chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) (06/06/91)
According to jimmyc@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (James Choi):
>Every message I got recommened SCO C++ for SCO environments.
Why *buy* when you can *get*?
I have yet to see one good reason not to use GNU G++. (We do.)
--
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.com>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip>
perl -e 'sub do { print "extinct!\n"; } do do()'sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) (06/08/91)
In article <284E3C3B.1846@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >Why *buy* when you can *get*? >I have yet to see one good reason not to use GNU G++. (We do.) To be compatible with system-supplied or third-party C++ libraries, which will have their names mangled in the way cfront likes, but not g++. To be compatible with what AT&T says is Proper, which is not necessarily what the g++ folks think is Proper (and with good reason, too, most of the time 8-)). To get a compiler that is supported by a pretty good bunch of folks (the people at SCO Canada [pka HCR] are bright, and there are more of them working on the devsys than there were of us [when I was at SCO]). (Hmm... g++ is also supported by a *very* bright bunch of people; however, their goals are not necessarily to support SCO *nix. SCOCan's is.) -- Sean Eric Fagan | "I made the universe, but please don't blame me for it; sef@kithrup.COM | I had a bellyache at the time." -----------------+ -- The Turtle (Stephen King, _It_) Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.
daniel@terra.ucsc.edu (Daniel Edelson) (06/09/91)
In article <foo foo blah blah> >In article <284E3C3B.1846@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >>Why *buy* when you can *get*? >>I have yet to see one good reason not to use GNU G++. (We do.) I don't claim these are reasons not to use g++, just a disadvantages: 1) documentation 2) Source code compatibility with ``current-style'' C++: nested types, delete[], cout << endl; /* I know: ``const char * endl = "\n";'' */ G++ is better in ways, e.g. inlining, price, source code.... I'm eagerly awaiting 2.0 ... --- Daniel Edelson | ``Recycle your garbage. Please don't daniel@cis.ucsc.edu, or | make me come and copy after you.'' uunet!ucscc!terra!daniel |
chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) (06/12/91)
According to sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan): >In article <284E3C3B.1846@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >>I have yet to see one good reason not to use GNU G++. (We do.) > >To be compatible with system-supplied or third-party C++ libraries, which >will have their names mangled in the way cfront likes, but not g++. Name mangling is easy to change, when you have source code. >To be compatible with what AT&T says is Proper, which is not necessarily >what the g++ folks think is Proper ... Well, I did say *good* reason. :-) >To get a compiler that is supported by a pretty good bunch of folks ... >g++ is also supported by a *very* bright bunch of people; however, their >goals are not necessarily to support SCO *nix. SCOCan's is. Point taken. But when their goals change, or the good people leave... -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.com>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip> "You can call Usenet a democracy if you want to. You can call it a totalitarian dictatorship run by space aliens and the ghost of Elvis. It doesn't matter either way." -- Dave Mack