www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

c++.announce - DMC++ CD price will increase May 1

reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
The price will rise from $25 to $50 on May 1, so now's a good time to buy!

www.digitalmars.com/shop.html
Apr 04 2002
next sibling parent Jan Knepper <jan smartsoft.cc> writes:
Good idea!
Jan



Walter wrote:

 The price will rise from $25 to $50 on May 1, so now's a good time to buy!

 www.digitalmars.com/shop.html

Apr 04 2002
prev sibling parent reply "Laurentiu Pancescu" <user domain.invalid> writes:
June 2nd 2002: I've just looked at the "Buy CD" page, and the price seems to
be still $25...  When the fully ISO-C++ compliant compiler will appear, is
it going to be an upgrade price for existing users who bought the actual CD?
Just in case you plan to sell it for $1500... <g>

Perhaps you should include more than one testimonials about DMC, I'm sure
you got plenty of good impressions about it by now!

Laurentiu

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:a8i2nn$1til$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 The price will rise from $25 to $50 on May 1, so now's a good time to buy!

 www.digitalmars.com/shop.html

Jun 02 2002
parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
"Laurentiu Pancescu" <user domain.invalid> wrote in message
news:adcfpc$2ghj$2 digitaldaemon.com...
 June 2nd 2002: I've just looked at the "Buy CD" page, and the price seems

 be still $25...  When the fully ISO-C++ compliant compiler will appear, is
 it going to be an upgrade price for existing users who bought the actual

 Just in case you plan to sell it for $1500... <g>

Unless inflation takes off, I doubt it will ever be $1500.
 Perhaps you should include more than one testimonials about DMC, I'm sure
 you got plenty of good impressions about it by now!

Do you want to write a testimonial? <g>
Jun 02 2002
parent reply Jan Knepper <jan smartsoft.cc> writes:
 Perhaps you should include more than one testimonials about DMC, I'm sure
 you got plenty of good impressions about it by now!

Do you want to write a testimonial? <g>

I thought I have one on http://www.janknepper.com/ ... Jan
Jun 02 2002
parent reply "Laurentiu Pancescu" <user nowhere.near> writes:
Wow... nice story, Jan!  I think Zortech was the first native compiler only
for PC platform, wasn't it?  I found some C++ compiler history that marked
the major points:

- December 1987: g++ 1.13, first C++ release of gcc
- June 1988: first release of Zortech

Anyway, Zortech is some legend.  I was pretty young when I first read about
how to write ADS programs for AutoCAD 12 for DOS, and that only 3 compilers
can generate 32-bit DOS code: Metaware HighC, Watcom C 10, and Zortech C++.
Zortech was the only C++ compiler supported back then!

And still, when you look at DMC, it has very nice features - it reminds me
very much of WATCOM: a lot of supported platforms (DOS, DOS32, Win16,
Win32), very small, tight and fast code, a lot of command line switches
<g>...  And they are both behind the ISO-C++ standard, which really makes me
feel sorry.  Those compilers generate too good code, it's a pity that you
must think whether you should use them or not, based on portability and
compliance considerations (C++ only, C standard is implemented correctly).
:-(

Laurentiu


"Jan Knepper" <jan smartsoft.cc> wrote in message
news:3CFABBFD.45E91C3A smartsoft.cc...
 Perhaps you should include more than one testimonials about DMC, I'm



 you got plenty of good impressions about it by now!

Do you want to write a testimonial? <g>

I thought I have one on http://www.janknepper.com/ ... Jan

Jun 03 2002
next sibling parent reply Jan Knepper <jan smartsoft.cc> writes:
Laurentiu Pancescu wrote:

 - December 1987: g++ 1.13, first C++ release of gcc

Where did you get that? I never heard g++ was 'native' that early.
 And they are both behind the ISO-C++ standard, which really makes me
 feel sorry.  Those compilers generate too good code, it's a pity that you
 must think whether you should use them or not, based on portability and
 compliance considerations (C++ only, C standard is implemented correctly).
 :-(

Oh, I choose to not use the latest ISO/ANSI C++ standard and compile my code usually with more than one compiler... Have not done that for some time though as I have been rather busy lately and really want to spend time with my wife as well... Jan
Jun 03 2002
parent reply "Laurentiu Pancescu" <user nowhere.near> writes:
"Jan Knepper" <jan smartsoft.cc> wrote in message
news:3CFB60DF.86B51DC5 smartsoft.cc...
 Laurentiu Pancescu wrote:

 - December 1987: g++ 1.13, first C++ release of gcc

Where did you get that? I never heard g++ was 'native' that early.

