xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (06/28/90)
In article <90177.165517UH2@psuvm.psu.edu> UH2@psuvm.psu.edu (Lee Sailer) writes: >The difference between C and C++ is that they are two different (though related >languages. C is the C everybody knows and loves 8-). C++ is an up and coming >superset of C (very super) that adds object oriented features to C while >trying to maintain maximum upward compatibility with C. > >In short, if you want C, you don't need to buy C++. > > lee More than that, as I found to my sorrow when I bought Lattice C++, even though C++ is explicitly defined to be a completely upward compatible superset of C, the Lattice C++ distribution, at incredibly high cost, doesn't bother to include the files needed to compile vanilla Amgia C code, and only includes one of their early, buggy C compilers. I was not at all impressed by the value I got for my C++ dollar from Lattice. This is fairly typical of software that has no existing competition: there's simply no pressure to do the job right. Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us> -- In the 1960's Soviet and American tanks faced each other there, gun barrel to gun barrel at a range of several feet. In the 1990's Checkpoint Charlie had become a traffic hazard, and its new home is in a museum. -- Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Colin Powell, National Public Radio, National Press Club Speech.
marco@gensof.strhold.sublink.ORG (Marco Dabbene) (06/29/90)
in article <1196a604fca7267f495c@canremote.uucp>, darcy.otto@canremote.uucp (DARCY OTTO) says: > > First off, what is the difference between Lattice C v5 and Lattice C++ > v1? It seems to me as if Lattice is a better choice than Manx at this > point, because more people seem to use Lattice, and its price (last time > I checked, which was before v5) was lower. > The first is the standard C compiler with many ANSI extension (or all ?!!... i really don't know exactly!). The latter is the object-oriented version of the same compiler. If you are not going to program using this type of programming you can use the first (that costs less than the C++ version!). Note: if you have to compare Manx and Lattice compilers you MUST compare the standard compilers and not the object-oriented versions (even because i didn't hear of a C++ compiler from Manx..). Bye, Marco. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | General Software SrL *** Strhold Sistemi EDP | | Marco | Via Dante 4 I 20122 Milano Fax +39 2 72001474 | | Dabbene | Voice +39 2 872732 / 72002222 Data +39 2 8690294 | | | Sublink: marco@gensof.strhold.sublink.ORG | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 'The bell that rings inside your mind, is challenging the doors of time' (QUEEN - 'A kind of magic' - 1985) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (07/04/90)
In article <1990Jun27.201717.8938@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: >More than that, as I found to my sorrow when I bought Lattice C++, even >though C++ is explicitly defined to be a completely upward compatible >superset of C, the Lattice C++ distribution, at incredibly high cost, >doesn't bother to include the files needed to compile vanilla Amgia C >code, and only includes one of their early, buggy C compilers. Originally, both somewhat true. The C++ compiler didn't come out until just before Lattice 5.00 shipped, but it used as a backend the Lattice 4.xx compiler. While I didn't find Lattice 4.xx all that buggy, it certainly wasn't as clever about things as 5.0. Lattice, however, did ultimately provide a version of the CC program for C++ that would use Lattice 5.0 as a backend, rather than 4.0. As for the upward compatibility, the main thing that was left out of the C++ distribution originally was the documentation. There was apparently a question at Lattice as to what actually was a supported part of the C libraries under C++. The C++ language IS defined as a superset of C. But not necessarily a superset of ANSI C, since the ANSI specification is more recent than C++. In any case, Lattice ultimately decided that the whole Lattice C compiler library was part of C++, and sent out a book if you registered your copy that documented all the Lattice C calls. What that still left out, and this I agree with, was any documentation on the actual C compiler itself. That is a good thing, since I really hope they eventually build a C++ replacement for LC1, rather than going the CPP->CFRONT->LC1 route they presently take. That should make C++ compile significantly faster, but of course eliminates the plain C compiler completely. >Kent, the man from xanth. -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "I have been given the freedom to do as I see fit" -REM
phorgan@cup.portal.com (Patrick John Horgan) (07/08/90)
marco@gensof.strhold.sublink.ORG said... |in article <1196a604fca7267f495c@canremote.uucp>, darcy.otto@canremote.uucp |(DARCY OTTO) says: |> |> First off, what is the difference between Lattice C v5 and Lattice C++ |> v1? . . . |The first is the standard C compiler with many ANSI extension (or all ?!!... |i really don't know exactly!). The latter is the object-oriented version of |the same compiler. . . . I'm pretty sure that C++ V1 came out before the ANSI "compatible" C V5. This would imply that the C compiler that is part of the C++ is NOT ANSI compatible. Patrick Horgan phorgan@cup.portal.com