🚀 go-pugleaf

What about MSL, in particular the C++ parts?  Is it used for any other
(former) MW products?  In particular, will updates for it be available
after CW 10 is dead or are there plans to make it available as a whole
independent of CW Mac like PP?  For me the lack of a high-quality C++
libraray (not the poor junk gcc comes with and thus that even Intel's
compiler will be forced to deal with) is the biggest loss unless you
have some plans for it as well, but as far as I can tell this has not
even been mentioned yet ... also, with the focus an embedded, will
there be continued interested from MW in the evolution of C++?  What
about your C++ library developers, will they go elsewhere?

    Thorsten

In article <1122928457.835803.57860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
 "Thorsten Froehlich" <froetho@charlie.iit.edu> wrote:

>What about MSL, in particular the C++ parts?  Is it used for any other
>(former) MW products?  In particular, will updates for it be available
>after CW 10 is dead or are there plans to make it available as a whole
>independent of CW Mac like PP?  

MSL is used in most of our tools.  however, we provide the sources for 
MSL C++

> For me the lack of a high-quality C++
>libraray (not the poor junk gcc comes with and thus that even Intel's
>compiler will be forced to deal with) is the biggest loss unless you
>have some plans for it as well, but as far as I can tell this has not
>even been mentioned yet ... also, with the focus an embedded, will
>there be continued interested from MW in the evolution of C++?  What
>about your C++ library developers, will they go elsewhere?

They will continue to be at Metrowerks. 

Ron

-- 
CodeWarrior Community Forum is a free online resource for developers 
to discuss CodeWarrior topics with other users and our staff
        --   http://www.codewarrior.com/community  --

 Ron Liechty - ron.liechty@freescale.com - http://www.codewarrior.com

Thorsten-

I would suggest you look again at the gcc stl. I have friends who work
on it, and well, they think it is tops! ;) That and LOTS of BIG gcc
customers centered in a particular big city on the east coast of the US
in a particular industry you've heard of like to use it alot as well.

-Greg

> I would suggest you look again at the gcc stl. I have friends who work
> on it, and well, they think it is tops! ;) That and LOTS of BIG gcc
> customers centered in a particular big city on the east coast of the US
> in a particular industry you've heard of like to use it alot as well.

Well, I have to disagree based on my own tests last year (when
considering XCode rather than CW 9). The gcc STL poorly tracks the ISO
C++ standard's defect resolutions, it also comes with an unusable
std::exception class (throw specs), performance was lower on every test
I did (even when using CW 8.3 with the gcc C++ library containers).
This also matches observations comparing Intel's compiler on Linux
versus Windows when comparing C++ standard library performance.

Apart from that, MW has a fair TR1 implementation and I was hoping for
a fully functional implementation with CW 10; and of course I was
hoping for CW eventually providing early support for some of the useful
C++ 0x language extensions.

    Thorsten

> MSL is used in most of our tools.

What I am worried about is that some part of the C++ libraries are not
as useful for embedded systems and hence interest in supporting it will
quickly fade just like the Java, x86 and Mac platforms faded.  After
all, Freescale has killed everything that is not strictly embedded by
now.

>  however, we provide the sources for MSL C++

I know that: The real issue here is that if there is no CW11, how can I
get access to the *latest* MSL C++ library and its improvements *after*
CW10 is dead?  I would want to use it with other compilers, and buying
some embedded license for it seems a bit expensive...

    Thorsten

In article <1122967386.335419.66450@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
 "Thorsten Froehlich" <froetho@charlie.iit.edu> wrote:
> 
> Apart from that, MW has a fair TR1 implementation and I was hoping for
> a fully functional implementation with CW 10; and of course I was
> hoping for CW eventually providing early support for some of the useful
> C++ 0x language extensions.

If Mac developers are concerned about advanced C++ features, and people 
are talking about a 'pool' to bribe MetroWerks to open-source their IDE, 
then why is there no port of the excellent Comeau compiler for Mac OS X? 
I know that Greg Comeau would very much like to do one, given sufficient 
sponsorship.
<http://www.comeaucomputing.com>

Now that CodeWarrior for Macintosh is approaching the end of its life, 
now is the time to ensure that there will be alternative compilers and 
libraries available.


Alwyn

In article <1122967853.770056.280700@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
 "Thorsten Froehlich" <froetho@charlie.iit.edu> wrote:
> 
> The real issue here is that if there is no CW11, how can I
> get access to the *latest* MSL C++ library and its improvements *after*
> CW10 is dead?

Only Freescale can give a definitive answer to this, but it's a fairly 
safe guess that you will only be able to do this if MSL becomes a 
separate product.

