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