The price will rise from $25 to $50 on May 1, so now's a good time to buy!

www.digitalmars.com/shop.html

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

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

"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
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>

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>

> > 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

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
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
>
>

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

"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
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...

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

"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
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

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.

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
>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...
>
>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.