Re: Let's ask for g++ version of Galaxy

[Yotam Medini <yotamm at tmai dot com>]

> Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 19:04:46 -0400 (EDT)
> Sender: galaxy-users@visix.com
> From: Doug Kilpatrick <doug@visix.com>

Thanks for your reply. 
This is the first time I got technical arguments
against a g++ version of Galaxy.

> Yotam Medini wrote:
> > If we are to stay developing under Unix, how can we seriously put up
> > with C++ compilers whose template support is primitive not to 
> > mention almost
> > no support for the Standard Template Library (STL).  SunOS and Solaris
> > debugging tools are an insult compared to GNU's gdb.  And gdb cannot
> > work with SunPro-CC on Solaris.
> 
> Solaris dbx is threaded.  gdb is not.  gdb is also not threaded on Linux,
> which makes debugging Linux specific problems in Galaxy a bit difficult.
I am not using threads. I do use STL. 
I want reasonably simple porting, and I do write bugs that I need to find
on SunOS, Solaris, HP-UX 9,10, AIX 3.x 4.x,, DEC's OSF1.

> How is g++'s native exception support?  From your message I assume its
> template support is finally there?  Namespaces?  Threads?
But if I don't use any of any of these exceptions, namespaces and
threads features, why should Galaxy force me to do so, or force me to
use only compilers that support it.

> > has this port for SunOS's g++.  Guessing that Vibe on Linux is based on
> > some internal Galaxy port I assume that Galaxy was also internally
> 
> Vibe is based on Galaxy C, not Galaxy C++.  Porting Galaxy-pre3.0 C to
> Linux was fun enough...
I do hope it will turn to be a fruitful work.

> > ported to g++ on Linux.  Therefore, g++ porting effort for Visix is not
> > that big.  For Visix, it is basically the price of marketing and support.
> 
> C++ is not quite as stable as C, and g++ is not quite as refined as gcc.  I
> can not recommend g++ for any platform besides linux, and I hear there are
> better C++ compiliers for sale for Linux as well.
If this is the _same_ compiler on all UNIX platforms (KAI?)
with good debugger (and emacs-freindly)
we would love to consider Galaxy version for it!

> Last I checked, Galaxy-pre3.0 didn't compile for g++ (we can't support
> native exceptions with g++).  If I can get it to compile, the lack of
> threadsafe libraries is going to massively complicate the porting effort.
Again, if I don't use neither threads nor exceptions
why should I be restriced. If Galaxy now _uses_ exceptions
I will be happy to wait for a Galaxy g++ version unttil g++ support exceptions.

> Doug "The Linux Guy" Kilpatrick
> -- doug@visix.com

-- yotam

p.s. 
Exceptions..., I wish Java did not have them!