David Dahl (daved@nnshh127.uucp) wrote:

: My group with Northern Telecom here in Nashville is planning
: on developing our next major revision in C++ and are in need
: of some insight into C++ standards and compiliers.

: It is my understanding that ANSI and ISO have not quite finalized
: a standard, so I'm curious as to what is the most widely accepted
: "standard" at this time.  AT&T?

AT&T no longer handles cfront, Novell does.
Borland C++ 4.0 probably implements most of the proposed standard,
although some would argue not that well (IMHO this goes for all compilers).

: Also, what are some robust "true" C++ compiliers (C++ -> obj. code
: _not_ C++ -> C -> obj. code) for Macintosh, MS Windows, DOS and
: UNIX.

Certainly in the DOS/Windows area you would use Borland.
Can't help with the MAC, although I believe Semantic is very popular. The
only platform independant compiler for UNIX (that is not a translator) is
GNU g++, which supports the ARM minus exceptions. A big problem is that it
can be difficult to have portable template code between compilers,
hopefully the standard committee will sort this out soon.

: I am fairly fluent in C++, but have no idea what sort of standards
: are widely accepted these days.

Best idea is to get copies of The C++ Report which often has articles on
the latest issues with the Standard, and back issues will fill you in on
things that have been accepted (RTTI, namespaces etc.) Most compilers now
support some form of templates, but few have exceptions or RTTI.

David


David Chatterton     | "A new character has come on the scene (I am sure I did
Comp Sci Department, | not invent him, I did not even want him, though I like
Monash Uni, Clayton, | him, but there he came, walking out of the woods of
Australia, 3168.     | Ithilien): Faramir, the brother of Boromir."
Phone: 03 905 5375   | - in a letter from JRR Tolkien to his son, 4 May 1944.
email: davidc@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au

davidc@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au (David Chatterton) writes:
|> : Also, what are some robust "true" C++ compiliers (C++ -> obj. code
|> : _not_ C++ -> C -> obj. code) for Macintosh, MS Windows, DOS and
|> : UNIX.

|> David Dahl (daved@nnshh127.uucp) wrote:
|> Most compilers now support some form of templates, but few have exceptions or RTTI.

Sun's (SunPro's) latest offering has templates and exceptions.  I don't know if it
has RTTI or not.  It's a compiler, not a translator.

David Chase, speaking for myself
Thinking Machines Corp.

Hello C++'ers.

My group with Northern Telecom here in Nashville is planning
on developing our next major revision in C++ and are in need
of some insight into C++ standards and compiliers.

It is my understanding that ANSI and ISO have not quite finalized
a standard, so I'm curious as to what is the most widely accepted
"standard" at this time.  AT&T?

Also, what are some robust "true" C++ compiliers (C++ -> obj. code
_not_ C++ -> C -> obj. code) for Macintosh, MS Windows, DOS and
UNIX.

I am fairly fluent in C++, but have no idea what sort of standards
are widely accepted these days.

Any and all help is greatly appreciated.

Dave
David.Dahl@nt.com

...............................................................................
  David Dahl                           :
  Northern Telecom Inc.                :      phone:     615-734-4166
  Dept. 9400                           :      fax:       615-734-4771
  200 Athens Way                       :      ESN:       222-4166
  Nashville, TN  37228-1803            :      internet:  David.Dahl@nt.com