Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!wuarchive!texbell!nuchat!moray!urchin!p6.f506.n106.z1.fidonet.org!Bob.Stout
From: Bob.Stout@p6.f506.n106.z1.fidonet.org (Bob Stout)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: C++ from Microsoft???
Message-ID: <11856.25C8577A@urchin.fidonet.org>
Date: 1 Feb 90 02:24:44 GMT
Sender: ufgate@urchin.fidonet.org (newsout1.26)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:106/506.6 - Fulcrum's Edge, Spring TX
Lines: 22

In an article of <31 Jan 90 03:46:18 GMT>, (John Kallen) writes:

 >In article <3205@hp-sdd.hp.com> craigb@sdd.sdd.com (Craig Bosworth) writes:
 >>According to a person from Borland at the SCOOP-West conference last week, 
 >>Microsoft is far from ready to release a C++ compiler.
 >>(Of course, Borland's beta release is imminent(sp?)...)
 >
 >Turbo C 3.0 Betas (which compile C++ on files with .CPP extensions
 >has been out for two months...

  I'm fortunate enough to have weasled information out of a number of both  
company's beta testers. Several folks who have TC 3.0 beta have yet to  
successfully compile a single C++ (2.00 spec) program with it. Microsoft is  
being much more conservative with MSC 7.0 (the C++ compiler they hope to  
release later this year). In terms of usability, MS is probably further along  
since they were talking to Stroustrup long before Borland decided they had to  
go ahead with a real C++ compiler rather than doing another O-O extension job  
like they did with TP 5.5 (as recently as this past October Borland was  
making official press announcements that their next release would include O-O  
extensions rather than being a real C++ compiler).

  Me? I'll stick with Zortech, thank you...