I first read about it in a document (Postscript) downloaded from www.oonumerics.org. But please check at http://gcc.gnu.org , in their "Releases" page: "December 18th 1987 - 1.15.3 (g++)". I assume it was native, since it's just a frontend for the gcc code generator, just as it is now, I think...
 And they are both behind the ISO-C++ standard, which really makes me
 feel sorry.  Those compilers generate too good code, it's a pity that


 must think whether you should use them or not, based on portability and
 compliance considerations (C++ only, C standard is implemented


 :-(

Oh, I choose to not use the latest ISO/ANSI C++ standard and compile my

 usually with more than one compiler... Have not done that for some time

 as I have been rather busy lately and really want to spend time with my

 well...

It's not only for my own template metaprogramming... <g>. Important and high-performance libraries, like Blitz++, Boost, or Loki, cannot be used with DMC. Even using STLport has serious limitations. The headers are not compliant (like in <math.h> vs. <cmath>), so that anything that uses the legal "#include <iostream>/using namespace std;" won't compile. It's pretty much impossible to use DMC (otherwise, an excellent compiler) for C++, since most code is modern, and ISO-C++ compliant. And when I write code, I write it ISO-C++ compliant as much as possible (Win32 extensions can't be avoided in some files), for a good reason: it must be usable by anybody who has a ISO-C++ compliant compiler. Almost anybody, that is... And this is extremely important: by writing old-style code, you risk that your code can only be compiled with old compilers, since there's no guarantee that new compilers will still support obsolete language features for an unlimited period of time. Even Microsoft and Borland seem to have compliance as an important target... But think how good it could get for DMC: we could have a cheap compiler, fully ISO-C++ compliant, lightning-fast when compiling, generating extremely tight and fast code for multiple targets, also with a MFC license. I'd pay not $25, not $50, but more than $200 for that! Only if we could convince Walter of this... Laurentiu
Jun 03 2002
next sibling parent Dimitri Kaparis <dkaparis universalstudyhelper.com> writes:
In article <adfopf$1ast$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Laurentiu Pancescu says...
 And they are both behind the ISO-C++ standard, which really makes me
 feel sorry.  Those compilers generate too good code, it's a pity that


 must think whether you should use them or not, based on portability and
 compliance considerations (C++ only, C standard is implemented


 :-(

Oh, I choose to not use the latest ISO/ANSI C++ standard and compile my

 usually with more than one compiler... Have not done that for some time

 as I have been rather busy lately and really want to spend time with my

 well...

It's not only for my own template metaprogramming... <g>. Important and high-performance libraries, like Blitz++, Boost, or Loki, cannot be used with DMC. Even using STLport has serious limitations. The headers are not compliant (like in <math.h> vs. <cmath>), so that anything that uses the legal "#include <iostream>/using namespace std;" won't compile. It's pretty much impossible to use DMC (otherwise, an excellent compiler) for C++, since most code is modern, and ISO-C++ compliant. And when I write code, I write it ISO-C++ compliant as much as possible (Win32 extensions can't be avoided in some files), for a good reason: it must be usable by anybody who has a ISO-C++ compliant compiler. Almost anybody, that is... And this is extremely important: by writing old-style code, you risk that your code can only be compiled with old compilers, since there's no guarantee that new compilers will still support obsolete language features for an unlimited period of time. Even Microsoft and Borland seem to have compliance as an important target... But think how good it could get for DMC: we could have a cheap compiler, fully ISO-C++ compliant, lightning-fast when compiling, generating extremely tight and fast code for multiple targets, also with a MFC license. I'd pay not $25, not $50, but more than $200 for that! Only if we could convince Walter of this...

I couldn't agree more. It's a pity that such an excellent development tool, available for exceptionally low price is practically unusable for serious development work because of these issues. Best Regards Dimitri Kaparis, Independent Developer http://www.universalstudyhelper.com - software to help you study any subject.
Jun 03 2002
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
"Laurentiu Pancescu" <user nowhere.near> wrote in message
news:adfopf$1ast$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 It's not only for my own template metaprogramming... <g>.  Important and
 high-performance libraries, like Blitz++, Boost, or Loki, cannot be used
 with DMC.  Even using STLport has serious limitations.  The headers are

 compliant (like in <math.h> vs. <cmath>), so that anything that uses the
 legal "#include <iostream>/using namespace std;" won't compile.  It's

 much impossible to use DMC (otherwise, an excellent compiler) for C++,

 most code is modern, and ISO-C++ compliant.  And when I write code, I

 it ISO-C++ compliant as much as possible (Win32 extensions can't be

 in some files), for a good reason: it must be usable by anybody who has a
 ISO-C++ compliant compiler.  Almost anybody, that is...

