Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!hao!gatech!udel!rochester!PT.CS.CMU.EDU!VLSI.CS.CMU.EDU!blh
From: blh@VLSI.CS.CMU.EDU (Bruce Horn)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: LightSpeed C, and C++
Message-ID: <974@PT.CS.CMU.EDU>
Date: 26 Feb 88 17:23:12 GMT
References: <6815@drutx.ATT.COM> <76000138@uiucdcsp>
Sender: netnews@PT.CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 18

I have a lot of respect for the THINK people, including the people I met
back in the early Mac days at Apple.  LSC and LSP are beautiful systems that
work extremely well.  However, I have been pushing them to look at C++ and
object-oriented extensions of C for over five years...and their response has
basically been "We think object-oriented programming is a fad."  I wonder if
they've changed their minds yet.  In their defense, they were waiting for
the object-oriented extensions to settle down a little before they committed
to a particular one.  I think, regardless of its various pros and cons, that
C++ will become the standard.

I wouldn't be interested in a preprocessor to LSC for C++;  it would turn a
very fast environment into a slow one.  It would be more work, but worth it
to make LSC a direct C++ compiler.  Besides, it would almost *have* to be if
they want to build a source-level debugger for it.

-- 
Bruce Horn, Carnegie Mellon CSD
uucp: ...!seismo!cmucspt!cmu-cs-vlsi!blh
ARPA: blh@vlsi.cs.cmu.edu