Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!umich!umeecs!msi.umn.edu!cs.umn.edu!!jdege From: jdege@ (Jeff Dege) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: C++ Message-ID: <1990Oct18.021928.23217@cs.umn.edu> Date: 18 Oct 90 02:19:28 GMT References: <1990Oct16.005807.6839@oracle.com> <206@sai.UUCP> Sender: news@cs.umn.edu (News administrator) Reply-To: jdege@donald.UUCP (Jeff Dege) Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis Lines: 28 Nntp-Posting-Host: donald.cs.umn.edu In article <206@sai.UUCP> jte@sai.UUCP (John Evans) writes: >In article , sk2x+@andrew.cmu.edu (Sun Kun Kim) writes: >> There is a C++ package available from a more RELIABLE source than Comeau >> Computing. Lattice/SAS has one out and it's been out for about 6 months >> now. Looking at Lattice C I have, they should have done an equally >> impressive version of C++ for the Amiga. > >I can't complain about the standard lattice C compiler, but I believe their >C++ is AT&T version 1.2. This is quite an old version! AT&T has >since released 2.0 and 2.1. We have been using the 2.0 version for over a >year now, and are now using 2.1! (386 unix version). This does not show me >that Lattice is really supporting the C++ enviroment. Lattice didn't develop Lattice C++, they contracted it out. Now that they are out of Amigadom, the status of that package is up in the air. SAS is handling the C compiler, but they haven't taken over the C++ cfront. According to posts on Bix, SAS is in the process of developing a natice C++ compiler (version 2.1 or better), but that won't be ready for release for quite some time. Personally, I'm wondering if it wasn't Comeau that developed C++ for Lattice. It would explain their sudden appearance in the Amiga market. I can see them working on a 2.1 for Lattice, finding SAS isn't interested, then deciding to market it on their own. This is, of course, unfounded speculation on my part, so if anybody takes it as fact, it is their own problem... ---------------- 12B->21B