Oh, I'm painfully aware of that. I am trying to get the compiler up to date. -Walter
Jun 03 2002
next sibling parent "Robert M. Münch" <robert.muench robertmuench.de> writes:
"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:adh53r$2qmg$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Oh, I'm painfully aware of that. I am trying to get the compiler up to
 date. -Walter

That's good to hear! I only can agree with what the others have posted about standard conformance. My biggest problem with DMC++ is the STL stuff. Hopefully we will see a release in the near future where some of the biggest gaps are closed. -- Robert M. Münch IT & Management Freelancer Mobile: +49 (0)177 2452 802 Fax : +49 (0)721 8408 9112 Web : http://www.robertmuench.de
Jun 04 2002
prev sibling parent "Laurentiu Pancescu" <user nowhere.near> writes:
I'm really glad to hear this!  I was afraid that D is taking all of your
time (or most of it ;).  After all, writing a new frontend for gcc isn't
exactly trivial...

If you manage to get the template support to be fully compliant with the
ISO-C++ Standard (maybe except for the "export" keyword - currently only
Comeau has it in beta), it'll be already a great improvement, since we could
use STLport out-of-the-box, and it has its own iostream implementation,
fully compliant (but dependent on full template support).  After that we can
write files like cmath by ourselves:  [LOL]

// cmath
namespace std {
#include <math.h>
}

Regards, and good luck,
  Laurentiu

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:adh53r$2qmg$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 "Laurentiu Pancescu" <user nowhere.near> wrote in message
 news:adfopf$1ast$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 It's not only for my own template metaprogramming... <g>.  Important and
 high-performance libraries, like Blitz++, Boost, or Loki, cannot be used
 with DMC.  Even using STLport has serious limitations.  The headers are

 compliant (like in <math.h> vs. <cmath>), so that anything that uses the
 legal "#include <iostream>/using namespace std;" won't compile.  It's

 much impossible to use DMC (otherwise, an excellent compiler) for C++,

 most code is modern, and ISO-C++ compliant.  And when I write code, I

 it ISO-C++ compliant as much as possible (Win32 extensions can't be

 in some files), for a good reason: it must be usable by anybody who has


 ISO-C++ compliant compiler.  Almost anybody, that is...

Oh, I'm painfully aware of that. I am trying to get the compiler up to date. -Walter

Jun 04 2002
prev sibling parent reply "Matthew Wilson" <mwilson nextgengaming.com> writes:
I would pay a sizable whack (more than $200 !) for that, also.

I currently have a lot of issues with DMC and templates, but am persevering
(see http://stlsoft.org, http://winstl.org, http://comstl.org), as I like
the compiler, and anything that reduces M$'s stranglehold on C++
developments on Intel platforms

"Laurentiu Pancescu" <user nowhere.near> wrote in message
news:adfopf$1ast$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 "Jan Knepper" <jan smartsoft.cc> wrote in message
 news:3CFB60DF.86B51DC5 smartsoft.cc...
 Laurentiu Pancescu wrote:

 - December 1987: g++ 1.13, first C++ release of gcc

Where did you get that? I never heard g++ was 'native' that early.

I first read about it in a document (Postscript) downloaded from www.oonumerics.org. But please check at http://gcc.gnu.org , in their "Releases" page: "December 18th 1987 - 1.15.3 (g++)". I assume it was native, since it's just a frontend for the gcc code generator, just as it

 now, I think...

 And they are both behind the ISO-C++ standard, which really makes me
 feel sorry.  Those compilers generate too good code, it's a pity that


 must think whether you should use them or not, based on portability



 compliance considerations (C++ only, C standard is implemented


 :-(

Oh, I choose to not use the latest ISO/ANSI C++ standard and compile my

 usually with more than one compiler... Have not done that for some time

 as I have been rather busy lately and really want to spend time with my

 well...

It's not only for my own template metaprogramming... <g>. Important and high-performance libraries, like Blitz++, Boost, or Loki, cannot be used with DMC. Even using STLport has serious limitations. The headers are

 compliant (like in <math.h> vs. <cmath>), so that anything that uses the
 legal "#include <iostream>/using namespace std;" won't compile.  It's

 much impossible to use DMC (otherwise, an excellent compiler) for C++,

 most code is modern, and ISO-C++ compliant.  And when I write code, I

 it ISO-C++ compliant as much as possible (Win32 extensions can't be

 in some files), for a good reason: it must be usable by anybody who has a
 ISO-C++ compliant compiler.  Almost anybody, that is...

 And this is extremely important: by writing old-style code, you risk that
 your code can only be compiled with old compilers, since there's no
 guarantee that new compilers will still support obsolete language features
 for an unlimited period of time.  Even Microsoft and Borland seem to have
 compliance as an important target...

 But think how good it could get for DMC: we could have a cheap compiler,
 fully ISO-C++ compliant, lightning-fast when compiling, generating

 tight and fast code for multiple targets, also with a MFC license.  I'd

 not $25, not $50, but more than $200 for that!  Only if we could convince
 Walter of this...

