In a message dated 01-15-99, Darin Mcbride said to David Noon about
"VisualAge C++ for OS/2"

Hi Darin,

DM> Interesting... I moved away from Watcom (10.6) to EMX 
DM> specifically for C++ support.

 DN> But the C++ grammar supported by EMX is archaic, especially compared to
 DN> Watcom.

DM>Which version of Watcom?

In this case 11.0, but I still have 10.6 on CD. The step up in C++ support
was very major going from 10.6 to 11.0.

[snip]
DM>STL *was* coded that way.  Each compiler is supposed to ship their own 
DM>version that conforms to the standard as closely as their 
DM>compiler supports.

Yes, but that's only applied since FDIS was announced.

DM>Up until "recently" (I'll leave the 
DM>interpretation of this term open to debate), that meant 
DM>that most compilers didn't support templated methods inside 
DM>classes, or default template arguments.  EMX 0.9d finally 
DM>came out with this.

Does it (emx 0.9d) have namespaces and RTTI yet? If so, I might make the
effort and install it.

DM>Visual Age 3.0 is sadly lacking 
DM>this... unfortunately, I'm stuck with this version, just as 
DM>I'm stuck on Java 1.1.6...

Yes, the supported C++ grammar was roundly criticized by those of us who
beta tested VAC++ 3.0 about 3+ years ago. It was taken from a September 1992
draft-of-a-draft not-quite-standard.

Is VAC++ 4.0 the full ISO/ANSI standard? [At least at FDIS level, which
should be fully finalised by now.]

 DN> The makefile format doesn't bother me, as long as the compiler's make
 DN> utility works with it. I seldom even read the makefiles.

DM>I seldom have any choice but to use makefiles.  Gotta check 
DM>in my code, including makefiles, and get it compiled 
DM>elsewhere.  Much easier to guarantee with manually-created 
DM>makefiles over automatically generated ones...

I suffered from that at work with MS Visual C++, and different versions of
VC++ had different support for makefiles. ... :-)

However, I had no problems with the OS/2 code I wrote. Strangely, it turns
out that I used EMX 0.9b for the C/C++ stuff.

 DN> product. In all my years in software the only two 
 DN> system software companies I
 DN> have found with decent technical support have been IBM and Honeywell.

DM>Heheh... and I've heard such nasty rumours about IBM tech 
DM>support - right up there with MS tech support.  :-)

Well, I deal with Santa Teresa more than Toronto. ... :-)

[Sorry, couldn't resist.]

 DN> should work fine provided you stick to OS/2 2.0 API 
 DN> calls, which accounts for the bulk of the current API.

DM>Unfortunately, I didn't stick to that API set.  :-)

When is the "Undocumented Warp" book being published then? ... :-)

 DN> I thought javah was supposed to produce ISO/ANSI standard C source.

DM>Right.  However, the jni_md.h file is optimised for VAC++ 
DM>... Watcom may support looking like VAC, but EMX isn't 
DM>likely to...

Provided you #define _Optlink and a few others, you should be off and
racing, unless your jni_md.h is seriously visualaged. Just how non-standard
does VAC++ get, apart from linkage conventions and thunks?

Regards

Dave

___
 * MR/2 2.25 #353 * Speed Kills - Use Windows!

--- Maximus/2 3.01