CompuServe Thread

#Lattice Purchase Q's

6 messages in this thread
#113439From: John PendergrassJul 17, 1990 7:14 PM
Betty, doesn't the Lattice C++ INCLUDE the 'C' compiler? I thought so, and included the docs as well… I guess I had gathered from Lattice's ads that you needed 'C' to run C++ (because C++ is implemented as a pre-processor). If that is the case and the price is almost the same for 'C' vs. C++ why not get C++?? Please correct me if I am wrong?? –jp–
#113443From: Steve AhlstromJul 17, 1990 7:36 PM
John, I don't know about now, but originally Lattice's C++ came with their 4.0 compiler and no doc on C, just C++.
#113458From: Dave LoveJul 17, 1990 9:40 PM
Lattice's C++ comes with the V4.0 C compiler, so it lacks some of the nice bells and whistles of the V5.0 compiler. Also, Lattice's (SAS's?) C++ is based on a very old version of AT&T's C++ front end (V1.1) and is extremely buggy. I'd recommend sticking with the straight C compiler for now, and hold off on C++ until the new C++ native-code compiler is released. Just my $0.02. – Dave
#113598From: John PendergrassJul 18, 1990 7:29 PM
that makes sense. I wasn't aware that C++ came with the old version of the C compiler, or that it was 'buggy'. Nice to know…. –jp–
#113544From: Betty Clay/SYSOPJul 18, 1990 9:16 AM
John, The price our questioner was quoted for C++ was almost twice the price of the C compiler. He did not ask if he needed C to use C++, but the other way around. He only wanted C. For that, he did NOT need the pre-processor, but only the C compiler. I think you are correct in all you said – just that he asked the question differently. ……Betty
#113808From: John PendergrassJul 19, 1990 7:05 PM
Understood, and someone else mentioned that the C compiler that came with the C++ was only version 4.00, so that's another reason to pass on it. ttfn –jp–