gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (08/14/90)
------ Just picked up Dan Weston's "Elements of C++ Macintosh Programming". It's good, and I'm interested in learning C++. But I had a question: I have THINK C (or "C+-", as Weston terms it). Is there any reason (besides wanting to pull the economy out of the possibly coming recession) that one would want to buy MPW C++ to use instead? Or should one just wait until THINK C 5.0 comes out? Hey, I know MPW C++ is mucho bucks, and I'm not even sure I can afford it. But if I'm going to learn C++, I'm keen on learning the proper syntax, and from what I can glean from scanning Weston's appendix on THINK C, there are some substantial differences which might lead to bad (or at least sub-optimal) C++ programming style (no protected and private protection levels in classes comes to mind). I know I should probably wait 'til THINK C 5.0 comes out -- and that may end up being what I do -- , but I'm curious what your opinions are. Thanks for any advice! Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
cory@three.mv.com (Cory Kempf) (08/22/90)
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: >But I had a question: I have THINK C (or "C+-", as Weston terms it). Is there >any reason (besides wanting to pull the economy out of the possibly coming >recession) that one would want to buy MPW C++ to use instead? Perhaps, if one wanted an implimentation of C++ (as opposed to an implimentation of C with objects thrown in). MPW C++ is a port of AT&T's CFront. One might also want such things as makefiles, revision control, the capability to look at the C or assembly code produced by one's compiler. One might also want to be MacApp (a class library for the Mac), or, one might just want an environment that gave them a unix like shell and tools as opposed to think C's interface. One might also want things like Inside Mac I-VI and TechNotes on line and integrated with the shell. But then again, perhaps not. > Or should one >just wait until THINK C 5.0 comes out? From what the folks at Think said at MacWorld, Think C will never be C++. If they did a C++ (my bet is they will), it will be a seperate product. > Hey, I know MPW C++ is mucho bucks, and >I'm not even sure I can afford it. It is expensive -- currently, for people serious about doing C++, it is $995 plus the price of a CD player (this is actually the price for ETO. The price for just C++, C (required), and MPW (required), SADE (almost required), MacsBug(necessary), and ResEdit(essential) is on the order of $675. ETO gives all of that, plus MacApp, Object Pascal, and upgrades for a year. > But if I'm going to learn C++, I'm keen on >learning the proper syntax, and from what I can glean from scanning Weston's >appendix on THINK C, there are some substantial differences which might lead to >bad (or at least sub-optimal) C++ programming style (no protected and private >protection levels in classes comes to mind). Not to mention things like operators, multiple inheritance, etc. Think C is not C++. It is C with some Object Enhancements thrown in. What you learn from Think C is applicable to C++, (but can't be used on another C compiler) but is not the whole story. >I know I should probably wait 'til THINK C 5.0 comes out -- and that may end up >being what I do -- , but I'm curious what your opinions are. It all depends on when you want to start learning C++. +C -- Cory Kempf I do speak for the company (sometimes). The EnigamI Co. 603 883 2474 email: cory@three.mv.com, harvard!zinn!three!cory
peter@hari.VIEWlogic.com (Peter Colby) (08/24/90)
In article <435@three.mv.com>, cory@three.mv.com (Cory Kempf) writes: |> |> From what the folks at Think said at MacWorld, Think C will never be C++. |> If they did a C++ (my bet is they will), it will be a seperate product. |> Actually, as I recall from a conversation with Rich Siegal (I hope that's spelt right) at MacWorld: 1) Think may or may not be working on a C++ 2) If they were working on a C++ it might or might not be released as part of some possibly future version of Think C. In other words, noone was admitting to nothing. However, I did get the impression that a separate C++ product might be desireable from a technical/development viewpoint but that marketing (Symantec I assume) might have other ideas. Hey, it was early in the morning; I could be wrong. (O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O) (O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O) (O) !the doctor is out! (O) (0) peter@viewlogic.com (0) (O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O) (O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)