herman@kulcs.uucp (Herman Moons) (10/26/89)
I just got an upgrade offer from Zortech for their C++ compiler v2.0.
Does anyone now how good this compiler is ? Is it really compatible with
AT&T C++ 2.0 ??
What about the zortech debugger ? Can it debug C++ programs ?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Herman Moons Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
Dept. of Computer Science
Tf : +32 (16) 20.06.56 Celestijnenlaan 200A
Fax: +32 (16) 20.53.08 B-3030 Heverlee-Leuven
Belgium
e-mail: herman@kulcs.uucp
herman@blekul60.bitnet
herman@cs.kuleuven.ac.be
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------wmmiller@cup.portal.com (William Michael Miller) (10/28/89)
The Zortech compiler is supposed to be released November 1, so I don't have any direct experience with it. It is supposed to be mostly 2.0 compliant; the exceptions of which I am aware are that it does not implement pointers to members, and it still does old-style overloading resolution. I have heard from at least one beta-tester for the product that the beta version was buggy, which is no surprise -- that's why you do beta testing, right? I think it's going to be worth using, assuming that the bug rate is not excessive and that bug fixes are available more quickly than they have been recently (the early days of the version 1.0 compiler had very acceptable bug fix turnaround, but this decayed, probably because of the time spent on developing the 2.0 version).
nadkarni@ashok.dec.com (10/30/89)
In article <23455@cup.portal.com>, wmmiller@cup.portal.com (William Michael Miller) writes... >The Zortech compiler is supposed to be released November 1, so I don't have Could someone please post a summary of the upgrade offer ? Thanks, /Ashok Nadkarni
bright@Data-IO.COM (Walter Bright) (10/31/89)
In article <23455@cup.portal.com> wmmiller@cup.portal.com (William Michael Miller) writes:
<The Zortech compiler is supposed to be released November 1, so I don't have
<any direct experience with it.
Zortech started shipping 2.0 last Friday, ahead of schedule (!). The office
has been working all weekend on the backlog of 2.0 orders. Perhaps someone
will post their 'first impressions'...Bob.Stout@p6.f506.n106.z1.fidonet.org (Bob Stout) (11/06/89)
In an article of <3 Nov 89 17:55:37 GMT>, (William G. Hutchison) writes: >In article <2196@dataio.Data-IO.COM>, (Walter Bright) writes: >> [ ... ] Zortech managed to lose the addresses of a lot of early customers. >> >> Quite true. The problem was recognized and solved about a year ago. > > Walter, my good man, I posted this message precisely because the problem >is obviously not solved. I, for example, have not been notified about >Zortech C++ 2.0, except by my good buddies here on Usenet. Perhaps it's just me, but when someone acknowledges something was lost, but says the problem's been solved, one immediate interpretation which pops to mind is that the lost things remain lost but corrective action has been taken to assure more things don't get lost. Based on this interpretation, I'd hardly expect those whose numbers were lost to receive upgrade info. >> On the other hand, there has always been a *free* phone number >>800-848-8408 to call about getting upgrades. > > Walt, old boy, does this mean that I am responsible for polling Zortech for >upgrades? How often is it my duty to call that free number? Daily, weekly, >or monthly? Would you please tell me how often a Zortech customer is >supposed to ask if there are upgrades? For PC compilers, a good policy is to call when a) you see a magazine ad for something you don't have, or b) when you have a problem that an upgrade might conceivably fix. I receive upgrade notifications on perhaps half of the PC software I own. Some I do receive only on major releases, but have to call about minor releases. > By the way, didn't Zortech originally promise to publish a newsletter >about C++ applications? I sent in the bingo card, and, surprise, surprise, >some rocket scientist at Zortech in Arlington, Massachussetts, SENT ME THE >BINGO CARD BACK IN AN ENVELOPE WITH NO LETTER OR EXPLANATION!! As one of the original Zortech customers who got one of the first compilers based on their uprgrade from Datalight offer, you'll never find me defending the brilliance of some of their lower-level personnel during the previous