Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!wang!bu-tyng!three!cory
From: cory@three.mv.com (Cory Kempf)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: C++ vs "C+-": any big diff?
Message-ID: <435@three.mv.com>
Date: 22 Aug 90 00:05:40 GMT
References: <1990Aug13.204321.7200@midway.uchicago.edu>
Organization: EnigamI,  Nashua, NH.
Lines: 53

gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes:

>But I had a question: I have THINK C (or "C+-", as Weston terms it).  Is there
>any reason (besides wanting to pull the economy out of the possibly coming
>recession) that one would want to buy MPW C++ to use instead?  

Perhaps, if one wanted an implimentation of C++ (as opposed to an implimentation
of C with objects thrown in).  MPW C++ is a port of AT&T's CFront.  One
might also want such things as makefiles, revision control, the capability 
to look at the C or assembly code produced by one's compiler.  One might
also want to be MacApp (a class library for the Mac), or, one might just
want an environment that gave them a unix like shell and tools as opposed
to think C's interface.  One might also want things like Inside Mac I-VI
and TechNotes on line and integrated with the shell.

But then again, perhaps not.

>								Or should one
>just wait until THINK C 5.0 comes out?  

From what the folks at Think said at MacWorld, Think C will never be C++.
If they did a C++ (my bet is they will), it will be a seperate product.

>					Hey, I know MPW C++ is mucho bucks, and
>I'm not even sure I can afford it.  

It is expensive -- currently, for people serious about doing C++, it is $995
plus the price of a CD player (this is actually the price for ETO.  The price
for just C++, C (required), and MPW (required), SADE (almost required), 
MacsBug(necessary), and ResEdit(essential) is on the order of $675.  ETO
gives all of that, plus MacApp, Object Pascal, and upgrades for a year.

>					But if I'm going to learn C++, I'm keen on
>learning the proper syntax, and from what I can glean from scanning Weston's
>appendix on THINK C, there are some substantial differences which might lead to
>bad (or at least sub-optimal) C++ programming style (no protected and private
>protection levels in classes comes to mind).

Not to mention things like operators, multiple inheritance, etc.  Think C is
not C++.  It is C with some Object Enhancements thrown in.  What you learn
from Think C is applicable to C++, (but can't be used on another C compiler)
but is not the whole story.

>I know I should probably wait 'til THINK C 5.0 comes out -- and that may end up
>being what I do -- , but I'm curious what your opinions are.

It all depends on when you want to start learning C++.

+C
-- 
Cory Kempf				I do speak for the company (sometimes).
The EnigamI Co.							603 883 2474
email: cory@three.mv.com, harvard!zinn!three!cory