steelem@boulder.Colorado.EDU (STEELE MARK ALLEN) (07/24/90)
much debate and discussion about what should be in THINK C 5.0 (C++ ?). Now that Turbo C++ has been released, is there any pressure on Symantec to make THINK C++ ?? I realize that Rich, or anyone else associated with Symantec will not give information on what will be realeased with the lastest and greatest version of THINK C, BUT could you give us a little hint, or a teaser of what you are working on just to tide us over PLEEEASE!?!!?? -Mark Steele
siegel@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel) (07/24/90)
In article <23846@boulder.Colorado.EDU> steelem@spot.Colorado.EDU (STEELE MARK ALLEN) writes: > I realize that Rich, or anyone else associated with Symantec >will not give information on what will be realeased with the lastest >and greatest version of THINK C, BUT could you give us a little hint, or >a teaser of what you are working on just to tide us over PLEEEASE!?!!?? Sorry, I can't. :-) R. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Rich Siegel Staff Software Developer Symantec Corporation, Language Products Group Internet: siegel@endor.harvard.edu UUCP: ..harvard!endor!siegel "I have been known, on occasion, to howl at the moon." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
escher@Apple.COM (Michael Crawford) (08/01/90)
In article <23846@boulder.Colorado.EDU> steelem@spot.Colorado.EDU (STEELE MARK ALLEN) writes: >much debate and discussion about what should be in THINK C 5.0 (C++ ?). >Now that Turbo C++ has been released, is there any pressure on Symantec >to make THINK C++ ?? I don't have the answer to this question, but propose a different alternative: Think Objective C. Now, I have not had any experience yet with Objective C, but I have some now with C++, and I am quite disappointed in the language. To summarize what I dislike about it, I feel that it lacks what I like most about C: simplicity in the language. It is very easy to figure out what a statement in C means, and to figure out what the assembly code for it is going to look like (even in the face of things like void functions that take pointers to functions returning longs that take a pointer and an int as parameters -- this sort of thing is the worst to figure out, but at least it can be done in a mechanical manner). Try reading the C your C++ code translates into. It helps find some of your bugs. I also think it should not really be necessary, and the C is really contorted. I don't feel the language of C++ itself was well designed. I would even suggest that it was not designed, so much as arrived at, but I am told that is not the case. I am eager to look at Objective C. Some of the bogosities of C++ stem from the original method of translating it to C and using the original linker. I don't know what Objective C does, but I would rather a system that placed type information in the object file, and gave it a different file type or magic number. AT&T Cfront also makes some mighty cryptic error messages. I use ThinkC 4.0 myself, and like the C, but have been hesitant to use any of its Object Oriented features for fear of writing non-portable code. I would like to have an Object-Oriented Think C-like language, but I would like it to be some kind of standard. And of course, Rich can't tell us all what they're working on. Sure would be nice though. -- Michael D. Crawford Oddball Enterprises Consulting for Apple Computer Inc. 606 Modesto Avenue escher@apple.com Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Applelink: escher@apple.com@INTERNET# oddball!mike@ucscc.ucsc.edu The opinions expressed here are solely my own. alias make '/bin/make & rn'