[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Apple II/IIGS C++ compiler
- Subject: Re: Apple II/IIGS C++ compiler
- From: Roy Miller <millers@inetnebr.com>
- Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 13:57:35 -0600
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
- References: <9t6r0e$nsdc$1@ID-118921.news.dfncis.de> <9t7l54$mac$1@nserve1.acs.ucalgary.ca> <9t8lcd$5f3$1@merope.saaf.se>
- Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.sys.apple2:15096
Paul Schlyter wrote:
>
> Aztec C had two versions which could be run on the Apple II: one
> native Apple II version, and another version for CP/M which could be
> ran on Apple II's with a suitable Z80 card.
>
However, Paul, if memory serves, Aztec C was not a full implimentation
of the language. Only Byteworks' Orca C was a full ANSI C, at the time
that it was created.
>
> And then you can run AT&T's Cfront, which converts C++ to C. Yep,
> that's the way early C++ compilers worked: they compiled C++ into
> (quite unreadable, but compliable) C, and then you ran that C code
> through your regular C compiler.
And does Cfront run on the II? For that route, seems to me that a
cross-complier would make more sense, if one really wanted to run a C++,
and create programs for the II.
Still, inspiteof your helpful suggestions, I think the answer to his
question is still "No, there are no C++s that run on any Apple II." And
only one ANSI C compliant C (by an earlier ANSI standard.)
Roy
>
>
> Is this enough to state "Yes there is C++ for the Apple II" ?
>
> > As for C++, why the heck would anybody want to program in that
> > mutant language? There are plenty of other good OOP languages
> > out there.
>
> There are several reasons. The two most important reasons are:
>
> 1. Run-time efficiency -- most of those "other good OOP languages"
> run quite slowly compared to C++.
>
> 2. Source code availability -- most of those "other good OOP
> languages" have a small code base compared to C++.
>
> C++ is indeed not a "pure OOP" language though, which make a lot
> of OOP purists frown at it. So if you're an OOP purist - don't use
> C++. But if you're a pragmatist, you might find C++ interesting.
>
> Finally, for ANY programming language, one can say: "Why the heck
> would anybody want to program in that language? There are
> plenty of other good languages out there."
>
> There are ALWAYS "plenty of other good languages", and no matter
> what one chooses, one could have made a different choice.
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
> Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
> e-mail: pausch at saaf dot se or paul.schlyter at ausys dot se
> WWW: http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch http://welcome.to/pausch