Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!kithrup!sef
From: sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: SCO C++?  Not a chance.
Message-ID: <1991Jun08.064804.11348@kithrup.COM>
Date: 8 Jun 91 06:48:04 GMT
References: <973@sigbr.sigcomp.sub.org> <1991Jun5.211101.17086@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> <284E3C3B.1846@tct.com>
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
Lines: 19

In article <284E3C3B.1846@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>Why *buy* when you can *get*?
>I have yet to see one good reason not to use GNU G++.  (We do.)

To be compatible with system-supplied or third-party C++ libraries, which
will have their names mangled in the way cfront likes, but not g++.  To be
compatible with what AT&T says is Proper, which is not necessarily what the
g++ folks think is Proper (and with good reason, too, most of the time 8-)).
To get a compiler that is supported by a pretty good bunch of folks (the
people at SCO Canada [pka HCR] are bright, and there are more of them
working on the devsys than there were of us [when I was at SCO]).  (Hmm...
g++ is also supported by a *very* bright bunch of people; however, their
goals are not necessarily to support SCO *nix.  SCOCan's is.)

-- 
Sean Eric Fagan  | "I made the universe, but please don't blame me for it;
sef@kithrup.COM  |  I had a bellyache at the time."
-----------------+           -- The Turtle (Stephen King, _It_)
Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.