🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6427@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> toma@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy) writes:
>
>
>Well, I wasn't exactly flooded with responses, three to be exact.
>
>One promoted his companies C++ front end (Intek C++, $495), which is fine
>but I am really interested in a true compiler (which should be able to
>generate better code??).
>
>The second said to "watch Borland", but that the might not be fully C++
>compatible. That is my fear -- Borland likes to set their own standards.
>
>The third said to look at the c++ newsgroup. I did that, searching for
>any postings mentioning "Zortech". My impression is that version 2.0 is
>buggier than 1.07!
>
>So with no positive inputs from anywhere, and a bunch of negatives, I have
>decided to wait it out for Borland and/or Microsoft.  I might also consider
>JPI's rumored C++, as I am very impressed with their Modula-2.

I can't offer you an opinion of Modula-2 versus C++, but if you decide
on the latter, definitely upgrade to Zortech 2.0.  Version 1.07 was
barely above the level of being a toy, 2.0 is for real.  It has its
share of bugs, but is far better than 1.07.  No doubt Borland will do
their normal thorough job if and when they come out with a compiler,
but if you need one now, Zortech is perfectly usable.  

>I should have known. My long standing rule is "Never buy any version '.0'
>software," and *all* of the Zortech releases have been '.0'.

Well, 1.07 wasn't and it was pretty bad.  2.0 is, and it's pretty
good.  But, it ain't perfect.  Don't say I didn't warn you!

'nuff said.

---
 Dr. Thomas Keffer          | Internet: keffer@ocean.washington.edu
 Rogue Wave                 | BITNET:   keffer%ocean.washington.edu@UWAVM
 Seattle, WA 98145          | uucp:     uw-beaver!ocean.washington.edu!keffer
 (206) 523-5831             | Telemail: T.KEFFER/OMNET

Disclaimer:  We market C++ products that use Zortech, but otherwise
have no connection.