> I notice that you always include a "Guidelines 
  > Support?" comment with

 JdBP>   You are misreading the list.  That's exactly what 
 JdBP> "Guidelines Support"

But by listing "Guidelines Support?" in the feature list of the
_compiler_, you make a compiler sound deficient if it is not supported.

ZZ>
  >                             (and JBA's track record is
  > dismal for supporting the current version of compilers). ZZ>

 JdBP>   Guidelines 3.2 apparently supports IBM VisualAge 
 JdBP> C++ 3.01 for OS/2 and
 JdBP>   Borland C++ 4.5 for DOS.  How much more current can you get ?

It's late.  How long were VA C++, Borland 1.5/2.0 and Watcom 10.0/10.5 left
without support?  A long long time.


 JdBP>   The main "want" according to the nets appears to be
support for EMX
 JdBP>   C++ 0.9a.  It's my guess that not enough interest has been expressed
 JdBP>   by *paying* customers for this compiler for JBA to 
 JdBP> be able justify the
 JdBP>   development effort in supporting it.

The guy (Bob Moore) who spearheaded development it is/was suing JBA for
non-payment; I just found this out at coloradOS/2 from someone who used to
work for him;  this may be one of the reasons for the long lapse between
releases.


ZZ>
  > I also don't think it's fair to mention Guidelines and none
  > of the other 1/2 dozen similar tools
ZZ>

 JdBP>   Well, the only similar tools that I've encountered are the dialogue
 JdBP>   editor, VisualBuilder, and Prominaire Designer.

Vispro/C,  Vispro/C++,  GPF and at least one other one I can't think of at
the moment.

 JdBP>   The dialogue editor is just a dialogue editor, not a C++ application
 JdBP>   generator; VisualBuilder is specific to VisualAge C++ (if you want to
 JdBP>   talk about poor compiler support, *this* is the tool to pick upon);

It comes with a C++ compiler that it is guaranteed to support.

I think you're missing my point entirely.  You are including in the feature
list of each compiler something that the compiler vendor is not responsible
(and has no control) for.  And - I assume you are including Guidelines in
the review simply because it is something you personally use/used.  I don't
think it is fair to the compiler vendors,  and/or other companies that sell
products similar to Guidelines.


 JdBP>   and I've only recently (more recently than the 
 JdBP> last Pros and Cons list
 JdBP>   was published) been able to obtain a copy of Prominaire Designer
 JdBP>   (which only generates C code, not C++ code like Guidelines).

I take issue with that.  Guidelines,  although it requires a C++ compiler,
does not really generate C++ code -- sure,  you'll see the word 'class' in
the header files,  but the code that it generates for _you_ is not OO at
all.  The person from JBA I talked with at ColoradOS/2 said that it is like
that internally too -- a C program in a C++ wrapper.

And Prominaire Designed _does_ generate C++ code -- and/or it generates
code for ICLUI and/or OWL.  I haven't tried this yet,  and don't know if it
is bad as Guidelines in it's OO'ness;  but at least ICLUI support is a big
step in the OO direction.

One big plus about Designer is that you get 100% of the source code
(including custom controls) needed to compile your program.


 JdBP>   to create a separate section for them.  My only difficulties will be
 JdBP>   be making the comparisons among them as fair and 
 JdBP> as detailed enough as
 JdBP>   I would like, and finding the time to write everything up.

Right.  If you can't review them all (or at least most of them),  don't
mention any of them (in the compiler review).


--- Maximus/2 3.00