jbr0@cbnews.att.com (joseph.a.brownlee) (02/12/91)
In article <2434@key.COM> perry@arkon.key.COM (Perry The Cynic) writes: > Don't think for a moment that THINK C (V 4.x) is C++; it isn't, and I have > it on good authority (people from Symantec) that its creators despise the > C++ language and don't intend to implement it until the market (us) force > them to. [...] If this is true, perhaps it is finally time for me to take a good hard look at MPW C++. I've been a THINK C user since the good 'ol days of LightSpeed C, and I do like the current OOP extensions and TCL. However, I have been viewing the current TC OOP extensions as a stepping stone to C++. I do have to admit to having thoughts about MPW C++ before this, so perhaps this is a good reason to make the switch. Don't get me wrong -- I know C++ is a bit of a kludge. It is relatively standard, though, which TC is not. Without any type of overloading (especially method name overloading) and no inlining capability, the TC OOP extensions have been limiting for me from time to time. Those limitiations are a lot easier to deal with if I think they may be going away in TC 5.0. While I realize that Symantec can't really comment on possible future products, if the future direction of TC does not include C++ (or at least more of its features than are supported now), I'd like to know. While I realize that Symantec would not want to alienate current cutomers by saying it will not support C++, in my case they may need to persuade me _not_ to jump ship now. Please, Symantec, tell us the above is _not_ true. -- - _ Joe Brownlee, Analysts International Corp. @ AT&T Network Systems /_\ @ / ` 471 E Broad St, Suite 1610, Columbus, Ohio 43215 (614) 860-7461 / \ | \_, E-mail: jbr@cblph.att.com Who pays attention to what _I_ say? "Scotty, we need warp drive in 3 minutes or we're all dead!" --- James T. Kirk
siegel@endor.uucp (Rich Siegel) (02/13/91)
In article <1991Feb12.132525.24968@cbnews.att.com> jbr@cblph.att.com writes: >In article <2434@key.COM> perry@arkon.key.COM (Perry The Cynic) writes: >> Don't think for a moment that THINK C (V 4.x) is C++; it isn't, and I have >> it on good authority (people from Symantec) that its creators despise the >> C++ language and don't intend to implement it until the market (us) force >> them to. [...] It is company policy to not comment on unannounced products or revisions, so I doubt that anyone I know would have said such a thing in any public official capacity. R. Rich Siegel Symantec Languages Group Internet: siegel@endor.harvard.edu "I was just trying to be subtle. That's my job, isn't it?"
Lawson.English@p88.f15.n300.z1.fidonet.org (Lawson English) (02/15/91)
Rich Siegel writes in a message to All
RS> It is company policy to not comment on unannounced products or
RS> revisions, so I doubt that anyone I know would have said such
RS> a thing in any public official capacity.
Actually, I heard the same thing when Think C 4.0 came out. I believe it was
in MacTutor, and they were quoting someone about the difficulties in trying
to convert the Think C compiler to handle the C++ style...
I seem to recall it was someone quite high in the organization, like the main
programmer or somesuch...
Lawson
--
Uucp: ...{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!300!15.88!Lawson.English
Internet: Lawson.English@p88.f15.n300.z1.fidonet.orgperry@key.COM (Perry The Cynic) (02/16/91)
In article <5709@husc6.harvard.edu> siegel@endor.UUCP (Rich Siegel) writes: > In article <1991Feb12.132525.24968@cbnews.att.com> jbr@cblph.att.com writes: > >In article <2434@key.COM> perry@arkon.key.COM (Perry The Cynic) writes: > >> Don't think for a moment that THINK C (V 4.x) is C++; it isn't, and I have > >> it on good authority (people from Symantec) that its creators despise the > >> C++ language and don't intend to implement it until the market (us) force > >> them to. [...] > > It is company policy to not comment on unannounced products or > revisions, so I doubt that anyone I know would have said such a thing in > any public official capacity. > > R. > > Rich Siegel Symantec Languages Group Internet: siegel@endor.harvard.edu To clear up possible misunderstandings and keep my name honest, here's a few words on Symantec, Mr. Siegel, C++, and me. In a previous message I quoted Mr. Siegel as accusing me of "Whining for C++". That was a quote from memory, and is not strictly correct. Mr. Siegel has requested that I provide a correction. The actual quote is "All of your whining (frankly) about storage allocation is wasted." and occured in a letter I received in August 1989 in reply to some negative comments I sent to him on the (then new) Object C product. The ghist of that letter is that C++ is a "kitchen-sink language" whose additional features (over THINK C 4.x) are not worth while. I do not think that my quote misrepresented the general tone and intent of that letter. I have no inside knowledge of what Symantec does or intends to do. To my knowledge, there has been no public announcement of Symantec, nor of any of its employees speaking in an official capacity, saying that C++ support will or will not be provided in the future. I have however a strong personal impression that up to now, there is no commitment to provide C++. This impression stems from personal statements of Mr. Siegel (of his personal opinions, not company policy) and from talks to several members of Symantec's technical support staff. I do not intend any personal criticism of Mr. Siegel, nor am I accusing Symantec of anything. I simply wish to point out that as far as I can judge as a Symantec customer, anyone waiting for THINK C to become C++ compatible may be in for a long wait. I think that Symantec will eventually be forced by its market (us) to support C++. I'm not sanguine about when, and how. Consider that the "const" feature of ANSI C is still missing from THINK C. When you ask tech support, they'll tell you alternately that it's too hard, or not important enough. That seems acceptable, until you realize that the same arguments can be made about important C++ features like constructors and overloading. I have to conclude, *personally and subjectively*, that Symantec's commitment to standards is not convincing. That's my personal opinion, not an official Symantec statement, nor an accusation of anyone; just the way I see it. If I'm wrong, and THINK C version 5 is C++, I'll be the first to congratulate them. It just doesn't feel like it will happen. Thank you for your attention. -- perry -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Perry The Cynic (Peter Kiehtreiber) perry@arkon.key.com ** What good signature isn't taken yet? ** {amdahl,sgi,pacbell}!key!perry