Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.object
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!uunet!allegra!alice!ark
From: ark@research.att.com (Andrew Koenig)
Subject: Re: C++ Productivity
Message-ID: <D3zrpn.Hxq@research.att.com>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ
References: <D3M3B7.L09@syacus.acus.oz.au> <3hgs2f$8i6@news.parc.xerox.com> <1995Feb13.114847.22991@wavehh.hanse.de>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 13:20:11 GMT
Lines: 24
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.c++:112689 comp.lang.smalltalk:20824 comp.object:26703

In article <1995Feb13.114847.22991@wavehh.hanse.de> cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de (Martin Cracauer) writes:

> >I don't think this is a fair characterization.  At least at this
> >point, C++ has some clear disadvantages with respect to C (as well
> >as advantages):

> I'd like to add

> 5. Code of different compilers cannot be linked together, for several
>    reasons (see g++-FAQ for details). 

This is not a C++ disadvantage with respect to C: C compilers are
not always link-compatible with each other either.

I have seen two pairs of C compilers, one each on two different
machines, where one could compile some files on one compiler and
some on the other, link them together, get no diagnostics from
the compiler or linker, and have the result crash at run time
because the compilers' calling sequences were different.

C++ has no monopoly there.
-- 
				--Andrew Koenig
				  ark@research.att.com
