Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!elan!tom
From: tom@elan.elan.com (Tom Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: C++ Not Ready for Commercial Use
Message-ID: <644@elan.elan.com>
Date: 16 Oct 89 17:31:54 GMT
References: <1989Oct15.193756.6114@paris.ics.uci.edu>
Organization: Elan Computer Group, Inc., Mountain View, CA
Lines: 26

From article <1989Oct15.193756.6114@paris.ics.uci.edu>, by schmidt@zola.ics.uci.edu (Doug Schmidt):
> In article <24.UUL1.3#913@acw.UUCP>, guthery@acw (Scott Guthery) writes:
> ++ 	3) An incompatible Release 2.0 just came out this year; existing
> ++ 	   C++ projects must either be rewritten or use two different
> ++ 	   incompatible compilers for the same langauge in their builds.
> 
> Naturally, it is an *empirical* question whether existing C++ projects
> must be re-written.  For example, no one is holding a gun to C++
> developers, forcing them to upgrade to 2.0.  

Actually, this doesn't appear to be the case.  We (software developers)
have been hearing "Fixed in 2.0" for well over a year now.  Bug fixes
by AT&T and compiler vendors to 1.2 have come to a screaming halt.  This
would not ordinarily be cause for alarm, but 1.2 has been accurately
labeled (by the author, I believe) a "research project", not a product.

Developing a large-scale software project in an experimental language
that has no support is not for the faint of heart (it's taken a couple
of years off my expected lifespan).  Most developers that I know
view 2.x and GNU (to a large degree 2.0 compatible) as the only
C++ version choices.  Harken back to the flap over AT&T's pricing
strategy announcement...

    Thomas Smith
    Elan Computer Group, Inc.
    tom@elan.com, ...!{ames, uunet, hplabs}!elan!tom