Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ucsd!nosc!crash!pro-graphics.cts.com!elund
From: elund@pro-graphics.cts.com (Eric Lund)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Turbo C 3.0
Message-ID: <1642@crash.cts.com>
Date: 24 Feb 90 09:56:10 GMT
Sender: root@crash.cts.com
Lines: 25

> Is C++ really harder to parse than Ada?  Or are the concerns more
> about run-time efficiency than about compilation efficiency (and why
> would C++ be so bad)?  Or are people mostly just worried about the
> disk space (which I can certainly sympathize with)?
> 
> As I said, I don't know anything particular about C++ besides things
> I've seen on the net and the trade rags.  Could someone enlighten me?

A good article on C++ from a C perspective was in a recent Doctor Dobb's
Journal.  I believe it was the January issue.  You are probably right (or at
least that was my hope) that the similar constructs between C and C++ would
allow the two compilers to run almost as one, but it is the overhead we are
worried about.  True, the program could be split into two, but hopefully that
won't be necessary.  (Or rather, I hope they can have both forms.)  

I think the most truthful concern is, we don't know what to expect from
Borland!  What kind of package are we going to get?  What should we worry
about ...

Eric.

 ProLine: elund@pro-graphics
    UUCP: ...crash!pro-graphics!elund
ARPA/DDN: pro-graphics!elund@nosc.mil
Internet: elund@pro-graphics.cts.com