Steve Willer ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
: 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.
 
Yes, we've done plenty of "real research" on this topic.  All the previous
posts make good points about the need and the difficulty of porting C++ to
MPE.  Even given the HPUX port of g++, the work is not trivial.  MPE has
a number of differences that need to be accounted for that HPUX did not have
to worry about.
 
It's too soon to say anything more than that HP _has_ heard how important
this is and is moving to address it.
 
Steve