Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 11:22:35AM -0500, John Porter wrote:
> > [C++]
>
> > It's nearly as portable,
>
> Uhm. Is this actually true?
I don't know. Sounds reasonable! :-)
Aside from lame-o solutions like C-front and cross-compiling,
I'd say, screw 'em if they don't have a C++ compiler.
> Are there any non-fragile implementations of C++ yet?
What do you mean by fragile? Certainly there are solid,
"industrial-grade" C++ compilers for some platforms.
As an example, (and yes it pains me to say it), Microsoft's
C++ compiler is amazingly good in just about every
conceivable way. (O.k., there are some stupidnesses
wrt its idea of a shared library, but that's irrelevant to
the C-vs-C++ issue.)
> > nearly as fast,
>
> Why have nearly as fast, when you can have as fast?
I can think of several things I'd be willing to trade a little
bit of speed for. Would I be using Perl if I didn't feel that way?
> > and WAY WAY BETTER to code in.
>
> And WAY WAY LESS FAMILIAR to most coders here, at a guess.
Is that so critical? Then maybe we really *should* write perl in Perl.
> That said, C++ does have *something* going for it.
> Or at least, I suppose it must have.
Qt? (Or is it GTK?)
In my "real" life, I work on a large system (around 100,000 lines),
and I truly shudder to think how much more grotesque and difficult
to maintain it would be if it were written in C instead of C++.
--
John Porter
I saw the final vicar
make confession to a dancer
We stood upon the bridge at dawn
and the dancer kissed my cancer
