Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #10073
| From | Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.os2.programmer.misc, comp.lang.c++ |
| Subject | Re: C++ library names |
| Date | 2011-09-13 07:22 -0400 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <j4nee3$d48$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <-N-dnagR4OiAUvTTnZ2dnUVZ5oWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <4e6b1e6c$0$6566$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> <IU.D20110912.T162536.P19269.Q0@J.de.Boyne.Pollard.localhost> <1546afc8-55d0-496b-8d15-1fdb4a507b79@d26g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
On 9/13/2011 3:24 AM, Goran wrote: > On Sep 12, 6:24 pm, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard<J.deBoynePollard- > newsgro...@NTLWorld.COM> wrote: >>> This "problem" is called "name mangling" [...] >> >> No it isn't. It's many programmers' simplistic statement of the >> problem, but name mangling is merely a symptom of the actual problem, >> which is a lack of binary compatibility across compilers, which >> stretches to a lot more things than just symbol names. M. Zakharevich >> hit the nail squarely on the head: DirectToSOM C++ solves this. It's a >> pity that (a) the class library wasn't compiled to SOM by the IBM >> compiler, and (b) GCC isn't capable of DirectToSOM C++. > > Binary compatibility? Meh. C and C++ as __languages__ do not have > that. > > I personally am not a fan of binary compatibility and I believe people > are overrating this. If code from different toolchains or languages > needs to speak to each other, there's integration technologies. One of > them is called "the C interface used by the platform (OS)". That's a > dumb one (effective, though, and any monkey gets it). There's more > (or, rather, very) complex stuff like COM of MS. There's also "VM as > integration technology" (Java, .NET). Finally, there's also "one > compiler version integration" of C++. There's all this choice since > forever. > > We would gain little with putting binary compatibility into C or C++. > I disagree. If you're in control of all the code you use, one compiler is fine. If you're getting code from everywhichwhere, like so many projects do today, it's a real problem. Even with open source, having to compile everything from scratch and cope with the quirks and incompatibilities of several compilers is a real handicap.
Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: C++ library names Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.COM> - 2011-09-12 17:24 +0100
Re: C++ library names Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-09-13 00:24 -0700
Re: C++ library names Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-09-13 07:22 -0400
Re: C++ library names Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-09-13 05:06 -0700
csiph-web