ZZ>
  > I notice that you always include a "Guidelines Support?"
comment with
  > each compiler in your compiler review,  which I don't think is
  > fair --it is not up to a compiler to support Guidelines,
  > it is ther other way around
ZZ>

  You are misreading the list.  That's exactly what "Guidelines Support"
  means.  Here's a quote from the list (Borland C++) :

   Guidelines currently officially supports 1.01, but 2.0 support is in
   the works, apparently.  Contact Guidelines Tech Support on CompuServe
   for details.  WorkFrame support is provided (by BC_WF.DLL, [...]

  I think that it's entirely clear that Guidelines is the entity doing
  the supporting, from the fact that it is the subject of the verb and
  not the object.  (-:

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

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

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

  ( All of those asking for EMX C++ support, from Guidelines or from any
    other product, may do well to stop and ask themselves whether they
    are willing to *pay* for the development costs of supporting their
    compiler.  If they are professional developers, they should think
    about what the development costs of supporting multiple compilers
    would be for them.  This may well cause them to see things in a new
    light.

    They may well also think about how they could go about convincing a
    commercial organisation that it will make money from selling them
    development tools when it is plain from the C++ compiler that they
    use that they don't pay for their development tools.                )

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

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

  The dialogue editor is just a dialogue editor, not a C++ application
  generator; VisualBuilder is specific to VisualAge C++ (if you want to
  talk about poor compiler support, *this* is the tool to pick upon);
  and I've only recently (more recently than the last Pros and Cons list
  was published) been able to obtain a copy of Prominaire Designer
  (which only generates C code, not C++ code like Guidelines).

ZZ>
  > Perhaps it is not appropriate to mention any third party
  > product when reviewing the compilers.
ZZ>

  Well, that's a fair argument (with the proviso that the C++ compilers
  themselves are *all* third-party products).

  The main problem is that (until recently) JBA Guidelines was one of a
  kind, and so it was difficult to find a place for it.  Now that there
  are other application generators on the market, maybe I will be able
  to create a separate section for them.  My only difficulties will be
  be making the comparisons among them as fair and as detailed enough as
  I would like, and finding the time to write everything up.

  > JdeBP <
___
 X MegaMail 2.10 #0:
--- Maximus/2 3.00