What is the difference between the extensions *.hxx and just *.h for header files ?
Can they co-exist?
Mark
34  19751 
Mark Sullivan said:
What is the difference between the extensions *.hxx and just *.h for
header files ?
Implementations are allowed to distinguish between them, but are not
required to do so. Neither the C Standard nor the C++ Standard even so
much as mentions .hxx file names.
Can they co-exist?
Sure, why not? Implementations have little or no reason to reject a file
just because it has a .hxx suffix.
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
On 17 Maj, 17:12, ms...@nortel.com (Mark Sullivan) wrote:
What is the difference between the extensions *.hxx and just *.h for header files ?
Can they co-exist?
Mark
Yes, no problem. You can call them whatever you want, and even
a .pascal extension would be fine - for the compiler! I would go for
an established convention of your platform, but would avoid .h as this
to me looks like a C header.
/Peter
Mark Sullivan wrote:
What is the difference between the extensions *.hxx and just *.h for
header files ?
There are a few *.h files who's content is defined by some standard. Other
than that, it is only customary (i.e. a convention, not a rule) that hxx
signals C++ header files like cxx is sometimes used for C++ sourcefiles.
However, you will see much more cpp or hpp files.
Can they co-exist?
You can pretty much call your files as you want, neither C nor C++ actually
care much, apart from the few special cases that collide with header files
already used by the languages itself.
Uli
On 17 Maj, 20:06, Ulrich Eckhardt <dooms...@knuut.dewrote:
Mark Sullivan wrote:
What is the difference between the extensions *.hxx and just *.h for
header files ?
There are a few *.h files who's content is defined by some standard. Other
than that, it is only customary (i.e. a convention, not a rule) that hxx
signals C++ header files like cxx is sometimes used for C++ sourcefiles.
However, you will see much more cpp or hpp files.
Can they co-exist?
You can pretty much call your files as you want, neither C nor C++ actually
care much, apart from the few special cases that collide with header files
already used by the languages itself.
Uli
You have to take care when you give a name already defined by the
standard, but I guess all major platforms will be able to differ so
long as you differentiate using ""-inclusion instead of "<>".
/Peter
Mark Sullivan wrote:
What is the difference between the extensions *.hxx and just *.h for
header files ? Can they co-exist?
The difference is that one uses a three-letter extension, and the other
a one-letter one. ;-)
As far as a C or C++ compiler is concerned, there is no difference at
all. You could even use something like
*.some_silly_extension_i_like_to_use if you like.
The only thing that the compiler cares about is that it can find a file
with the name you specify and that the file contains syntactically
correct text.
>
Mark
Bart v Ingen Schenau
--
a.c.l.l.c-c++ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/learn/faq
c.l.c FAQ: http://c-faq.com/
c.l.c++ FAQ: http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
boost library uses .hpp while standard c library uses .h and standard c
++ library doesn't use any suffix.
They are just convention, and not different.
Mark Sullivan wrote:
What is the difference between the extensions *.hxx and just *.h for header files ?
Can they co-exist?
Mark
Hello,
Mark Sullivan wrote:
What is the difference between the extensions *.hxx and just *.h for header files ?
Can they co-exist?
Mark
It's a naming convention. Like using .cpp or .C for C++ source files. And as far
as I know they should be able to co-exist.
- Jensen
Mark Sullivan wrote:
What is the difference between the extensions *.hxx and just *.h for
header files ? Can they co-exist?
The extention of the header files is by convention. You can name a header
file anything you want.
#include "MyFile.bah"
is legal.
I've seen both .h and .hpp used for C++ header files. .H may even be a
likely extion. However, I would suggest you stick with the conventions as
it makes it easier to find things. Easier to search all .h or .h* files for
some specific thing you are looking for then have to guess what extention
the programmer used.
--
Jim Langston ta*******@rocketmail.com
On 17 May 2008 15:12:05 GMT, ms***@nortel.com (Mark Sullivan) wrote in
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++:
What is the difference between the extensions *.hxx and just *.h for header files ?
Can they co-exist?
The C language specifies 15, 18, or 24 standard headers (which need
not be files) with names ending in .h, depending on which version of
the C standard your compiler conforms to.
The C++ language specifies the same 18 headers as C under the 1995
version of the standard. It also recommends that they be included in
a different form, with a 'c' in front of the name and no .h at the
end. Example, C's <stdio.hcan be included in a C++ program as
either <stdion.h>, or, as preferred, as <cstdio>.
Beyond that, the names given to any other files that may be included
with a #include directive is entirely up to the author of the file, so
long as it is accepted by the compiler and operating system.
So if there is an included file that ends in ".hxx", it means
absolutely nothing at all to the language, it is just that is the name
somebody decided to give it.
