In article ,
Byron Desnoyers Winmill  wrote:


> In article  you wrote:
> : does anybody know of a C++ compiler for the Apple II series, or
> : indeed for any 6502/65C816 series?

> There is a C cross compiler at http://www.cc65.org/ which supports
> a number of 6502 machines.  I haven't tried it though.



Aztec C had two versions which could be run on the Apple II: one
native Apple II version, and another version for CP/M which could be
ran on Apple II's with a suitable Z80 card.

And then you can run AT&T's Cfront, which converts C++ to C.  Yep,
that's the way early C++ compilers worked: they compiled C++ into
(quite unreadable, but compliable) C, and then you ran that C code
through your regular C compiler.


Is this enough to state "Yes there is C++ for the Apple II" ?



> As for C++, why the heck would anybody want to program in that
> mutant language?  There are plenty of other good OOP languages
> out there.


There are several reasons.  The two most important reasons are:

1. Run-time efficiency -- most of those "other good OOP languages"
run quite slowly compared to C++.


2. Source code availability -- most of those "other good OOP
languages" have a small code base compared to C++.


C++ is indeed not a "pure OOP" language though, which make a lot
of OOP purists frown at it.  So if you're an OOP purist - don't use
C++.  But if you're a pragmatist, you might find C++ interesting.


Finally, for ANY programming language, one can say: "Why the heck
would anybody want to program in that language?  There are
plenty of other good languages out there."


There are ALWAYS "plenty of other good languages", and no matter
what one chooses, one could have made a different choice.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter,  Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40,  S-114 38 Stockholm,  SWEDEN
e-mail:  pausch at saaf dot se   or    paul.schlyter at ausys dot se
WWW:     http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch    http://welcome.to/pausch
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32