Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uxa.cso.uiuc.edu!jpd00964
From: jpd00964@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Think C 4.0
Message-ID: <227700036@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 26 Aug 89 02:09:00 GMT
Lines: 28
Nf-ID: #N:uxa.cso.uiuc.edu:227700036:000:1365
Nf-From: uxa.cso.uiuc.edu!jpd00964    Aug 25 21:09:00 1989


Received my Think C 4.0 upgrade today and am going through it.  I must say,
I started out ordering out of obligation, not because I like C++ (I am an
Objective-C addict).  However, Symantic did some very good things.

First, They appear to have included the commands this and inherited:  
These are equivelant to the self and super of Objective C which most C++
books seem to ignore.  The Waite Group's does not mention the inherited: and
mention this only in passing.  A pity, because this is where the power really is.

Second, The libraries are very well done.  It is about time someone made the
Mac programmable by everyone, not just someone dedicated to 6 months of banging
their heads on the walls.

Third, and the main reason why I like the product:
	THEY GIVE THEIR SOURCE CODE AWAY.  That's right, I have complete
documented source code for their entire library.  That is what will make this
a standard in my mind.  A person would have to be crazy to pass up this
oportunity.  Even on the NeXT (which runs Objective C), I do not have source
code.

Anyway, here is a real important question to me:
Are there different standards for C++?  It seems Stroustrup and Waite group
have different ideas, and Symantic seems to be running something quite 
different than either of those.  Is it my imagination, or are there at least
three standards?

Michael Rutman