Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!watmath!att!dptg!rutgers!mailrus!ames!uhccux!munnari.oz.au!comp.vuw.ac.nz!windy!srwmrbd
From: SRWMRBD@windy.dsir.govt.nz (ROBERT)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: C++ for DOS/OS2
Message-ID: <672@windy.dsir.govt.nz>
Date: 21 Sep 89 09:13:01 GMT
References: <661@windy.dsir.govt.nz> <1456@dinl.mmc.UUCP>
Organization: DSIR Wellington, NZ
Lines: 26

In article <1456@dinl.mmc.UUCP>, schwartz@dinl.uucp (Michael Schwartz) writes:

> Glockenspiel has done a good job in 1.2E1 of
> 	a) rolling out low memory used by make and the front end to
> 	effectively add about 84K of DOS memory--enough for hierarchies
> 	that are not too deep

I haven't found this very satisfactory; I still need to use a batch file
and avoid 'make' to do my big files. If you use this roll out mechanism
compile times can rise amazingly - say from 100 seconds to 2000 seconds.

> My current thoughts are:  Zortech for playing around with this stuff in
> MSDOS; Glockenspiel for commercial development.  In between? depends on
> how much they pay you 8-)

I more-or-less agree; however I wonder whether commercial development on a
PC using C++ is sensible. There is quite a large cost in code file length
(I hope to document this some time); my experience with the earlier versions
of Glockenspiel has been a bit unhappy, particularly in dealing with both
Lifeboat and Oasys as agents - I think at least half the problem was
Glockenspiel's; Glockenspiel still has limitations (eg in length of names
it can handle and see my bug report of some time ago and it inherits at
least one bug from MsC 5.1 precluding the use of float); and the programming
environment is in the dark ages.

Now if Walter Bright would sort out Zortech C++ .....