eli@smectos.gang.umass.edu (Eli Brandt) (06/15/91)
I took this out of the graphics groups cuz it's not graphics. In article <1991Jun12.201740.16463@netcom.COM> jls@netcom.COM (Jim Showalter) writes: [ Ada/C++ discussion axed ] >>o C++ compilers are cheap -- the GNU family is free, and runs >> on a number of different architectures. You can get the source >> code so that you can fix it if it's broken. > >You get what you pay for. Personally, I'd much prefer to buy a validated >compiler with the number of bugs approaching zero than use a free compiler >so shot full of bugs the source code is provided to me to patch around >problems that SHOULD have been taken care of by the vendor. Out of curiosity, have you actually used a GNU compiler? If so, could you specify some of the bugs with which it was "shot through". Please, only note those which directly affected you, because *commercial* compiler vendors don't tell you about other bugfixes. My experience has been that gcc is less buggy than Sun cc or (smirk) Microsoft C. I've had no problems working on a prospective Obfuscated C entry. Can you honestly tell me that you've never wanted to look at, tweak, port, or tinker with your compiler? Difficult without source. As for support, I suspect the net will be around longer than most Ada vendors. GCC sidenote: It appears that gcc -O generates division code which is about six times faster than SGI's cc -O on a 4D. Multiplication is "only" 70% faster. Has anybody else seen numbers like these? A factor of six seems just a bit odd. "You get what you pay for"? [ C++ bashing, much of which I agree with, axed ] >-- >*** LIMITLESS SOFTWARE, Inc: Jim Showalter, jls@netcom.com, (408) 243-0630 **** >*Proven solutions to software problems. Consulting and training on all aspects* >*of software development. Management/process/methodology. Architecture/design/* >*reuse. Quality/productivity. Risk reduction. EFFECTIVE OO usage. Ada/C++. * / Eli Brandt eli@gang.umass.edu \ \ You have been disclaimed. /