Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!dptg!pegasus!psrc
From: psrc@pegasus.ATT.COM (Paul S. R. Chisholm)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Should we use C++?
Summary: maybe; in your case, probably
Message-ID: <4177@pegasus.ATT.COM>
Date: 16 Oct 89 03:21:48 GMT
References: <17898@rphroy.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 55

In article <17898@rphroy.UUCP>, tkacik@rphroy.UUCP (Tom Tkacik) writes:
> We are starting a large software project, and are considering using C++
> as the implementation language.  It is expected that this will be used by
> many people, and will have to be maintained by different people, on several
> different systems.

This, more than anything, is probably the crux of the question.  Unless
you just want to use C++ as a "better C", you should use C++ on a new
project, rather as part of maintenance of existing code (which is
unlikely to be object oriented!-)  But you should probably use it on a
small project first.  And you darned well had better be prepared to pay
the education costs, in staff-hours more than in dollars.  (All of this
is true for *any* new software technology, be it a new language or CASE
or inspections or whatever.)  (Well, surely inspections are good on old
code, but that's not important right now.*)

> Is C++ ready for use yet?  I have heard of several different versions of C++.
> AT&T C++ ver. 1.2,  AT&T C++ ver. 2.0,  g++-1.35, Zortech C++, etc.
> and that there are differences between them.

Not the least of them being the platforms they support.  Zortech C++
runs under MS-DOS.  G++ never will.  AT&T cfront 1.2 has been ported;
2.0 is presumably being ported by the same folks as we speak.

> I am questioning the stability of C++.  How much further change will there be?
> Should we go ahead and use the C++ 1.2 that we got from our vendor?

Yes.

> Should we attempt to get the new version 2.0?

Yes.  You should be aware of the differences, and prepare to deal with
them; that mostly means taking advantage of the new 2.0 features.  But
you can certainly write code that compiles under both versions.  It may
take some work, but not much.  (I've done this.)

> Basically, 1) are the differences between the different current
> versions small enough that code will be portable between them, and

I think so.

> 2) will future changes to the language be small enough that we
> will not have to change much of the code in the future?

Probably; but you'll probably want to.  The features on the horizon (no
promises here, from me or the compay) are parameterized types and
exception handling.  With those in place, we should then see some nice
general-purpose classes.

> Tom Tkacik, uunet!edsews!rphroy!megatron!tkacik

Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories
att!pegasus!psrc, psrc@pegasus.att.com, AT&T Mail !psrchisholm
I'm not speaking for the company, I'm just speaking my mind.
*And don't call me Shirley!