Several counterpoints

Post #49,086 by jb4 8/12/02 2:39:46 PM 8/12/02 2:42:05 PM Reply	Several counterpoints Most likely I'd use GCC in my efforts. I'm currently using gcc in an embeded application (w/ QNX as the OS). If gcc is supposed to be some kind of shining star for what the Open Source "community" can produce, they should be ashamed and embarrased. The ANSI C++ statnadard has been a standard for 5 years, for chrissakes, and has been a stable proposed standard for quite a bit longer. gcc's ANSI compliance is a fucking joke; Visual C pus pus has better compliance (and you KNOW how I feel about Visual C pus pus!). Dissin' VB as a pathetic programming language may be common but Java and C++ do not come close to filling the void. They have their own set of problems and are not geared towards UI apps. You're confusing the language with the support libraries. Visual C pus pus uses the godforsaken POS ephemistically referred to as MFC. MFC is basically useless for just about anything (except marketing, and how much marketing is written in C++, anyway?). Now let's try a real library; for example, Borland's C++ Builder's VCL (the same library used by Delphi). Developing UI-intensive apps in C++ Builder is a breeze, and is even easier that developing the corresponding app in Visual Bullshit (mostly because it's backed by a real language.) So C++, coupled with a class library tailored to the job (and devoid of Micros~1 bullshit), is more than capable of "filling the void". jb4 "About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt axe. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead. " -- Edsger W.Dijkstra (1930 - 2002) (I wish more managers knew that...) Edited by jb4 Aug. 12, 2002, 02:42:05 PM EDT Several counterpoints Most likely I'd use GCC in my efforts. I'm currently using gcc in an embeded application (w/ QNX as the OS). If gcc is supposed to be some kind of shining start for what the Open Source "community" can produce, they should be ashamed and embarrased. The ANSI C++ statnadard has been a standard for 5 years, for chrissakes, and has been a stable proposed standard for quite a bit longer. gcc's ANSI compliance is a fucking joke; Visual C pus pus has better compliance (and you KNOW how I feel about Visual C pus pus!). Dissin' VB as a pathetic programming language may be common but Java and C++ do not come close to filling the void. They have their own set of problems and are not geared towards UI apps. You're confusing the language with the support libraries. Visual C pus pus uses the godforsaken POS ephemistically referred to as MFC. MFC is basically useless for just about anything (except marketing, and how much marketing is written in C++, anyway?). Now let's try a real library; for example, Borland's C++ Builder's VCL (the same library used by Delphi). Developing UI-intensive apps in C++ Builder is a breeze, and is even easier that developing the corresponding app in Visual Bullshit (mostly because it's backed by a real language.) So C++, coupled with a class library tailored to the job (and devoid of Micros~1 bullshit), is more than capable of "filling the void". jb4 "About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt axe. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead. " -- Edsger W.Dijkstra (1930 - 2002) (I wish more managers knew that...) Collapse All History
Post #49,232 by Arkadiy 8/13/02 2:55:46 PM Reply	What version of gcc are you using? 3.0.x is rather compliant. It's better than 6.0
Post #49,256 by jb4 8/13/02 6:41:25 PM Reply	Re: What version of gcc are you using? 2.95.2 Been told (albeit by the QNX people) that 3.0 is "not quite stable" yet. Neither are in Borland country WRT compliance... jb4 "About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt axe. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead. " -- Edsger W.Dijkstra (1930 - 2002) (I wish more managers knew that...)
Post #49,336 by Arkadiy 8/14/02 10:22:14 AM Reply	Re: What version of gcc are you using? 2.95 was indeed not terribly compliant (shameful, if you ask me). We moved to 3.0, currently at 3.0.4 . I was the last one to move, after discovering that 64 bit integers and template types don't mix in 2.95. It seems to be stable on Linux, Solaris, Aix and HPUX (3.0.1 was not, optimizer bugs on HPUX). But QNX? I have no idea. Check it out anyway - you're switching to it eventually, aren't you?
Post #49,450 by jb4 8/15/02 9:33:13 AM Reply	I'd rather switch than... I dunno. The port of gcc to QNX is in the hands of QNX themselves; the "community" does not do the port. Therefore, QNX users are sort of at the mercy of QNX, who, besides having no true marketing plan, are notably myopic with regards to C++ in general. Last I heard, their new, oh-so-kewl upgrade, which contains a (JAVA-based) IDE, is to use 2.95.3. Switching? If I had my way, I'd switch to (embedded) Linux, and use Kylix. (But when do I ever get my way? :-( ) jb4 "About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt axe. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead. " -- Edsger W.Dijkstra (1930 - 2002) (I wish more managers knew that...)

Welcome to IWETHEY!