Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!deimos.cis.ksu.edu!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!garcon!garcon.cso.uiuc.edu!grunwald From: grunwald@flute.cs.uiuc.edu (Dirk Grunwald) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: g++ vs. cfront 2.0 in the Real World Message-ID: Date: 11 Jul 89 15:23:23 GMT References: <799@redsox.bsw.com> <6590190@hplsla.HP.COM> <465@dialogic.UUCP> Sender: news@garcon.cso.uiuc.edu Reply-To: grunwald@flute.cs.uiuc.edu Distribution: comp Organization: University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Lines: 18 In-reply-to: paul@dialogic.UUCP's message of 11 Jul 89 14:54:42 GMT It's been stated many times; compiler output is clean, using lib++ is not. What has not been stated is what will be done to protect libg++ and libc from abuse using one of several crafty tricks. I hope that people note that the high price of AT&T C++, coupled with the FSF copyleft has created a market for classes and libraries that can be distributed without compelling a complete source distribution. People with AT&T C++ compatible library products might wish to consider packaging those libraries to be compatible with G++ and selling them. This would erode a major market share for AT&T C++ and would probably make them drop the price quite a bit. Oregon Software? Glockenspiel? -- Dirk Grunwald -- Univ. of Illinois (grunwald@flute.cs.uiuc.edu)