From: val@news.ccutah.edu (Val Kartchner)
Subject: I'd use GNU C++ except....  (SAS read this)
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 17:58:00 GMT

I've been waiting for SAS to come out with their C++ compiler for quite a
while.  I've finally become tired of waiting, and since GNU has a C++
compiler available, I'd like to use it and NEVER get another commercial
compiler again.  However, there are a few reasons that I haven't yet gone
with GNU, and may yet cause me to upgrade to SAS/C++:

  1. I have an Amiga 1000.  This alone shouldn't be a problem except that
     whomever compiled the Amiga version of G++ made it require the
     ieeesingbas.library which is not available without 2.04.  I urge
     whomever is doing G++ for the Amiga to mage a version available for
     us pre-2.04 users.  Otherwise, we can't even use G++.

  2. G++ doesn't come with a screen-oriented debugger.  This doesn't stop
     me from using G++ (as does #1 above), but a source-level screen-oriented
     does help greatly in debugging.  I can still debug the old fashioned,
     but I would prefer not to do so.

  3. G++ requires that object files be converted to Berkley format so that
     you may use their linker.  Unless their linker format has special
     support for C++ without name-mangling or other neat features, then
     there is no reason for this.  It should be no harder for the compiler
     to produce Amiga-formatted object files than it is for the linker to
     produce Amiga-formatted executable files.  Eliminating this step would
     also simplify support by eliminating the need to upgrade the GNU linker
     as well.

  4. The implementer of G++ has an attitude problem.  There are certain
     implementation details (besides what has been stated above) with
     which I disagree strongly.  These things include implementing a
     method of doing macros (#define's) without side-effects.  This is what
     inline functions are for (among other things).  To be fair, if I
     were to implement a C++ compiler (as I am considering doing), I
     would do things with which others would strongly disagree as well.

  5. The FSF (Free Software Foundation) and I have a philisophical
     difference of opinion.  The FSF, from what I gather, wants all
     programmers to work for free.  This means that no programmer should
     ever get paid for any program.  (Note: this does not mean that they
     advocate piracy.  They are willing to respect others views and I
     respect their distribution license.)  However, this is not realistic
     within our economic system.  However, I do respect their right to
     hold that opinion, and the ferver with which they stick to it.
     (I have opinions with which others would disagree as well.)

Points one through three are the real sticklers.  However, point one should
be given special emphasis.

Whether SAS/C++ or G++ wins out is yet to be seen.  However, my money (pun)
is on G++.

Just my 2 bits.

--
|======================== The previous was my opinion =========///============|
| "AMIGA: The computer for the creative mind."(tm) Commodore  /// Weber State |
| "Macintosh: The computer for the rest of us." (tm) Apple\\\///  University  |
|=================== val@csulx.weber.edu ==================\///=== Ogden, UT =|