GNU c++ bashing (was Re: c++ vs ada results)

[Eli Brandt]

I took this out of the graphics groups cuz it's not graphics.
In article <1991Jun12.201740.16463 at netcom.COM> jls at netcom.COM (Jim Showalter) writes:

[ Ada/C++ discussion axed ]

>>o	C++ compilers are cheap -- the GNU family is free, and runs 
>>	on a number of different architectures.  You can get the source 
>>	code so that you can fix it if it's broken.
>
>You get what you pay for. Personally, I'd much prefer to buy a validated
>compiler with the number of bugs approaching zero than use a free compiler
>so shot full of bugs the source code is provided to me to patch around
>problems that SHOULD have been taken care of by the vendor.

Out of curiosity, have you actually used a GNU compiler?  If so, could you
specify some of the bugs with which it was "shot through".  Please, only note
those which directly affected you, because *commercial* compiler vendors don't
tell you about other bugfixes.  My experience has been that gcc is less buggy
than Sun cc or (smirk) Microsoft C.  I've had no problems working on a
prospective Obfuscated C entry.  Can you honestly tell me that you've never
wanted to look at, tweak, port, or tinker with your compiler?  Difficult
without source.  As for support, I suspect the net will be around longer than
most Ada vendors.

GCC sidenote:  It appears that gcc -O generates division code which is about six 
times faster than SGI's cc -O on a 4D.  Multiplication is "only" 70% faster.  Has
anybody else seen numbers like these?  A factor of six seems just a bit odd.
"You get what you pay for"?


[ C++ bashing, much of which I agree with, axed ]

>-- 
>*** LIMITLESS SOFTWARE, Inc: Jim Showalter, jls at netcom.com, (408) 243-0630 ****
>*Proven solutions to software problems. Consulting and training on all aspects*
>*of software development. Management/process/methodology. Architecture/design/*
>*reuse. Quality/productivity. Risk reduction. EFFECTIVE OO usage. Ada/C++.    *

/     Eli Brandt      eli at gang.umass.edu       \
\     You have been disclaimed.                /