--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://c-faq.com/
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++ http://www.club.cc.cmu.edu/~ajo/docs/FAQ-acllc.html
Mark Sullivan wrote:
What is the difference between the extensions *.hxx and just *.h for header files ?
Can they co-exist?
There is no difference from the point of view of the C++ which extension
you use. Generally .hxx is used for C++ headers and .h is used for C
headers while many use it for C++ headers also. The content of the file
is more important.
Aggro wrote:
Mark Sullivan wrote:
What is the difference between the extensions *.hxx and just *.h
for header files ? Can they co-exist?
There is no difference from the point of view of the C++ which
extension you use. Generally .hxx is used for C++ headers and .h is
used for C headers while many use it for C++ headers also.
I've never seen .hxx used in real code. I've seen .hpp on occasion.
Brian
On 18 mai, 20:18, "Default User" <defaultuse...@yahoo.comwrote:
Aggro wrote:
Mark Sullivan wrote:
What is the difference between the extensions *.hxx and
just *.h for header files ? Can they co-exist?
There is no difference from the point of view of the C++
which extension you use. Generally .hxx is used for C++
headers and .h is used for C headers while many use it for
C++ headers also.
I've never seen .hxx used in real code. I've seen .hpp on occasion.
It was used with some early MS-DOS compilers, I think. At my
clients, .hh has been by far the most widespread, but all of my
clients have been Unix based.
--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:ja*********@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34
James Kanze wrote:
On 18 mai, 20:18, "Default User" <defaultuse...@yahoo.comwrote:
Aggro wrote:
There is no difference from the point of view of the C++
which extension you use. Generally .hxx is used for C++
headers and .h is used for C headers while many use it for
C++ headers also.
I've never seen .hxx used in real code. I've seen .hpp on occasion.
It was used with some early MS-DOS compilers, I think. At my
clients, .hh has been by far the most widespread, but all of my
clients have been Unix based.
I have occasionally seen that, when the source files carry a .cc
extension. Symmetry, I suppose.
Brian
Mark Sullivan wrote:
What is the difference between the extensions *.hxx and just *.h for header files ?
Can they co-exist?
Mark
Hi
I'm new in this newsgroup and my english is not perfect too so be tolerant.
My use of these files is as follow :
- .h files are used to declare types, classes (templates or not),
prototypes (templates or not and so on
- .hxx are used to implement inline methods, templates classes and
functions.
You include .hxx file at the end of the .h file and in the same way,
include the .h file at the top of the .hxx file. The .c files are used
to implement the rest of the .h files.
So you can split declaration from the implementation and your code is
easier ti maintain and read.
Was I clear enough ? Don't hesitate
Shen
On 19 mai, 00:16, "Default User" <defaultuse...@yahoo.comwrote:
James Kanze wrote:
On 18 mai, 20:18, "Default User" <defaultuse...@yahoo.comwrote:
Aggro wrote:
There is no difference from the point of view of the C++
which extension you use. Generally .hxx is used for C++
headers and .h is used for C headers while many use it for
C++ headers also.
I've never seen .hxx used in real code. I've seen .hpp on occasion.
It was used with some early MS-DOS compilers, I think. At my
clients, .hh has been by far the most widespread, but all of my
clients have been Unix based.
I have occasionally seen that, when the source files carry a .cc
extension. Symmetry, I suppose.
Yes. In general, the first decision a company makes is whether
C++ header files will use .h, or something different than C. In
the latter case, the ending for the header files will almost
always be the same as that for the source files, with the c
replaced by an h, e.g. .hpp if the sources are .cpp, .hh if the
sources are .cc, etc. The original convention was .C for C++
sources, and I've also seen .H for the headers. This convention
fails , however, under systems which don't distinguish case, and
it seems like everyone who ported C++ to a system which didn't
distinguish case chose something different. Microsoft (and I
think Borland) chose .cpp, and that has become quasi-universel
in the Windows world. I don't know where the .cc originally
came from (maybe the Glockenspiel ports of CFront), but it seems
the most frequent convention in the Unix world (but not nearly
as ubiquious as .cpp under Windows). At any rate, all modern
compiler drivers understand .cpp, .cxx, .cc and .C if the system
supports it to be C++ sources, so it really doesn't matter that
much (although you should be consistent). (You can also specify
the language explicitly with every compiler I've used; VC++ 6.0
didn't recognize .cc, so when I ported some of my Unix code to
it, I simply specified the source file with /Tp in the command
line. Apparently, I'm not the only one who was porting Unix
code to Microsoft, however, since Microsoft added recognition of
.cc with the next version.)
