880716a@aucs.uucp (Dave Astels) (01/25/90)
Does anyone have recent information regarding the possible release of a C++ product from Microsoft?? I saw mention that they were developing one in a recent Dr. Dobbs. -Dave -- - Dave Internet: 880716a@AcadiaU.CA Bitnet: 880716a@Acadia
Bob.Stout@p6.f506.n106.z1.fidonet.org (Bob Stout) (02/01/90)
In an article of <31 Jan 90 03:46:18 GMT>, (John Kallen) writes: >In article <3205@hp-sdd.hp.com> craigb@sdd.sdd.com (Craig Bosworth) writes: >>According to a person from Borland at the SCOOP-West conference last week, >>Microsoft is far from ready to release a C++ compiler. >>(Of course, Borland's beta release is imminent(sp?)...) > >Turbo C 3.0 Betas (which compile C++ on files with .CPP extensions >has been out for two months... I'm fortunate enough to have weasled information out of a number of both company's beta testers. Several folks who have TC 3.0 beta have yet to successfully compile a single C++ (2.00 spec) program with it. Microsoft is being much more conservative with MSC 7.0 (the C++ compiler they hope to release later this year). In terms of usability, MS is probably further along since they were talking to Stroustrup long before Borland decided they had to go ahead with a real C++ compiler rather than doing another O-O extension job like they did with TP 5.5 (as recently as this past October Borland was making official press announcements that their next release would include O-O extensions rather than being a real C++ compiler). Me? I'll stick with Zortech, thank you...
horstman@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Cay Horstmann) (02/03/90)
In article <329@wattres.UUCP> steve@wattres.UUCP (Steve Watt) writes: >Borland's beta release is imminent? That's good. Maybe they'll get >a debugged version out by the time Microsoft releases... But I doubt it, >since I have yet to see a debugged Borland product. Mind you, Microsoft >ain't a lot better, they are better. > I don't think that is quite fair. For example, Turbo Debugger is a LOT better than CodeView. And the beta-test of their new C compiler (the one with the -P option which will compile C++ 2.0) comes a Turbo Debugger that knows about classes and inheritance. Unlike Zortech, it has a virtual 386 mode driver (or unlike Microsoft, for that matter--you need a third-party add-on, Magic CodeView, to run CV in a virtual machine on a 386.) Are you listening, Walter? I think Borland is really going to beat Microsoft this time around. Cay
richardh@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Richard Hargrove) (02/03/90)
In article <11856.25C8577A@urchin.fidonet.org>, Bob.Stout@p6.f506.n106.z1.fidonet.org (Bob Stout) writes: > > [ comments about both Microsoft and Borland having c++ compilers in beta > test deleted ] > > Me? I'll stick with Zortech, thank you... Or at least wait for release 2.0 of the new products. c++ is different enough from c that I would treat the Microsoft and Borland products as release 1.0 (regardless of the release number games they play.) My experience with release 1 compilers in general has been consistently negative. Hence the skepticism. Richard Hargrove | An engineer knows when to hack; ...!attctc!richardh | A hacker doesn't know when to engineer. ------------------------+---------------------------------------------------
bright@Data-IO.COM (Walter Bright) (02/06/90)
In article <1990Feb3.074111.8859@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu> horstman@sjsumcs.SJSU.EDU (Cay Horstmann) writes
<Are you listening, Walter?
Yes, I'm listening. Patience, patience. We at Zortech really do put our
pants on one leg at a time, and write software one line at a time.
:-) :-) :-)Bob.Stout@p6.f506.n106.z1.fidonet.org (Bob Stout) (02/08/90)
In an article of <3 Feb 90 07:41:11 GMT>, (Cay Horstmann) writes: >And the beta-test of their new C compiler (the one with the -P option which >will compile C++ 2.0) comes a Turbo Debugger that knows about classes and >inheritance. Unlike Zortech, it has a virtual 386 mode driver (or unlike >Microsoft, for that matter--you need a third-party add-on, Magic CodeView, >to run CV in a virtual machine on a 386.) Are you listening, Walter? > >I think Borland is really going to beat Microsoft this time around. As someone whose hobby is weasling information out of beta testers, I find this interesting. The most recent information I have heard on TC 3.0 (if they're really confident in its C++ utility, why is it still TC?) is that those beta sites with significant applications in C++ have yet to successfully compile them. I've even heard this from a rabid Borland apologist/Zortech hater, so there must be something to it. MSC 7.0 (the C++ release) was going to be ready about the time MS had Programmer's Workbench ready to be able to release MSC 6.0, but is being delayed as well - probably until late 3rd qtr at the earliest. Borland's undoubtedly going to beat MS to market, but I think that reflects less conservatism rather than more advanced technology. As C compilers, both new products should be good. It's only their C++ technology that remains a big question mark. As far as Walter is concerned, it's public knowledge that he's been actively researching '386 and '486 code issues recently. Zortech's also said that the current 2.06 release of ZTC++ will probably be the definitive release while he works on the next major release. As a Zortech beta tester, the secrecy shoe's on the other foot here, so all I can say is what's already generally known. Finally, the one thing all vendors are doing that worries me is something I might not have expected with the adoption of the ANSI standard. Since C compiler technology has reached a level where all of the major compilers are pretty much competitive, everyone in the PC market seems to be looking for a competitive edge by extending the language. When Walter did this with his __handle pointers, it seemed like a pretty good idea. As I hear of more and more incompatible language extensions being added to MQC 6/QC 2.5, TC 3, JPIC, etc., it's starting to disturb me.
markha@microsoft.UUCP (Mark HAHN) (02/10/90)
PLEASE note that I am NOT connected with the Language group! Does anyone know whether the Borland c++ product is just a port of cfront, or a full-blown compiler? is it a subset, or full 2.0? thanks, Mark -- Mark Hahn uunet!microsof!markha I speak for myself, not Microsoft.
schaut@cat9.cs.wisc.edu (Rick Schaut) (02/15/90)
In article <12587.25D1A921@urchin.fidonet.org> Bob.Stout@p6.f506.n106.z1.fidonet.org (Bob Stout) writes: | | Finally, the one thing all vendors are doing that worries me is something I | might not have expected with the adoption of the ANSI standard. Since C | compiler technology has reached a level where all of the major compilers are | pretty much competitive, everyone in the PC market seems to be looking for a | competitive edge by extending the language. When Walter did this with his | __handle pointers, it seemed like a pretty good idea. As I hear of more and | more incompatible language extensions being added to MQC 6/QC 2.5, TC 3, JPIC, | etc., it's starting to disturb me. While this proliferation is disturbing, I see no viable alternative. The PC world simply codes in C. Unfortunately, C isn't adequate for maintaining large projects. So people start clamouring for C++. Yet, even now, people have run into the limitations of C++. Now if you were a vendor of PC compilers, would you wait 'til Robert Stroustrup added parameterized types to C++, or would you do it yourself? -- Rick (schaut@garfield.cs.wisc.edu) Peace and Prejudice Don't Mix! (unknown add copy)
bill@zycor.UUCP (Bill Mahoney) (02/18/90)
In article <4302@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> schaut@cat9.cs.wisc.edu (Rick Schaut) writes: >compilers, would you wait 'til Robert Stroustrup added parameterized types >to C++, or would you do it yourself? Well, first I'd wait for BJARNE STROUSTRUP to add them. -- Bill Mahoney //STEPLIB DD DSN=SYS2.LINKLIB,DSP=SHR bill@zycor.UUCP //SYSPRINT DD SYSOUT=A .... Huh? Wha? Oh! It was only a bad dream!