On 5 Oct 2004 23:50:26 -0700, <···········@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Buy a good C++ compiler and write programs in a MODERN language,
> forget Lisp, it's dead.
A slow time someplace...
Why should I spend money? Lots of free compilers around, even for the
successor of B.
Time Waster wrote:
> On 5 Oct 2004 23:50:26 -0700, <···········@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Buy a good C++ compiler and write programs in a MODERN language,
>> forget Lisp, it's dead.
>
> A slow time someplace...
>
> Why should I spend money? Lots of free compilers around, even for the
> successor of B.
C has plenty of free compilers. Does C++?
IIRC, there are *no* C++ compilers yet; it being a moving target may have
something to do with that.
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 20:59:10 +0200, Svein Ove Aas wrote:
> C has plenty of free compilers. Does C++?
Yes, under Windows the Microsoft C++ compiler is free. It is a very good
compiler (generating excellent code).
jb
jblazi <······@hotmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 20:59:10 +0200, Svein Ove Aas wrote:
>
> > C has plenty of free compilers. Does C++?
>
> Yes, under Windows the Microsoft C++ compiler is free. It is a very good
> compiler (generating excellent code).
This is news to me. So Windows XP SP2 includes a C++ compiler? Is
Visual Studio included as well (or whatever the current IDE is)?
I remember having to purchase that separately back in my Windows
daze. Meanwhile Linux distros include GCC and OS X includes Xcode
(which is an IDE that uses GCC as the compiler).
--
An ideal world is left as an excercise to the reader.
--- Paul Graham, On Lisp 8.1
David Steuber <·····@david-steuber.com> wrote:
> This is news to me. So Windows XP SP2 includes a C++ compiler? Is
> Visual Studio included as well (or whatever the current IDE is)?
Visual Studio is not included, but you can download the command line
tools for free:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=4fe5bdb5-c7a7-4505-9927-2213868a325b
--
Frank Bu�, ··@frank-buss.de
http://www.frank-buss.de, http://www.it4-systems.de
Svein Ove Aas <·········@aas.no> writes:
> IIRC, there are *no* C++ compilers yet; it being a moving target may have
> something to do with that.
Ok, I may have missed something.
GCC?
or even more "free": TenDRA?
Regards,
--
____________________________
Julian Stecklina / _________________________/
________________/ /
\_________________/ LISP - truly beautiful
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, Julian Stecklina <··········@web.de> wrote:
> Svein Ove Aas <·········@aas.no> writes:
>
>> IIRC, there are *no* C++ compilers yet; it being a moving target may have
>> something to do with that.
>
> Ok, I may have missed something.
>
> GCC?
> or even more "free": TenDRA?
I'd think the contention is that there are no compilers that actually
compile the C++ language defined by the standards.
There are numerous compilers for languages _resembling_ C++, but
probably none that actually compile the true language itself...
--
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="ntlug.org" in name ^ ·@" ^ tld;;
http://linuxfinances.info/info/lisp.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #149. "Ropes supporting various fixtures
will not be tied next to open windows or staircases, and chandeliers
will be hung way at the top of the ceiling."
<http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
On 9 Oct 2004 16:14:00 GMT, Christopher Browne <········@acm.org> wrote:
> There are numerous compilers for languages _resembling_ C++, but
> probably none that actually compile the true language itself...
Can't you say the same thing about Common Lisp?
Edi.
--
Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
Edi Weitz wrote:
>>There are numerous compilers for languages _resembling_ C++, but
>>probably none that actually compile the true language itself...
>
>
> Can't you say the same thing about Common Lisp?
(chuckles ominously)
Paul