Another reply on the questionnaire on C++ compiler requirements. Here at Compuware we port Uniface to many different platforms. The HP3000 is the only one that does not provide C++. A full industry-standard (whatever that may mean) product is required which also is well-integrated with MPE/iX. > > *** C++ on MPE/iX: Requirements and Options *** > > 1) If a compiler existed which handled only Unix-like > constructs (at least initially) were supported, would > you use it ? No, we could not deliver a usable product on MPE/iX then. > > 2) If an MPE C++ compiler were enhanced after the > initial port, what capabilities would it need: indicate > "don't care", "useful", or "must have" for each ? Intrinsic support: must have Access to IMAGE: must have Access to KSAM: must have Long pointer support: must have Ability to run in MPE Name Space: must have Use default MPE naming conventions: must have It is imho not an option to release an initial port without these features, and then go and enhance it. Better wait awhile longer for the real stuff. > 3) Would you trust a third-party compiler that was > supported by HP ? Well, yes, why not. I would have to see about HP's ability to give support in case of problems, though. > 4) What would you be willing to pay HP for annual > support of C++ on MPE/iX ? Same as other compiler products. It would not be good if HP overcharged this product. > 5) If the cost of acquisition of the compiler were > minimal or non-existent, would you be willing to pay > higher support fees over a guaranteed term ? Hmmmm... would there be an alternative ? > 6) Additional comments/remarks/concerns on this > subject: I sincerely hope that HP will draw its conclusions from this thread. If the number of people interested in C++/iX is proportional to the number on this list, there would be indeed a great demand for it. -- :) Chris Breemer [log in to unmask]