Not too long ago, Jim Wowchuk <[log in to unmask]> said
this about Re: FW: C++ compiler??:
> I think the key phrase is "difficult to sell".  If someone wants to do C++
> programming, then they are probably committed to Unix anyway.  So continue
> pointing to the 9000, where there are also X and SoftBench tools to assist.
> The rest of us are left trying to make a "sow's ear out of a silk purse". :)
 
It doesn't necessarily require a native compiler. I believe the UX C++
compiler uses cfront (I don't know; I prefer GNU's compilers anyway). Why
not do the same for IX? As to the dynamic libraries - as long as there
aren't any statics, I don't see the problem, with sufficent
name-mangling-space.
 
Granted, it isn't trivial, at least to make a "professional quality" C++
compiler. However, I would love to hear an HPer state that they've done
actual real research into the feasibility, cost and acceptance of such a
beast and have rejected it based on this data.
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Willer <[log in to unmask]>              This space reserved.
Team OS/2
Need a good FTP for OS/2? Try ftp://hobbes.nmsu.edu/os2/32bit/unix/ncftpb4.zip