Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!daver!tscs!tct!chip From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386 Subject: Re: SCO C++? Not a chance. Message-ID: <285646BD.1B63@tct.com> Date: 12 Jun 91 16:07:25 GMT References: <1991Jun5.211101.17086@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> <284E3C3B.1846@tct.com> <1991Jun08.064804.11348@kithrup.COM> Organization: Teltronics/TCT, Sarasota, FL Lines: 24 According to sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan): >In article <284E3C3B.1846@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >>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++. Name mangling is easy to change, when you have source code. >To be compatible with what AT&T says is Proper, which is not necessarily >what the g++ folks think is Proper ... Well, I did say *good* reason. :-) >To get a compiler that is supported by a pretty good bunch of folks ... >g++ is also supported by a *very* bright bunch of people; however, their >goals are not necessarily to support SCO *nix. SCOCan's is. Point taken. But when their goals change, or the good people leave... -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT , "You can call Usenet a democracy if you want to. You can call it a totalitarian dictatorship run by space aliens and the ghost of Elvis. It doesn't matter either way." -- Dave Mack