Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!cbnewsm!gregk
From: gregk@cbnewsm.ATT.COM (gregory.p.kochanski)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Should we use C++?
Message-ID: <5286@cbnewsm.ATT.COM>
Date: 11 Oct 89 12:49:57 GMT
References: <17898@rphroy.UUCP>
Reply-To: gregk@cbnewsm.ATT.COM (gregory.p.kochanski,mh,)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 26

As a relatively long-time user of C++ (over 1 year!), I'd say it's
useable.  I suffer withdrawl symptoms when I have to program in C.
AT&T C++ 2.0 seems (based on a week of use) to be pretty bulletproof,
and the class libraries are quite useful.
Trash your AT&T C++ 1.2 versions; 2.0 is a major improvement.

As far as the various versions go, they are almost upwards
compatible.  If you have someone around who understands the old code,
it is simple to make the few changes necessary to go from 1.2 to 2.0.
Even without understanding of the code, I expect that it wouldn't
be hard.

I haven't tried G++, but I have tried Glockenspiel's 1.2 port to MS-DOS.
It worked well, but did not have the memory to compile anything
large (this is as of 9 months's ago).  Zortech can handle large
programs, and is excellent for learning C++, but version 1.07
had too many bugs to be used for a serious project.
Zortech will be out with a new version soon (I've recieved a beta test
copy); it is improved, but the beta test version has bugs (of course),
so it's useability will depend on whether or not they do a good
clean-up job on the final release.

Sorry for the advertisement, but that is truth as I see it.
My opinions are my own; companies don't have opinions, just policies.
Greg Kochanski AT&T Bell Laboratories gpk\@physics.att.com
   ...!att!physics!gpk