 Laurentiu

Jun 06 2002
parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
"Matthew Wilson" <mwilson nextgengaming.com> wrote in message
news:adotjl$1kdo$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I would pay a sizable whack (more than $200 !) for that, also.

 I currently have a lot of issues with DMC and templates, but am

 (see http://stlsoft.org, http://winstl.org, http://comstl.org), as I like
 the compiler, and anything that reduces M$'s stranglehold on C++
 developments on Intel platforms

STLsoft's web site says they support Digital Mars! Though I will try to get all the template support standard compliant. -Walter
Jun 06 2002
parent reply "Matthew Wilson" <mwilson nextgengaming.com> writes:
Sorry, was unclear. I meant that my perseverance has paid off partially, in
that most of the STLSoft's libraries (and most of the WinSTL's also) work
correctly with DMC. There are still some issues which I am yet to iron out.

Most of these issues crop up when one tries to involve the standard library,
although some (eg. DMC appears to strongly dislike template methods defined
outside the class definition) are independent of this

BTW, I was serious about the $DMC++.


"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:adp4pl$1rdi$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 "Matthew Wilson" <mwilson nextgengaming.com> wrote in message
 news:adotjl$1kdo$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I would pay a sizable whack (more than $200 !) for that, also.

 I currently have a lot of issues with DMC and templates, but am

 (see http://stlsoft.org, http://winstl.org, http://comstl.org), as I


 the compiler, and anything that reduces M$'s stranglehold on C++
 developments on Intel platforms

STLsoft's web site says they support Digital Mars! Though I will try to

 all the template support standard compliant. -Walter

Jun 06 2002
parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
"Matthew Wilson" <mwilson nextgengaming.com> wrote in message
news:adpafe$2cti$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Sorry, was unclear. I meant that my perseverance has paid off partially,

 that most of the STLSoft's libraries (and most of the WinSTL's also) work
 correctly with DMC. There are still some issues which I am yet to iron

 Most of these issues crop up when one tries to involve the standard

 although some (eg. DMC appears to strongly dislike template methods

 outside the class definition) are independent of this

 BTW, I was serious about the $DMC++.

I didn't realize you were doing the support work there. Thanks! I can help - can you prioritize the compiler problems that cause the most grief? Also, boiling them down to 10 lines or less for each problem helps a lot. (I've found about 90% of the time dealing with STL compilation problems is whittling away all the dense brush obfuscating what really went wrong.)
Jun 06 2002
parent "Matthew Wilson" <mwilson nextgengaming.com> writes:
It's all me, baby! :)

STLSoft is simply an open-source imprint of my company
(http://synesis.com.au), in order that I can move a lot of useful software
into the public-domain: partly to use with clients (since it simplifies the
separation, at least in the minds of their legal departments!); partly so
that I can write (articles, etc.) about the techniques without having the
encumberance of having my company badged all over it (not to mention its
overweening headers dependency tree); partly out of the good-ole' goodness
of my public-domain open-source heart.

Seriously though, Walter, am in the midst of some serious time-consuming
activities (as per our off-line conversation), but will be glad to take you
up on these issues when I get back to STLSoft-ing in a couple of weeks.

Thanks for the offer. Much appreciated. (We can probably do each other some
good, you get some tough STL nuts to crack, and I get more comprehensive and
powerful support for my libraries)



"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:adpbb6$2dpv$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 "Matthew Wilson" <mwilson nextgengaming.com> wrote in message
 news:adpafe$2cti$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Sorry, was unclear. I meant that my perseverance has paid off partially,

 that most of the STLSoft's libraries (and most of the WinSTL's also)


 correctly with DMC. There are still some issues which I am yet to iron

 Most of these issues crop up when one tries to involve the standard

 although some (eg. DMC appears to strongly dislike template methods

 outside the class definition) are independent of this

 BTW, I was serious about the $DMC++.

I didn't realize you were doing the support work there. Thanks! I can

 can you prioritize the compiler problems that cause the most grief? Also,
 boiling them down to 10 lines or less for each problem helps a lot. (I've
 found about 90% of the time dealing with STL compilation problems is
 whittling away all the dense brush obfuscating what really went wrong.)

Jun 06 2002
prev sibling parent "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
"Laurentiu Pancescu" <user nowhere.near> wrote in message
news:adf79f$o76$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Wow... nice story, Jan!  I think Zortech was the first native compiler

 for PC platform, wasn't it?  I found some C++ compiler history that marked
 the major points:

 - December 1987: g++ 1.13, first C++ release of gcc
 - June 1988: first release of Zortech

The date is right for Zortech, but as I recall at the time, there was no other native C++ compiler. Michael Tiemann was working on g++, but I don't think he'd released a version before Zortech. The other one was Michael Ball's Taumetric C++ which came out somewhat after Zortech.
Jun 03 2002