c++.announce - DMC++ CD price will increase May 1
- "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> Apr 04 2002
- Jan Knepper <jan smartsoft.cc> Apr 04 2002
- "Laurentiu Pancescu" <user domain.invalid> Jun 02 2002
- "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> Jun 02 2002
- Jan Knepper <jan smartsoft.cc> Jun 02 2002
- "Laurentiu Pancescu" <user nowhere.near> Jun 03 2002
- Jan Knepper <jan smartsoft.cc> Jun 03 2002
- "Laurentiu Pancescu" <user nowhere.near> Jun 03 2002
- Dimitri Kaparis <dkaparis universalstudyhelper.com> Jun 03 2002
- "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> Jun 03 2002
- "Robert M. Münch" <robert.muench robertmuench.de> Jun 04 2002
- "Laurentiu Pancescu" <user nowhere.near> Jun 04 2002
- "Matthew Wilson" <mwilson nextgengaming.com> Jun 06 2002
- "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> Jun 06 2002
- "Matthew Wilson" <mwilson nextgengaming.com> Jun 06 2002
- "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> Jun 06 2002
- "Matthew Wilson" <mwilson nextgengaming.com> Jun 06 2002
- "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> Jun 03 2002
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
Jan Knepper <jan smartsoft.cc> 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
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
"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
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
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
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
"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
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
"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
"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
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
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
"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
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
"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
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 $DMC++.
I didn't realize you were doing the support work there. Thanks! I can
can you prioritize the compiler problems that cause the most grief? Also, boiling them down to 10 lines or less for each problem helps a lot. (I've found about 90% of the time dealing with STL compilation problems is whittling away all the dense brush obfuscating what really went wrong.)
Jun 06 2002
"Laurentiu Pancescu" <user nowhere.near> wrote in message news:adf79f$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