Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!oresoft!dan
From: dan@oresoft.uu.net (Daniel Elbaum)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Naive C++ vs. G++ question
Message-ID: <1989Nov28.200402.10515@oresoft.uu.net>
Date: 28 Nov 89 20:04:02 GMT
Organization: Oregon Software, Inc.
Lines: 37


In article <34623@cornell.UUCP> beck@cs.cornell.edu (Micah Beck) writes:
:
:Now comes the confusing part: choosing a compiler/translator.  I do not
:understand the differences between C++ and G++ beyond the fact that the
:former is a translator licensed by AT&T, the latter a PD compiler.
:I would like to use the Oops library of objects, but it is labeled as
:written for C++.  The licensing fee for C++ seems like an impediment to
:wide distribution.

:I am tempted to try and use G++ with the Oops classes and hope the result
:will run under both C++ and G++ if I stick to simple language features.
:Is there any hope that this will work?  Can experienced voices out there
:provide any insight?  Should I just stick to ANSI C?
:
:Micah Beck
:Cornell Computer Science Dept.
:beck@cs.cornell.edu


	C++ is a language.  AT&T sells a compiler called Cfront which
	reads C++ code and writes C code.  Other companies (including
	Oregon Software) sell compilers which read C++ code and write
	assembly or object code.  g++ is both a compiler and a language.
	The language resembles C++ very closely.

	You don't need a license to use the C++ language nor the OOPS
	library.  I imagine the g++ compiler will compile the OOPS
	library with little or no modification to the latter.

	If you stick strictly with C++ rules, you can use g++ to write
	code which works with a variety of compilers and machines.

-- 
The disbelievers say: "Lo!  This is a mere wizard."  -Quran, Surah X

({uunet,tektronix,reed,sun!nosun,osu-cis,psu-cs}!oresoft!(dan)@oresoft.uu.net)