mjl@lccma.bos.locus.com (Mike Leibensperger) (03/13/91)
Greetings, X-ists! A colleague who has done some X work tells me that the Project Athena people considered C++ as an implementation language, but decided against it. We're both curious---can anyone tell us the rationale for that decision? Perhaps only C++ 1.2 was available, and there was some feature requirement that didn't appear until 2.0 or 2.1? What language feature was needed, and to support which mechanisms in X? Or is this just a bogus rumor and C++ was not used because a sufficiently robust version wasn't available in time? I'd appreciate it if anyone with the bird's eye low-down on this caper (whatever that means) could e-mail me about this. (I don't regularly read this group.) Thanks mucho! mjl -- Michael J. Leibensperger <mjl@locus.com> "None are so deeply enslaved Locus Computing Corp./Boston as those who falsely believe 25 Burlington Mall Road they are free." Burlington MA 01803, (617)229-4980 x169 -- J. W. von Goethe -- Michael J. Leibensperger <mjl@locus.com> "None are so deeply enslaved Locus Computing Corp./Boston as those who falsely believe 25 Burlington Mall Road they are free." Burlington MA 01803, (617)229-4980 x169 -- J. W. von Goethe
dsr@mir.mitre.org (Douglas S. Rand) (03/13/91)
How about C++ was hardly even thought of back when W was done and then X. Support for C++ (like source level debuggers) have only been around for two years or so. And C++ has no standard, so how would they port X around to different machines? C is bad enough. -- Douglas S. Rand Internet: <dsrand@mitre.org> Snail: MITRE, Burlington Road, Bedford, MA Disclaimer: MITRE might agree with me - then again... Amateur Radio: KC1KJ