> I would want to use it with other compilers, and buying
> some embedded license for it seems a bit expensive...

Quite. But I would argue that it is time to look beyond CodeWarrior. The 
Dinkum library, for instance, is very will regarded.
<http://www.dinkumware.com/libdual.html>
If it is not compatible with the latest versions of the OS and 
compilers, I'm sure Dinkumware can be persuaded to update it, given a 
suitable incentive.


Alwyn

in article ron.liechty-BE1299.12150101082005@news.newsguy.com, Ron L at
ron.liechty@freescale.com wrote on 8/1/05 9:15 AM:

> PowerPlant and PowerPlantX and Constructor will be open sourced

Cool! And PowerPlant for Windows too by any chance? That would be *really*
cool.

On 02.08.2005 16:52, in article
dt015a1979-3E7FD9.13521802082005@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk, "Alwyn"
<dt015a1979@mac.com> wrote:

> If Mac developers are concerned about advanced C++ features, and people
> are talking about a 'pool' to bribe MetroWerks to open-source their IDE,
> then why is there no port of the excellent Comeau compiler for Mac OS X?
> I know that Greg Comeau would very much like to do one, given sufficient
> sponsorship.

  And the form of sponsorship is really nice: just buy a fully functional
alpha for $20: 
<http://www.comeaucomputing.com/4.3.0/minor/macos/como433.html>.

  As far as I understand, subsequent upgrades are free.

- WBR, Alexey Proskuryakov

> And the form of sponsorship is really nice: just buy a fully functional
> alpha for $20:
> <http://www.comeaucomputing.com /4.3.0/minor/macos/como433.htm l>.
>  As far as I understand, subsequent upgrades are free.

Comeau is certainly nice if no other EDG frontend based compiler is
available, but with Intel's compiler available, there is not much point
to use it and have gcc still in the game under Comeau. I have to admit
I never tried libcomo though.

    Thorsten

> Quite. But I would argue that it is time to look beyond CodeWarrior. The
> Dinkum library, for instance, is very will regarded.
> <http://www.dinkumware.com/libd ual.html>
> If it is not compatible with the latest versions of the OS and
> compilers, I'm sure Dinkumware can be persuaded to update it, given a
> suitable incentive.

Last time I checked Dinkumware charged as much for their C/C++ library
full source code about as much as a regular CW upgrade - looking again
reveals it goes for US$600 these days..

    Thorsten

In article <BF14C443.1648E%alex@alexcurylo.com>,
 Alex Curylo <alex@alexcurylo.com> wrote:

>in article ron.liechty-BE1299.12150101082005@news.newsguy.com, Ron L at
>ron.liechty@freescale.com wrote on 8/1/05 9:15 AM:
>
>> PowerPlant and PowerPlantX and Constructor will be open sourced
>
>Cool! And PowerPlant for Windows too by any chance? That would be *really*
>cool.
>

I'm afraid that PowerPlant for Windows is dead and will not be open 
sourced for a variety of reasons. 

The good news is that Apple has already taken steps so you can use 
PowerPlant for the Intel based systems.

Ron

-- 
CodeWarrior Community Forum is a free online resource for developers 
to discuss CodeWarrior topics with other users and our staff
        --   http://www.codewarrior.com/community  --

 Ron Liechty - ron.liechty@freescale.com - http://www.codewarrior.com

In article <1122993105.552320.182630@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
 "Thorsten Froehlich" <froetho@charlie.iit.edu> wrote:
> 
> Last time I checked Dinkumware charged as much for their C/C++ library
> full source code about as much as a regular CW upgrade - looking again
> reveals it goes for US$600 these days..

If you're a hobbyist, then that's obviously excessive, but a serious 
software development outfit shouldn't have a problem with if it is seen 
to benefit their product.


Alwyn

> If you're a hobbyist, then that's obviously excessive, but a serious
> software development outfit shouldn't have a problem with if it is seen
> to benefit their product.

I am looking at it from a researcher's perspective. Of course, for a
commercial outfit their licenses are reasonable.

