Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!jbr0 From: jbr0@cbnews.att.com (joseph.a.brownlee) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer Subject: No THINK C++? (was Re: ANSI vs. THINK. Help!) Keywords: C++ THINK-C Message-ID: <1991Feb12.132525.24968@cbnews.att.com> Date: 12 Feb 91 13:25:25 GMT References: <2434@key.COM> Sender: jbr@cblph.att.com Reply-To: jbr@cblph.att.com Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.programmer Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 32 In article <2434@key.COM> perry@arkon.key.COM (Perry The Cynic) writes: > Don't think for a moment that THINK C (V 4.x) is C++; it isn't, and I have > it on good authority (people from Symantec) that its creators despise the > C++ language and don't intend to implement it until the market (us) force > them to. [...] If this is true, perhaps it is finally time for me to take a good hard look at MPW C++. I've been a THINK C user since the good 'ol days of LightSpeed C, and I do like the current OOP extensions and TCL. However, I have been viewing the current TC OOP extensions as a stepping stone to C++. I do have to admit to having thoughts about MPW C++ before this, so perhaps this is a good reason to make the switch. Don't get me wrong -- I know C++ is a bit of a kludge. It is relatively standard, though, which TC is not. Without any type of overloading (especially method name overloading) and no inlining capability, the TC OOP extensions have been limiting for me from time to time. Those limitiations are a lot easier to deal with if I think they may be going away in TC 5.0. While I realize that Symantec can't really comment on possible future products, if the future direction of TC does not include C++ (or at least more of its features than are supported now), I'd like to know. While I realize that Symantec would not want to alienate current cutomers by saying it will not support C++, in my case they may need to persuade me _not_ to jump ship now. Please, Symantec, tell us the above is _not_ true. -- - _ Joe Brownlee, Analysts International Corp. @ AT&T Network Systems /_\ @ / ` 471 E Broad St, Suite 1610, Columbus, Ohio 43215 (614) 860-7461 / \ | \_, E-mail: jbr@cblph.att.com Who pays attention to what _I_ say? "Scotty, we need warp drive in 3 minutes or we're all dead!" --- James T. Kirk