oz@yunexus.UUCP (Ozan Yigit) (07/02/89)
In article <264@pink.ACA.MCC.COM> Ron Guilmette writes: >There are a lot of areas where I disagree strongly with >Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation, but one thing >we can agree on is that these kinds of silly licensing restrictions >result in nothing other than a big waste of resources. True enough. In any case, I suspect, except for the "rich companies" Cfront is no longer reachable, and g++ is possibly the best replacement. Our time is much better spent improving on g++ than to try to get AT&T to wake up. I am surprised that the educational institutions are spared. [Anybody know if educational license for cfront 2.0 require a 3B2 box or not ?? If I remember correctly, that was the condition for the "collegiate edition writer's workbench".] The best way to combat corporate arrogance is to ignore the corporation. [read: use g++] One other way to combat this would be to try to reverse-engineer the changes to cfront, using the 2.0 reference manual. [I believe there are "legal" methods of reverse-engineering] There are many talented compiler-types around, and I hope they are frustrated enough to do it. [hmpphh... what is this slime dripping from the ceiling ?? :-)] oz ps: In case you wonder, these are *my* opinions, and may not be attributed to my institution or my department. -- They are like the Zen students who, Usenet: oz@nexus.yorku.ca when the master points at the moon, ......!uunet!utai!yunexus!oz continue to stare at his finger.... Bitnet: oz@[yulibra|yuyetti] P. da Silva Phonet: +1 416 736-5257x3976
minshall@kinetics.UUCP (Greg Minshall) (07/06/89)
I certainly don't want to provoke a large number of flames directed in my direction, but... It occurs to me that the overall community (the side of which I sit by) will, in general, be better served by fewer versions of C++, each with support by a reputable vendor. The current situation, as I understand it, is that people get the sources of C++ to either port to their own platform (no help for them) or to fix bugs in the compiler and/or libraries. I would argue that the cost (in person-power) of doing that level of source debugging and maintaining probably overwhelms the price that has been mentioned for source licenses (though in most of our organi- zations we find it easier to find payroll dollars than P.O. dollars). Fewer, vendor-supported, versions will actually increase the distribution of C++, plus give us better odds that random C++ programs will be portable across systems. I would say that, for better or worse, C++ is probably going to be the "in" language of the 90's. The price, performance, and robustness on Sun's, IBM PC's, and Mac's for binary distributions will certainly affect this. So will the development of good user-interface building toolkits affect the impact C++ has on the world of programming. However, the source cost won't. The first widely used versions of 2.0 will probably come from 3rd party houses; success will be reached, however, when Microsoft, Sun, Apple (which, at least, has announced plans to do so), DEC, etc. (ie: systems houses), and "known" compiler houses like Borland and Think/Symantec/whatever, provide supported C++'s which are as easily obtainable as each of their C compilers (which, in reality, is only a constraint for the Unix houses, since they are the ones giving away C compilers today). To make C++ something other than a toy of the priveleged - that seems to me to be a goal worth shooting for. It is interesting, is it not, that that seems to be all of our goals, and yet the method is so controversial? Greg Minshall Kinetics/Excelan/Novell minshall@kinetics.com 1-415-947-0998
toelle@quando.UUCP (Wolfgang Toelle) (07/07/89)
I really hope that AT&T will wake up while reading all those articles on the net considering this unbelievable pricing policy. Most of the "smaller" companies won't be able or are not willing to pay the price AT&T requires. We seriously considered taking C++ for the future language for development of Software (while using C now), because it's a great language but we are not willing to pay this price (How much will be C++ V3.0 !??). It's a pity how a company can sentence a great language to death by a silly pricing policy. Wolfgang toelle@quando.uucp
jima@hplsla.HP.COM (Jim Adcock) (07/08/89)
