On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 01:10:09PM -0700, Mike Bresnahan wrote: > For similar reasons it is much easier to develop applications with Java than > with C++. It can be a major pain to get a set of C++ libraries to compile > and link together... Major pain as in "I have to pay $30 for 2 CDs or download them for free"? Any distribution has this sorted, ya'know? > Were they all compiled with exception support? Are > they COFF or ELF or XXX? I do not have C++ with XXX linkage. Only some JPGs... > Are they all thread safe? What? _Any_ code can be not thread safe, even a java package you get from somewhere... > Which thread API do > they use? How ANSI compliant are the headers? Oh no, they named their > widget with the same name as our giget. Why or why didn't they use > namespaces? Oops another Microsoft non-standard extension. Namespaces is a very _STANDARD_ thing. Not Microsoft, not extension. > Do they use the > same name mangling scheme? If not compiled with the same compiler (/version) no, for obvious reasons: because vendors do not want to agree on a common ABI, so they can lock you in their "standard". > Which version of GCC were they compiled with. > Which version of the GNU runtime libraries work with this compiler? Oh you > mean I have to download this patch from Oogle's site in order to make GCC > 4.5 work with Kobop's libraries? What have this to do with C++ specifically? > Template friends have not yet been > implemeted in this compiler. I could continue for your viewing pleasure, > but I must run. Sure... run. You can run but you can't hide... florin -- "If it's not broken, let's fix it till it is." 41A9 2BDE 8E11 F1C5 87A6 03EE 34B3 E075 3B90 DFE4 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 230 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20010925/f0bf0221/attachment.pgp