. I remain cautiously optimistic. I’ll certainly remain open-minded.
As for Oracle, I believe the Java license terms were changed to allow them to charge in certain (developer) situations, but I could be mistaken.
Anyway, I believe you have answered my questions for now. I appreciate your time and your patience.
Have a great day – and enjoy the upcoming holidays.