Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!comp.vuw.ac.nz!windy!srwmrbd
From: SRWMRBD@windy.dsir.govt.nz (ROBERT)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Borland C++ with Windows 3.0?
Message-ID: <17721@windy.dsir.govt.nz>
Date: 13 Jul 90 10:15:05 GMT
References: <604@cvbnetPrime.COM> <DSAMPSON.90Jul5094845@x102a.harris-atd.com> <20226@grebyn.com>
Organization: DSIR, Wellington, New Zealand
Lines: 30

In article <20226@grebyn.com>, ted@grebyn.com (Ted Holden) writes:

..........

> With all due respect to Borland, and they're due a lot of respect,
> they're 3 years late and many dollars short on this one.  Walter Bright,
> one of the very brightest lights in American computer science, took
> almost a whole year getting Zortech's first version of C++ out the door
> and another year getting all kinks out prior to the new Zortech 2.x
> releases which, incidentally, support Windows development.  The best
> info available is that the front end of a C++ compiler is something like
> five times as complex as that for a C compiler, i.e. C++ is about as
> complex a language as anybody can do any kind of a reasonable job with
> in implementing (Ada, by contrast, is TOO complex to implement well).  
> 
> You have to figure that Zortech has a 2.5 - 4 year jump on both Borland
> and MicroSoft in C++ and that they might just maintain it.  I wouldn't
> spend money on anybody elses C++ compiler for DOS/Windows/386-IX right
> now.


My guess is that Zortech's jump on Borland should be measured in months
rather than years.

Borland's C++ compiler is much much better than the early versions of
Zortech.

I'll try to post a brief review to the C++ newsgroup shortly.

Robert