Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ziploc!eps
From: eps@toaster.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: Port of g++
Summary: "They're idiots, Bob!"
Message-ID: <213@toaster.SFSU.EDU>
Date: 1 Jan 90 14:23:38 GMT
References: <3897@orion.cf.uci.edu> <246300081@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu>
Reply-To: eps@cs.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott)
Organization: San Francisco State University
Lines: 26

In article <246300081@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> jpd00964@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>As I have seen this question several times in the past, I was
>curious, why would anyone want to port g++ to the NeXT?

For the same reason they're clamoring for X Windows, MS-DOS
emulation and floppy disk drives.

They just don't understand.  (Although there is merit in being
able to say one has the complete GNU suite running on any
particular platform, that's not the point.  The problem is when
Marketing departments perceive requests for the hideous, wretched
things that crippled other products as "consumer demand" and
destroy what otherwise would have been an outstanding
achievement.  What do you get when you "follow" everyone else
because it's "safe" and punish originality and creativity?
90% of what's on the market!  America once had a reputation for
ingenuity and excellence.  Japan, et al. didn't "do us in."  We
did it to ourselves.  It's not too late to break the cycle.)

As I understand it, NeXT is going to return their gcc with the
Objective-C support to FSF, in which case I concur--why bother
with g++?  (In the absence of a LARGE amount of preexisting
code written with g++ in mind, a/k/a "the FORTRAN argument.")

					-=EPS=-
standard disclaimer