Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!apple!amdahl!key!perry From: perry@key.COM (Perry The Cynic) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer Subject: Re: Think C 4.0 evolving to C++ Keywords: THINK C C++ Symantec Message-ID: <2435@key.COM> Date: 13 Feb 91 01:32:08 GMT References: <1991Feb12.075322.1877@eua.ericsson.se> Reply-To: perry@arkon.key.COM (Perry The Cynic) Organization: Key Computer Laboratories, Fremont Lines: 35 In article <1991Feb12.075322.1877@eua.ericsson.se> euamts@eua.ericsson.se (Mats Henricson) writes: > Hi! > > I wonder if Symantec is walking the same path as Stroustroup for evolving C > to C++, i.e. Does Think C 4.0 look like as if the code written in it might > be possible to run through a C++ compiler ?? > > To be very clear: do you think that: > > Think_C_5 == C++; > > Mats Henricson To the first question: Yes, THINK C 4.0 is designed to look like a C++ subset, so that THINK C code should go through a C++ compiler without major modifications. Perhaps that protects your investment into Object C code. Of course, in my not so humble opinion, writing true C++ code requires a different design concept. To the second question: Not unless someone at Symantec has made a 180 degree turn-about. When THINK C version 4 came out, several people at Symantec were adamant about how ugly a language C++ is, and how much better "Object C" is for Macintosh programming. Rich Siegel in particular told me to stop "whining for C++" (that's a quote) and take what they have to offer. One could speculate when the people at Symantec will realize the drift of their market, and revise their opposition to C++. Your guess is as good as mine there. I wouldn't mind using a hypothetical THINK C++ with the new C++ MacApp, but I don't see that happening soon. Pity, too. -- perry -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Perry The Cynic (Peter Kiehtreiber) perry@arkon.key.com ** What good signature isn't taken yet? ** {amdahl,sgi,pacbell}!key!perry