Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!dmg
From: dmg@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Geary)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: How common are C++ Compilers?
Keywords: Not as common as I'd like ;-(
Message-ID: <3058@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Date: 16 Dec 89 00:33:18 GMT
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics, Seattle WA
Lines: 88

Mark Goodurum writes:
In article <2351@draken.nada.kth.se>, matsl@nada.kth.se (Mats Luthman) writes:
>> Is C++ a suitable implementation language if you are going to develop a
>> fairly large program that you want to run on many different systems?
>> 

  Well, that depends upon what you'd define 'many different systems' to be.
  I am working on a graphical user interface for a data management program
  that has to be ported to:

  SUN
  Apollo
  IBM PC
  Intergraph
  MicroVax
  IBM RT
  HP3000
  Macintosh
  Cimlinc    ( what ?? )

  To me, that qualifies as 'many different systems'.  I would love to use
  C++, but I cannot, because I cannot get C++ compilers for all of the
  above systems.  So, I am stuck writing in plain old C.

>> Are there C++ compilers for all major operating systems (IBM systems, VMS,
>> all UNIX systems, MS-DOS and extended memory (4 Mbyte and more, maybe
>> generating 386 code), OS/2)? Is there a greater chance of finding an Ada
>> compiler than a C++ compiler on a randomly chosen system?

>C++ compilers are available on a variety of systems.  PC-DOS, Macintosh,
>Amigas (I enjoy this one...), Unix, and OS/2 and more.  I'd say chances
>are about equal with C++ maybe having a slight edge on PCs and Ada having
>a slight edge in minis and mainframes.

  I would agree with the fact that Ada is liable to be more prevalent on
  minis and mainframes.

>> How portable is C++ code between different systems?

>Like C or most other high level languages, C++ is VERY portable IF you only
>do things defined in the language.  Of course accessing the BIOS on aDOS
>application, or using the graphics coprocessor on the Amiga aren't very
>portable.

  Well, at this stage of the game, I think you may run into some trouble
  with using C++ 2.0 features.  Not all vendors have come out with
  2.0 compatible compilers...

>> Are the C++ compilers on UNIX good (fast, error free et.c.)? Which SUN
>> computers does the GNU C++ compiler run on?

  Well, C++ compilers are most likely going to be slower than your
  average C compiler due to the fact that most produce C code, which
  then must be compiled as usual.

>> If you want to port to a system that only has a C compiler, are there
>> any chances whatsoever of getting the C code you get from the AT&T C++
>> compiler to run on it?

>The AT&T C++ preprocessor 'cfront' used in many systems outputs real honest
>to goodness C code.  You could in theory compile your code on a C++ system
>and take the C code back to your little machine.  The problem with this
>approach is the Cplusplus library that contains many functions reference
>by the C code cfront produces.  You COULD liscense the stuff from AT&T
>and port it, but that would be major would and lots of $$.

  Yeah, this idea occurred to me a while back, but it is unworkable
  due to the fact that you must link in libraries that have many 
  built in functions defined.  You need not only the C code, but
  the C code for the libraries.

>Honestly, I cant think of any system (of sufficient size to support a 
>'decent' development environmen) that doesnt have C++ available except
>if your doing embedded systems development, in which case there are 
>C++ cross development systems coming out for most processor families.
 
  Well, how about a Cimlinc?  That sucker was the real clincher in
  holding me back from using C++.  Of course, no one reading this
  will even know what a Cimlinc is.  (Cimlincs are discontinued
  Unix machines which support a 'decent' (word used very usely)
  development environment, but it will *never* have a C++ compiler.
  ;-(


-- 
~~~~~~~~  David Geary, Boeing Aerospace, Seattle  ~~~~~~~~
~  Seattle:  America's most attractive city ...          ~
~            to the *jetstream*.                         ~