####  This is about 140 lines  ####
 
FIRST:    Thanks to all who responded to my "C++ on
MPE" post last week (14 so far);  both answers and
suggestions for more/revised questions.
 
SECOND:   If you have already responded to the previous
version of this survey, *YOU DO NOT NEED TO DO SO
AGAIN*.  This post is a revised and expanded version
which Dick Kranz has offered to publish in the next
issue of InterexPRESS, which would give it wider
exposure and hopefully generate more feedback to HP.
I need to get it to Interex by close of business tomorrow
if possible, to make the next issue.  So if any of you have
other changes you would recommend before this goes in
InterexPRESS, you have about one day to comment.
 
THIRD:   Will post results of hp3000-L response to the
original survey at the end of this week......  Or as soon as
I get time.
 
Ken Sletten
 
=======================================
 
The need for a good C++ compiler on the HP3000 was
one of the hot topics at the IPROF-95 HP management
roundtable.  The two options which generated the most
discussion were:
 
(a)  Port the HP-UX  C++ compiler to MPE/iX.
(b)  Port the Free Software Foundation (FSF) GNU  C++.
 
HP said they have "no current plans" to port the HP-UX
C++ compiler to MPE/iX.  But they do plan to facilitate the
port of a "shareware" C++;   i.e.:   the FSF  GNU  C++.  In
addition, HP has said that users will be able to purchase
HP 3000 software support for GNU  C++ directly from HP.
 
If you have a need for C++ on the HP3000;  or if you want
to see the software development community get the
option of creating/porting C++ MPE/iX applications that
you would then be able to buy;  then please fill out and
return the following survey to Interex.  Results will be
forwarded to HP.  You can:
 
fax to: _____________, attention _______________;   or
mail to: ___________________________________;   or
email to: __________________________________
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
 
****   C++ on MPE/iX:   Requirements and Options   ****
 
 
1)   The HP-UX  C and C++ compilers currently provide
       four levels of optimization:
 
  (level 0 = none)
   level 1 = local-only (minimal)
   level 2 = global (same as MPE current maximum)
   level 3 = all above + across procedures (better)
   level 4 = all above + involve loader at load time (best)
 
Would you be satisfied with a maximum optimization
level of  2  for a GNU  C++ on MPE/iX ?
 
 
                             YES      NO
 
 
2)   Linking GNU  C++ programs on the HP 3000 probably
cannot be implemented efficiently without HP Loader
support.  On a scale of 1 to 5, how important is it to you
that implementation of C++ on MPE/iX be done as
efficiently as possible (1 = not at all;  5 = top priority).
Best implementation will take the most time and effort:
 
                              1       2       3       4       5
 
 
3)    How do you think the HP-UX  C++ compiler
compares to the GNU  C++ product ?
 
    a)  HP's is much better
    b)  HP's is somewhat better
    c)  About the same
    d)  GNU  C++ a little better
    e)  GNU  C++ is much better
    f)   Don't know enough to have an opinion
 
 
4)    How do you feel about the fact that HP has no
current plans to have their own compiler lab put their
own C++ on MPE ?
 
   a)  strongly annoyed
   b)  mildly annoyed
   c)  don't care
   d)  slightly happy
   e)  wildly ecstatic
 
 
5)    If a C++ compiler were enhanced to support MPE-
unique features, what capabilities would it need ?
Circle "DC" (don't care), "US" (useful), "NE" (need
eventually), or "PIP" (must do as *part of initial port*)
for each:
 
      Intrinsic support:                  DC     US     NE     PIP
 
      Access to IMAGE:               DC     US     NE     PIP
 
      Access to KSAM:                DC     US     NE     PIP
 
      Long pointer support:          DC     US     NE     PIP
      Can run in MPE
           name space:                    DC     US     NE     PIP
      Use default MPE
           naming conventions:      DC     US     NE     PIP
      Other >
           ________________:       DC     US     NE     PIP
 
 
6)    If an MPE/iX  C++ compiler existed which initially
handled only ANSI constructs (did not support MPE-
unique features), would you use it ?
 
                       YES       NO       MAYBE
 
 
7)   Would you trust a third-party compiler that was
supported by HP ?
 
 
8)   What would you be willing to pay HP for annual
support of C++ on MPE/iX ?
 
 
9)   If the cost of acquiring C++ on the 3000 were
minimal or non-existent, would you be willing to pay
higher support fees over a guaranteed term ?
 
 
10)   Additional comments/remarks/concerns on
this subject:
 
 ---------------------------------------- END of Survey.