🚀 go-pugleaf

>In article <26ed022f-8f5comp.sys.amiga.tech@tronsbox.xei.com> tron1@tronsbox.xei.com (HIM) writes:
>
>     I fully expect to get the standard "Why would you use THAT!" flames
>     from anti-lattice and anti-C++ folks but here goes.

   OK, I'm using Lattice C, and used C++ as well, so I can comment (I hope)

>     I am about to begin work on a commercial programming project for
>     the Amiga (I will be getting a A3000 to do it on)

   This means compiler speed will be no problem, even with C++.

>     I own the Lattice C++ 1.0 compiler , and a full set of the
>     Lattice 5.10 complers, I have done a LOT with the 5.10 and
>     quite a bit with C++ (cfront 1 and 2.0) at Belle Labs... so much
>     so that I really don't want to give up the adavantages of C++
>     for this project.
>
>     So , the dillema is... do I :
>
>     1) Write it in C 5.1 , and have guarenteed OS 2.0 compatibility
>        source debugger and all.

   2.0 compatibility is not really a problem, it's pretty easy if you follow the
docs.

>     2) Use the C++ Compiler and have the object work available to
>        make life easier.
>
>     SO .. there are some questions I would like to ask so I can evaluate :
>
>     1) I have examined the output C from C++ , it makes very standard
>        1.2 Style calls to the OS. The example programs that use
>        windows/gadgets/draw graphics all run under 2.0 without
>        problem.
>
>        HOW compatible is 2.0 to 1.3 code ? I am not talking about 
>        manipulating device drivers, or playing with the blitter here,
>        just standard MENU/WINDOW/GADGET work assuming the C code plays
>        "By the rules" ?

   There's a lot of new stuff in 2.0. If you use this, you break. If not, it
works. So, using the 1.3 AutoDocs is a good start. But then, there's a lot of
neat stuff in 2.0 that you want to use. Version checking will make both available
for you - you don't do any 2.0 calls if running under 1.3. Easy to test on the
A3000, BTW, having both Kickstarts available.

>     2) Has anyone on the net attempted to work with the C++ compiler ?

   Yes. I scrapped it when I got down to real programs with more than one source
module. I had to compile every module except one with -x due to their 'smart'
tricks with IntuitionBase & GfxBase... In the end, I came across so much that
didn't work that I converted that project back to ordinary C.

> I have seen posts about that it is buggy to the point that it is un-usable,
> but I havent seen any BUGS. 

   The simple Gfx demo program produced a memory loss of 2.5K every time it was
run. The example shipped with the compiler! I couldn't find the source for the
loss in the example. It might be there though, been a while since I looked.

>        is only with the SIMPLE tests I have run. Any opinions
>        (as opposed to flames) welcome.

   I don't hope you consider the above a flame...

>       I guess that about does it , and now that I am looking over the list
>I just put in it seems like I will have to go with C unless anyone says "Ive
>done it it's fine" ... but every time I want to overload a function that voice
>will say "you should have used ++" unless I at least ask!

   I really liked C++ from the language point of view. Having only a 68000 CPU,
compile time was a problem. It was the slowness and buggyness of the
implementation that made me drop it.
   Not being able to CodePRobe the code also made a big contribution. I use
printf()'s a lot in preference of CPR, but compile time became prohibiting.

   SAS (formerly Lattice) seem to be working on a C++ compiler that is NOT a
preprocessor coupled to the (not too fast) C compiler. This might make a big
difference, but it's still a decent time into the future.
   I'll probably give it another chance by then, I'm quite attracted to C++.

>=      "And in the darkened offices, the terminals shine like stars."      =

   Hey, where's that from?

                                                      -Henrik

--
|            Henrik Clausen, Graffiti Data (Fido: 2:230/22.33)           |
|           ...{pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmehq!adspdk!hclausen           |
\__"Do not accept the heart that is the slave to reason" - Qawwali trad__/