Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ucsd!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!nsc!amdahl!key!perry
From: perry@key.COM (Perry The Cynic)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: MPW C++ vs. THINK C 4.0
Summary: THINK C is not C++
Message-ID: <2054@key.COM>
Date: 17 Aug 90 22:27:41 GMT
References: <1990Aug15.165548.25740@midway.uchicago.edu>
Reply-To: perry@arkon.key.COM (Perry The Cynic)
Organization: Key Computer Laboratories, Fremont
Lines: 55

In article <1990Aug15.165548.25740@midway.uchicago.edu> gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes:
> ----
> This is basically just a repost of my earlier msg.  I got only two responses,
> one of which was asking me to forward any info I got.   So, in the thought that
> my subject line might have been too vague, I repost. 
> 
> Basically I just wanted to know if someone wanting to learn C++ has any reason
> to purchase MPW C++ over THINK C's C+-.  I'm familiar with major differences
> between the two environments and I'm mainly curious about whether the syntax
> differences between C++ and C+- are sufficient enough to warrant purchasing
> MPW's C++ if you're really trying to learn C++.
> 
> Any info much appreciated!
> 
> Robert

Well, if you want to learn C++, then the main reason why you shouldn't use
THINK C is that it isn't. C++, that is. They claim that it is a "subset".
What they presumably mean is that THINK C code is valid C++ code. That seems
true as far as it goes, but it says little about THINK C's abilities. After
all, most ANSI C code is valid C++, too.

The people at Symantec have decided that they want to make their own object-
oriented C. That's fine by me. Just don't think that their product is anywhere
near real C++. In fact, they seem to like that state of affairs. I remember
sending mail to a Symantec guy on the net when their "Object C" came out,
and receiving a rather nasty reply telling me to "stop whining for C++".
Since then I've seen several postings from their side telling us that C++
is filthy and unclean, and Object C is so much better. I can't tell whether
that is marketing rationale or a true religious belief on their part. Anyway,
I can't see any kind of commitment to full, standard C++ on Symantec's part.
(If I'm wrong, I'm sure somebody will tell me. Peacefully, please. :-)
Even if they magically turn THINK C (n+1) into a full C++ compiler, they will
hardly rewrite their object library, so it will remain stuck in the
Object Pascal frame of mind.

For the record, here are a few highlights of what isn't in Symantec's Object C:
Non-heap class objects (at all), C++-style creators and destructors(!!),
operators and function overloading (including asignment and copy operators!),
references and const types; and of course the advanced stuff like multiple
inheritance and operator new is Totally Out.

MPW C++ is advertised as fully C++ 2.x. I can't confirm it, since I don't
have it. My C++ development happens under MS-DOS, where Borland can deliver
a $100 ANSI C/C++ 2.0 compiler system without requiring 4MB of RAM. Sort
of like a THINK C environment with MPW capabilities... too bad it doesn't
run on the Mac.
  -- perry

Standard disclaimer: Nobody mentioned pays me anything. In fact, I paid
Borland and Symantec for their products, and Apple for my Mac...
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perry The Cynic (Peter Kiehtreiber)		       perry@arkon.key.com
** What good signature isn't taken yet? **  {amdahl,sgi,pacbell}!key!perry