>It occurs to me that the overall community (the side of which I sit by) >will, in general, be better served by fewer versions of C++, each with >support by a reputable vendor. Define reputable vendor? For me a reputable vendor is one which consistantly provides me with high performance, highest quality products for competitive prices year-in and year-out. IE a vendor I can trust to do business with over the long term. A vendor who suddenly and unexpectedly radically changes the terms of doing business does not inspire trust. >The current situation, as I understand it, is that people get the sources >of C++ to either port to their own platform (no help for them) or to fix >bugs in the compiler and/or libraries. Some of this is with people with more obscure platforms that aren't getting formal C++ support yet -- and may "never." While many people are on mainstream machines, a reasonable fraction are not. Also, a lot of this gets back to "trust" and ownership of compiler problems. If one is spending $100Ks to $Ms on a development project, one cannot afford to be stymied by compiler bugs, or unreliable vendors. But presumably, big commercial projects can afford to buy source at "any" inflated prices. >I would argue that the cost (in person-power) of doing that level of >source debugging and maintaining probably overwhelms the price that >has been mentioned for source licenses (though in most of our organi- >zations we find it easier to find payroll dollars than P.O. dollars). I'm afraid, following up on this logic, that many managers will feel more comfortable chugging along with low-priced [low-performance] C compilers, rather than allowing their software developers the advantages of C++. Scary prices are just too convenient an excuse to continue in one's set ways. >Fewer, vendor-supported, versions will actually increase the distribution >of C++, plus give us better odds that random C++ programs will be >portable across systems. I don't believe this. I believe the mega-multiple sources for C compilers has led to the explosion of C usage -- even though the vast majority of C compilers are from relatively few vendors. Likewise, I would *eventually* expect a similar pattern of C++ compilers. A few mainstream suppliers, and lots of little specialized nitch [sp?] players. >I would say that, for better or worse, C++ is probably going to be the >"in" language of the 90's. The price, performance, and robustness on >Sun's, IBM PC's, and Mac's for binary distributions will certainly affect >this. So will the development of good user-interface building toolkits >affect the impact C++ has on the world of programming. However, >the source cost won't. These things can take longer than you think. It may be that C++ becomes the language for the 2000's. C++ is just marginally suitable for mainstream programming today. In a couple more years tools may become widely available. And it can easily take 5 years for those tools to become widely used. >To make C++ something other than a toy of the priveleged - that seems to >me to be a goal worth shooting for. It is interesting, is it not, that >that seems to be all of our goals, and yet the method is so controversial? I think one area that needs to be re-thunk is C++ usage in universities. Unix became widely distributed though the support of universities, many computer vendors heavily discount or donate their machines in order to secure a university presence, etc. I'd like to see an approach taken that ensures a lively presence of C++ in universities. I think g++ is useful in that regard, but not sufficient.
leech@Apple.COM (Jonathan Patrick Leech) (07/08/89)
In article <6590186@hplsla.HP.COM> jima@hplsla.HP.COM (Jim Adcock) writes: >I think one area that needs to be re-thunk is C++ usage in universities. >Unix became widely distributed though the support of universities, many >computer vendors heavily discount or donate their machines in order to >secure a university presence, etc. I'd like to see an approach taken that >ensures a lively presence of C++ in universities. I think g++ is useful in >that regard, but not sufficient. AT&T did pretty much the same thing when the commercialized Unix (source absurdly expensive, no good terms for universities) as they're repeating with C++ now. Considering what this got them (Sun, among others :-), you might think they would reconsider. As far as non-mainstream machines goes, case in point: the UNC Pixel-Planes project (which I work on the other 9 months of the year) has several people wanting to do development in C++ for the new custom MIMD machine being built. Without source to 2.0, I don't see it happening. There just aren't the resources to support g++. Similarly, I was able to do a cfront port to A/UX (hardly an operating environment likely to be draw commercial C++ support soon :-) for another graphics team at UNC while located on the other side of the country, because of the easy of porting a source->source compiler. -- Jon Leech (leech@apple.com) Apple Integrated Systems __@/