> On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 11:20:26PM +0100, Stuart Brady wrote: > > Silly question maybe, but why would we care about compatability between > > compilers' object files if we've got the source? > > Well, if you have something which takes five hours to compile on > your machine or 20 minutes to download the pre-compiled version, > you might be tempted to go for the latter. And then discover that > it's not compatible with anything else you compile because you've > got a slightly different version of the compiler... > > Or maybe you've upgraded your compiler since you last compiled a > particular shared library, and now none of your new programs will > link to it.
I really don't think this is a problem of C++ language. The language itself: 1. Doesn't force the compilers to be incomatible with each other. 2. Is very well designed. > I have Licq running on my Solaris box. It's a Qt application. Licq > and Qt are both written in C++. But Qt won't compile with GNU c++ > because it includes Sun's broken OpenWindows header files and GNU c++ > objects to them. And Licq must be compiled with GNU c++ because the > Sun Workshop c++ compiler doesn't have the required stdc++ library. > Put them together and what do you get? Unresolved symbols. Fortunately > I've managed to hack Qt to use X11R6 header files instead of OpenWindows > ones, and thus compiled it with GNU c++. > > imc And this is again problem of your compilers. C++ is pretty young language, and I thing GNU version (gpp) is one of the best implementation, when comparing it to ANSI standards. I understand your frustration with C++, but PLEASE give it another chance! It's great. (Do you know most of the desktop applications and games are now written in C++?)
