mo@seismo.UUCP (02/18/87)
Until I can get C++ up on a non-VAX (read SUN 3/160) without making a career of it, C++ is NOT fine for work now, no matter how badly I want to use it (which is pretty badly). I don't have time to port and debug the compiler and do the work I need to do. I could find a source for a SUN version of C++ (pun intended), I would try it out. Having to use a VAX (or more ideally, a 3B2) to port it is (1) silly and (2) unworkable for me. -Mike
johnston@uiucdcsb.UUCP (02/20/87)
>/* ---------- "C++ fine for work now??" ---------- */ >Until I can get C++ up on a non-VAX (read SUN 3/160) without >making a career of it, C++ is NOT fine for work now, no >matter how badly I want to use it (which is pretty badly). > ... I disagree. The fact that C++ is implemented as a front-end to the C compiler is a big win. I "ported" C++ version 1.1 to our Encore Multimax (NS32000 series based shared memory multiprocessor running under 4.2bsd Unix (UMAX)) in under 3 hours. It is serving well as an OS development language. I can't believe that it would be very difficult to port to a MC68000 series based 4.2bsd system. Gary Johnston Department of Computer Science University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 1304 West Springfield Avenue Urbana, IL 61801 USENET: {pur-ee,convex,ihnp4}!uiucdcs!johnston ARPA: johnston@b.cs.uiuc.edu CSNET: johnston%uiuc@csnet-relay
robison@uiucdcsb.UUCP (02/21/87)
Another testimonial to the ease of porting C++: I "ported" it to a
PC/RT (running 4.2 BSD UNIX) in an afternoon.
Arch D. Robison
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
CSNET: robison@UIUC.CSNET
UUCP: {ihnp4,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!robison
ARPA: robison@B.CS.UIUC.EDU (robison@UIUC.ARPA)root@sdd.UUCP (02/26/87)
In article <43105@beno.seismo.CSS.GOV> mo@seismo.CSS.GOV (Mike O'Dell) writes: >Until I can get C++ up on a non-VAX (read SUN 3/160) without >making a career of it, C++ is NOT fine for work now, no >matter how badly I want to use it (which is pretty badly). >I don't have time to port and debug the compiler and do >the work I need to do. I could find a source for a SUN >version of C++ (pun intended), I would try it out. >Having to use a VAX (or more ideally, a 3B2) >to port it is (1) silly and (2) unworkable for me. > > -Mike Why do you anticipate problems with getting C++ up on a non-VAX computer. You can now buy it on a PC! from Lifeboat. Oasys sells it for a number of machines, which I believe includes Sun and Apollos. I heard that the initial version was hard to part, but it is my understanding from talking to Bjarne Strourstup and Stan Lipman of AT&T that the new version that is now being released (1.2?) is easier to port. I hope so, because I intend to port it to our Convergent Technologies MightyFrame (a 68020 based V.2 + berkley extensions machine). If any of you feel that I may be heading into trouble, please post or email me. Daniel Corbett Vice President of Engineering Software Design & Development Corp Camarillo, CA (805)987-3068 UUCP: ihnp4!nrcvax!root
joecar@pyuxe.UUCP (03/04/87)
Porting C++ to another computing environment doesn't seem to me to be the real issue. I worry more about product quality, product support, availability of new features and releases, program support tools (eg. debugger). As a manager of an organization which is thinking of using C++ to write real world code, I need to think about whether the code I write this year will work and can be supported next year. Joe Carfagno ...!bellcore!pyuxe!joecar
bs@alice.UUCP (03/04/87)
> As a manager of an organization > which is thinking of using C++ to write real world code, I need > to think about whether the code I write this year will work and > can be supported next year. So do I. C++ has an excellent track record for compatibility. In fact, many of the first CwithClasses programs (now about 6 years old) are still in use. All changes will be upwards compatible extensions. Any exceptions to this rule would be simple corrections of generally acknowledged mistakes (like the change of C from using =+ to using +=); but no such are in the works. AT&T alone has hundreds of thousands of lines of C++ code and is not about to render them illegal. Even if we did want to do something silly it is unlikely that we would manage to: most C++ installations are outside AT&T.
dan@prairie.UUCP (03/05/87)
There is a rumour about that AT&T has plans to drop C++ as a product.
It's unsubstantiated and probably nonsense, but I'd like the comments of
informed people on it if possible.
--
Dan Frank (w9nk)
ARPA: dan@db.wisc.edu ATT: (608) 255-0002 (home)
UUCP: ... uwvax!prairie!dan (608) 262-4196 (office)
SNAILMAIL: 1802 Keyes Ave. Madison, WI 53711-2006bs@alice.UUCP (03/06/87)
Dan Frank (dan @ Prairie Computing, Madison, Wisconsin) writes > There is a rumour about that AT&T has plans to drop C++ as a product. > It's unsubstantiated and probably nonsense, but I'd like the comments of > informed people on it if possible. You are right. That rumor is utter nonsense. Maybe you just heard a very old rumor: Before C++ was made a product it was decided NOT to make it a product several times. I believe such decisions are habitually made for most ``unusual'' creations in most large companies. In fact, C++ is enjoying significantly more support from the AT&T establishment than ever before. See for example Larry Rosler's remarks about C++ in the latest issue of The C Journal.