Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!pp!pink!rfg
From: rfg@pink.ACA.MCC.COM (Ron Guilmette)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Eiffel vs. C++
Message-ID: <233@pink.ACA.MCC.COM>
Date: 6 Jun 89 01:00:57 GMT
References: <2689@ssc-vax.UUCP> <6590138@hplsla.HP.COM> <149@eiffel.UUCP>
Reply-To: rfg@pink.aca.mcc.com.UUCP (Ron Guilmette)
Organization: MCC  Austin, Texas
Lines: 28

In article <149@eiffel.UUCP> bertrand@eiffel.UUCP (Bertrand Meyer) writes:
>From article <6590138@hplsla.HP.COM> by jima@hplsla.HP.COM (Jim Adcock):
>> 
>> I have heard rumers [sic] that there are a lot more problems in general with
>> compilers for Eiffel than with compilers for C++.  Perhaps someone can
>> illuminate.

First, make that "compiler" not "compilers".  I believe that there is only
one.  That number is only two less than the number of C++ compilers, but
it is worth noting if you are like a paranoid hardware manufacturer and
you want to be assured of a second source.

I had the opportunity to play with Eiffel for awhile once about two
years ago.  The compiler was just fine, even then.  It is probably
even better now.  Nonetheless, I'm playing C++ these dayz and I'm
glad.  Even though the Eiffel compiler was fine, I didn't much like
that language itself.  Now I don't want to get into an argument with
Bertrand or anybody else about it.  It is just a matter of personal
taste.  "Each to his own" I say.  Let every man choose his own tools
For me, Eiffel  was kind of like a chastity belt.  It definitely keeps
you "pure" but you will probably have less fun. :-)


-- 
// Ron Guilmette  -  MCC  -  Experimental Systems Kit Project
// 3500 West Balcones Center Drive,  Austin, TX  78759  -  (512)338-3740
// ARPA: rfg@mcc.com
// UUCP: {rutgers,uunet,gatech,ames,pyramid}!cs.utexas.edu!pp!rfg