From 306495491004322862 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,d733139e7969f81d X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: f78e5,d733139e7969f81d X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-10-03 01:32:25 PST Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!jussieu.fr!univ-lyon1.fr!zaphod.crihan.fr!news.univ-rennes1.fr!cribx1.u-bordeaux.fr!labri!miniussi From: miniussi@labri.u-bordeaux.fr (Alain MINIUSSI) Newsgroups: comp.std.c++,comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: How relevant is ANSI C++? (Re: Is STL a good standard?) Date: 28 Sep 1994 16:35:03 GMT Organization: Laboratoire Bordelais de Recherche en Informatique Lines: 34 Distribution: world Message-ID: <36c5vn$9b8@serveur.cribx1.u-bordeaux.fr> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: firmin.labri.u-bordeaux.fr Xref: bga.com comp.std.c++:4728 comp.lang.c++:31428 In article , jason@cygnus.com (Jason Merrill) writes: |> >>>>> James Kanze US/ESC 60/3/164 #71425 writes: |> |> Assuming, of course, that the compiler is written in C++. g++, for one, |> isn't. Are there any others? Of course g++ is not written in g++ (all the people I known who have tried to develop something "important" in g++ have: - decided to return to C, - decided to switch to ml, - comited suicide (well, not yet but he is really depressed...) - are looking for another compiler) |> > Apparently the implementors don't agree with me. I wonder if there is |> > any relationship between this and the particularly low quality of most |> > available compilers. |> |> "this"? etc..|> |> I think that the low quality of most available compilers is due primarily |> to the complexity and fluidity of the language. It's due primarily to the fact that the people who produce these compilers should learn how to code. |> When the rules change |> every few months, sometimes the repercussions don't quite get propagated to |> the dark corners of the compiler. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I see that you agree with me... |> Jason Alain