regime. It's small consolation that the twit who did this is probably either gone or doing something more suited to his/her talents. On the other hand, the technical support and order processing folks they have there now seem to range from competent to quite good. > By the way, I am not extremely mad at Zortech ... just amused (there are >lots of other companies who have treated me worse). But please persuade >the clowns in Arlington to clean up their act. My own feelings range from annoyance to foreboding. As a long time user of Walter's compilers, I deplore the haphazard way the old guard at Zortech USA (mis)handled their responsibilities toward Walter, the customers, and the product. Although the current folks seem to have their stuff together to a much greater degree, I find myself still annoyed at some of their policies and marketing strategies. They seem to have gambled the whole farm on marketing the first C++ native code compiler for MS/PC-DOS. Well and good, but that's a temporary advantage. Pushing the C++ compiler which was busy chasing the changing standard while orpahaning the excellent ANSI C compiler which is also in the package was also a questionable move, IMHO, although possibly justified on economic grounds. Failing to capitalize on Walter's core market for the Datalight compiler, embedded systems (where I first came in contact with it), is also a mistake. The recent price hikes to signal loud and clear that they're really in this to try to compete head-on against Microsoft and Borland is equally risky. I personally wish them well since I really love the product, but would feel a lot more comfortable if I could see more strategic thought in their business planning, rather than their evident gung-ho, "let's bet the farm" attitude. So far, it's paid off, so I hope I continue to be wrong...
gregk@cbnewsm.ATT.COM (gregory.p.kochanski) (11/09/89)
The following code yeilds the wrong result in zortech C++ 2.0.
Note that it is just straight "C".
(I have excerpted the interesting section from a longer compiler excerciser).
MESS3 should NEVER be printed, and in fact isn't on AT&T C++ 2.0, Microsoft C
v5.1, the native Alliant C compiler, and Zortech 1.07.
#define MESS3 "CPUTEST FAILS ON LOGICALS\n"
main()
{
register int a;
short d, i, *q, **r;
register short int *p;
long c, l, mm;
register unsigned e;
double x;
float yy;
extern short cwords;
static float xx;
static double y;
static long m;
static short int b;
for(a=0;a<2;a++)
{
for(b=0;b<2;b++)
for(d=0;d<2;d++)
for(c=0;c<2;c++)
if((a||b)==((!a)&&(!b)) ||
(!(c&&d))!=((!c)||(!d)) ||
(!a)==a || ((a!=c)||a)!=((a!=c)||c))
write(2, MESS3, sizeof(MESS3)-1);
}
exit(0);
}
Greg Kochanski gpk@physics.att.com Physics for fun and profit.
I may be biased, but this is still true.bright@Data-IO.COM (Walter Bright) (11/14/89)
In article <2262.2558EDEE@urchin.fidonet.org> Bob.Stout@p6.f506.n106.z1.fidonet.org (Bob Stout) writes: <In an article of <3 Nov 89 17:55:37 GMT>, (William G. Hutchison) writes: < < By the way, didn't Zortech originally promise to publish a newsletter < <about C++ applications? The newsletter was dropped because of lack of interest. <Pushing the C++ compiler which was busy chasing the <changing standard while orpahaning the excellent ANSI C compiler which is also <in the package was also a questionable move, IMHO, although possibly justified <on economic grounds. The C compiler is not orphaned. It's fully supported, it tracks ANSI C, and is included with the C++ compiler. It won't be dropped as long as there are customers for it. <I personally wish them well since I really love the product, <but would feel a lot more comfortable if I could see more strategic thought in <their business planning, rather than their evident gung-ho, "let's bet the <farm" attitude. We have bet the company on C++. I made that decision about 2 years ago. Zortech isn't big enough to be able to bet on multiple products. But so far, it's obvious that we bet right, and we're having a great time! I'm also willing to bet that 2 years from now any C compiler company that does not also have a C++ compiler will be out of business. Maybe even one year from now. Just look at the interest in C++ in the trade magazines. Hardly an issue of CL or DDJ goes by without an article on C++. P.S. We have a booth at Comdex. Drop by and say hi!