Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!tronsbox!tron1
From: tron1@tronsbox.xei.com (HIM)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: C++
Message-ID: <26ed022f-8f5comp.sys.amiga.tech@tronsbox.xei.com>
Date: 11 Sep 90 15:28:07 GMT
Lines: 71


 
  Hi there .

     I fully expect to get the standard "Why would you use THAT!" flames
     from anti-lattice and anti-C++ folks but here goes.

     I am about to begin work on a commercial programming project for
     the Amiga (I will be getting a A3000 to do it on , my A1000 will
     hook up with DNET and just play ray-tracer ;-) ).

     I own the Lattice C++ 1.0 compiler , and a full set of the
     Lattice 5.10 complers, I have done a LOT with the 5.10 and
     quite a bit with C++ (cfront 1 and 2.0) at Belle Labs... so much
     so that I really don't want to give up the adavantages of C++
     for this project.

     So , the dillema is... do I :

     1) Write it in C 5.1 , and have guarenteed OS 2.0 compatibility
        source debugger and all.
     
     2) Use the C++ Compiler and have the object work available to
        make life easier.

     SO .. there are some questions I would like to ask so I can evaluate :

     1) I have examined the output C from C++ , it makes very standard
        1.2 Style calls to the OS. The example programs that use
        windows/gadgets/draw graphics all run under 2.0 without
        problem.

        HOW compatible is 2.0 to 1.3 code ? I am not talking about 
        manipulating device drivers, or playing with the blitter here,
        just standard MENU/WINDOW/GADGET work assuming the C code plays
        "By the rules" ?

     2) Has anyone on the net attempted to work with the C++ compiler ?
        ESPECIALLY under 2.0 ??  I hvae seen posts about that it is
        buggy to the point that it is un-usable, but aside from the
        obvious problem that 1.0 is a BIG step back from 2.0
        (I WANT FSTREAMS) .. I havent seen any BUGS. But this is
        is only with the SIMPLE tests I have run. Any opinions
        (as opposed to flames) welcome.

     3) The Documentation is a bit sparse ( ;-) ) with the C++
        that Lattice provided. It IS consistent, so if someone has
        related the approach between the C++ objects and the
        C struct counterparts one example will unlock the text.

        (sheesh , you would think after doing X/OPENLOOK/MOTIF
         this would not be a problem for me)
     
        

       I guess that about does it , and now that I am looking over the list
I just put in it seems like I will have to go with C unless anyone says "Ive
done it it's fine" ... but every time I want to overload a functiothat voice
will say "you should have used ++" unless I at least ask!

========[ Xanadu Enterprises Inc. Amiga & Unix Software Development]========
=      "And in the darkened offices, the terminals shine like stars."      =
============= Ken Jamieson: uunet!tronsbox.xei.com!tron1  ==================
= NONE of the opinions represented here are endorsed by either             =
= Xanadu Enterpises or its clients, AT&T Bell Labs or others.              =
==== The Romantic Encounters BBS 201-759-8450(PEP) / 201-759-8568(2400) ====