    Thorsten

In article 
<dt015a1979-06F1A4.14241102082005@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
 Alwyn <dt015a1979@mac.com> wrote:

> In article <1122967853.770056.280700@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>  "Thorsten Froehlich" <froetho@charlie.iit.edu> wrote:
> > 
> > The real issue here is that if there is no CW11, how can I
> > get access to the *latest* MSL C++ library and its improvements *after*
> > CW10 is dead?
> 
> Only Freescale can give a definitive answer to this, but it's a fairly 
> safe guess that you will only be able to do this if MSL becomes a 
> separate product.
> 
> > I would want to use it with other compilers, and buying
> > some embedded license for it seems a bit expensive...
> 
> Quite. But I would argue that it is time to look beyond CodeWarrior. The 
> Dinkum library, for instance, is very will regarded.
> <http://www.dinkumware.com/libdual.html>
> If it is not compatible with the latest versions of the OS and 
> compilers, I'm sure Dinkumware can be persuaded to update it, given a 
> suitable incentive.
> 
> 
> Alwyn

And then there's also the free
http://www.roguewave.com/opensource/faq.cfm#3_1

now part of the Apache project.....

respect...

Peter

In article <1122992478.021322.255810@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
 "Thorsten Froehlich" <froetho@charlie.iit.edu> wrote:
> 
> Comeau is certainly nice if no other EDG frontend based compiler is
> available, but with Intel's compiler available, there is not much point
> to use it and have gcc still in the game under Comeau.

But the Intel compiler, when it arrives, will never produce machine code 
for PowerPC.


Alwyn

> But the Intel compiler, when it arrives, will never produce machine code
> for PowerPC.

Of course, but with CW for PowerPC and Intel for x86, there are two
good compilers. As I already have CW there is no need to change horses
for PowerPC. And Intel makes the by far best compiler for Intel x86
processors - plus they use the EDG frontend like Comeau does - so C++
compatibility won't be an issue with Intel's compiler.  That is why the
only thing I still need is a good C++ library.  Probably I will first
see if the MSL C++ library works with the Intel compiler and use it for
the transition if possible.

    Thorsten

> But the Intel compiler, when it arrives, will never produce machine code
> for PowerPC.

Of course, but with CW for PowerPC and Intel for x86, there are two
good compilers. As I already have CW there is no need to change horses
for PowerPC. And Intel makes the by far best compiler for Intel x86
processors - plus they use the EDG frontend like Comeau does - so C++
compatibility won't be an issue with Intel's compiler.  That is why the
only thing I still need is a good C++ library.  Probably I will first
see if the MSL C++ library works with the Intel compiler and use it for
the transition if possible.

    Thorsten

In article <1122992478.021322.255810@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Thorsten Froehlich <froetho@charlie.iit.edu> wrote:
>> And the form of sponsorship is really nice: just buy a fully functional
>> alpha for $20:
>> <http://www.comeaucomputing.com /4.3.0/minor/macos/como433.htm l>.
>>  As far as I understand, subsequent upgrades are free.
>
>Comeau is certainly nice if no other EDG frontend based compiler is
>available, but with Intel's compiler available, there is not much point
>to use it and have gcc still in the game under Comeau. I have to admit
>I never tried libcomo though.

IMO, this logic can be appplied to any compiler, especially if
one hasn't tried it.
-- 
Greg Comeau /     Celebrating 20 years of Comeauity!
Comeau C/C++ ONLINE ==>     http://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout
World Class Compilers:  Breathtaking C++, Amazing C99, Fabulous C90.
Comeau C/C++ with Dinkumware's Libraries... Have you tried it?

Ron L wrote:
> We do have a plugin SDK  that will help others if they wish to attempt this as they have for Pascal.

Anybody know of any WORKING pascal plug-ins? We are still using
Metrowerks unsupported plug-ins for CW 7, although we run a mixture of
CW 8 and 9. It's unstable at best with quite frequent crasches.

There were (and still is) MPW p2c from Apple that were supposed to
convert Object Pascal to C++, but it also crasches often. The converted
files (those that CAN be converted) can't be compiled (for a number of
reasons). Anybody know of a better way of converting Object Pascal to
C++? Short of manually re-writing the code, that is.

Thanks

In article <ron.liechty-BE1299.12150101082005@news.newsguy.com>,
 Ron L <ron.liechty@freescale.com> wrote:

> 
> We will have a CodeWarrior 10 this September or October.  It will be our 
> last full release of CodeWarrior for Mac OS. 
> 
Very Sad news never come alone, Mac on itel junk and now this... :( 
Xcode look very cheap regarding CW, I had started to work with 
codewarrior when the company is in montreal. I go from Think C to CW 
mainly for the quality of it's IDE, and to be honest I think that Think 
C are better then XCode regardingUser experience.


> 
> PowerPlant and PowerPlantX and Constructor will be open sourced and we 
> have contacted Greg Dow and he is interested but nothing firm is there 
> at this time.

It's good to see that this wonderfull framework will survive... to the 
Mac himself ( Apple + Intel == Junkintosh != Macintosh)

bey