rick@hanauma (Richard Ottolini) (08/10/89)
C++ has much of the flavor of the original UNIX phenomenom-- it is interesting, the source code is almost free to university hackers ($250). Even if you don't intend to hack the source code, it leaves you a feeling of CONTROL-- you can read it fix bugs, make inmprovements, port it to next year's new hardware. And like UNIX you can gripe that on a one-to-one feature basis, some other language (e.g. Objective-C) might be better, but the sum of features is not.
weltyc@cs.rpi.edu (Christopher A. Welty) (08/11/89)
In article <4365@portia.Stanford.EDU> rick@hanauma (Richard Ottolini) writes: > >C++ has much of the flavor of the original UNIX phenomenom-- it is interesting, >the source code is almost free to university hackers ($250). >Even if you don't intend to hack the source code, it leaves you a feeling >of CONTROL-- you can read it fix bugs, make inmprovements, port it to next >year's new hardware. And like UNIX you can gripe that on a one-to-one >feature basis, some other language (e.g. Objective-C) might be better, but >the sum of features is not. Of course GNU's g++ is a quite free version of c++ if you can FTP or UUCP, and has a nominal cost if you want to order it by tape. Plus it is supported by lots of people, and has some libraries being developed with standard objects and such. Of course I don't know the status of the port of this to the cube, perhaps someone else does, or read gnu.g++. I actually think objective C is slightly better, so it's a matter of opinion, but I use g++ because I like the FSF and I like having source code and I like free things... Christopher Welty --- Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs | "Porsche: Fahren in weltyc@cs.rpi.edu ...!njin!nyser!weltyc | seiner schoensten Form"