Michael Torrie <torr...@gmail.com> writes: > On 08/01/2010 07:09 PM, John Bokma wrote: >>> One thing that comes to mind is that it's much easier to distribute C >>> libraries than C++ libraries. >> >> In the beginning of C++ there were programs that just converted C++ to C >> (frontends). At least that is how the C++ compiler Acorn sold worked. >> So I don't think your argument was much true back then. > > No, he is still right. Each C++ implementation did name mangling > differently leading to "C" libraries that had incompatible names and > signatures. Also each frontend could have generated incompatible > vtables and other C++ structures. So C code generated by one C++ > frontend could not easily call C code generated by another C++ frontend. > So the same arguments that are made about C++ now were just as valid > back then when C++ was merely a fancy preprocessor.
See my other post: I understand that two C++ preprocessors can't call each others generated code, but if one uses C++ and knows that one can only use shared C libraries on target systems, and not C++ libraries that might be present (or more likely not: C++ was new in those days). -- John Bokma j3b Hacking & Hiking in Mexico - http://johnbokma.com/ http://castleamber.com/ - Perl & Python Development -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
