Re: Re: GCC Steering committee's opinion on ObjC++

[Michael Baehr]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 11:31:40 -0400, jhclouse@charter.net
<jhclouse@charter.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 00:46:02 +0200, Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf
> > <lars.sonchocky-helldorf@hamburg.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > Some of you might be interested in this
> > >
> > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-06/msg00818.html
> > >
> >
> > Great news :)
> >
> > Now let's just hope that Obj-C++ gets supported on platforms other
> > than Darwin real soon (or maybe it's already platform-unspecific?)
> >
> > I eagerly await the ability to tie in GNUstep apps with the vast array
> > of C++ libraries out there without having to resort to the kludgery we
> > do now.  Perhaps we will  have a native browser soon :)
> 
> A concern about that.  From Mark Mitchell's message:
> 
> "The default configuration for GCC should not include Objective-C++; a user 
> who wants
> Objective-C++ should explicitly use --enable-languages."
> 
> Won't this produce a lot of "I tried to build SomeApp.app and it didn't work 
> at all" on GNUstep
> mailing lists when somebody builds his own compiler or a clueless distro 
> doesn't include it? 
> Shouldn't ObjC++ be pushed for as a default build option?

As for your first question, I think most steppers are already on top
of the issue and this will probably not be too big of a deal; the
GNUstep-on-Darwin folks (a hardy lot) have already been building their
own gcc for quite some time now, and the rest of us (at least those
that pay attention to this list) are well familiar with the gcc
situation at this point.

As for your second question, I'm guessing all that's holding Obj-C++
back from being a default build option is its immaturity at the
moment; yes, Apple has supported it in /their/ gcc for considerable
time, but as a general gcc feature it is quite new.  I think it's an
acceptable decision, and I expect it to eventually become a default
language.