--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:ja*********@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34
On 19 mai, 02:34, Shen-Ou YE <shenou...@gmail.comwrote:
Mark Sullivan wrote:
What is the difference between the extensions *.hxx and just
*.h for header files ? Can they co-exist?
I'm new in this newsgroup and my english is not perfect too so
be tolerant.
Whose English is perfect (and by what standard)?
My use of these files is as follow :
- .h files are used to declare types, classes (templates or not),
prototypes (templates or not and so on
- .hxx are used to implement inline methods, templates classes and
functions.
This distinction is frequently made; in some cases, template
implementations will also be separated from inline functions, to
facilitate use of export, when it becomes available. The naming
conventions are usually a bit different, however: .ihh was
common for the inline functions, in the past, and .tcc seems
almost universal for template implementations (even in cases
where .cpp/.hpp rules otherwise).
--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:ja*********@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34
On 2008-05-19 02:27:17 -0400, James Kanze <ja*********@gmail.comsaid:
Microsoft (and I
think Borland) chose .cpp, and that has become quasi-universel
in the Windows world.
Yes, but it was the other way around: Borland started using .cpp, and
when Microsoft got around to C++ three years later, they followed the
established standard.
--
Pete
Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. ( www.versatilecoding.com) Author of "The
Standard C++ Library Extensions: a Tutorial and Reference
( www.petebecker.com/tr1book)
Mark Sullivan wrote:
What is the difference between the extensions *.hxx and just *.h for
header files ? Can they co-exist?
Any difference will be controlled by the implementation. The language
doesn't specify these details, it's different compilers that will see a
difference, if there is any.
--
Randy
On May 17, 8:12*am, ms...@nortel.com (Mark Sullivan) wrote:
What is the difference between the extensions *.hxx and just *.h for header files ?
Can they co-exist?
From a language standpoint, there is no difference. There isn't even
any requirement that they have either of these extensions, or even
hagve an extension.
#include "abc.def"
will work perfectly fine.
".h" is typically used for C include files; ".hxx" for C++
--
Fred K
James Kanze wrote:
On 19 mai, 00:16, "Default User" <defaultuse...@yahoo.comwrote:
>James Kanze wrote:
>>On 18 mai, 20:18, "Default User" <defaultuse...@yahoo.comwrote:
Aggro wrote:
There is no difference from the point of view of the C++
which extension you use. Generally .hxx is used for C++
headers and .h is used for C headers while many use it for
C++ headers also.
>>>I've never seen .hxx used in real code. I've seen .hpp on occasion.
>>It was used with some early MS-DOS compilers, I think. At my
clients, .hh has been by far the most widespread, but all of my
clients have been Unix based.
>I have occasionally seen that, when the source files carry a .cc
extension. Symmetry, I suppose.
Yes. In general, the first decision a company makes is whether
C++ header files will use .h, or something different than C. In
the latter case, the ending for the header files will almost
always be the same as that for the source files, with the c
replaced by an h, e.g. .hpp if the sources are .cpp, .hh if the
sources are .cc, etc. The original convention was .C for C++
sources, and I've also seen .H for the headers. This convention
fails , however, under systems which don't distinguish case, and
it seems like everyone who ported C++ to a system which didn't
distinguish case chose something different. Microsoft (and I
think Borland) chose .cpp, and that has become quasi-universel
in the Windows world. I don't know where the .cc originally
came from (maybe the Glockenspiel ports of CFront), but it seems
the most frequent convention in the Unix world (but not nearly
as ubiquious as .cpp under Windows). At any rate, all modern
compiler drivers understand .cpp, .cxx, .cc and .C if the system
supports it to be C++ sources, so it really doesn't matter that
much (although you should be consistent). (You can also specify
the language explicitly with every compiler I've used; VC++ 6.0
didn't recognize .cc, so when I ported some of my Unix code to
it, I simply specified the source file with /Tp in the command
line. Apparently, I'm not the only one who was porting Unix
code to Microsoft, however, since Microsoft added recognition of
.cc with the next version.)
Does anyone use .c++, as in foo.c++? Would this be seen as extremely
weird/advised against?
Granted there are problems on other platforms, but has anyone come
across any problems with .C on Unix? Has anyone had any minor programs
that had case-sensitivity issues that they've run into? What about
e-mailing the sources to other people/attachment names, etc.? Are there
any gotchas to look out for doing that?
Jimmy Hartzell
"Mark Sullivan" <ms***@nortel.comwrote in message
What is the difference between the extensions *.hxx and just *.h for
header files ?
Nothing, just a naming difference. People sometime use the *.hpp extension
to emphasize that it's a C++ header.
Can they co-exist?
Yes.
-- http://techytalk.googlepages.com
On May 19, 1:04 pm, Pete Becker <p...@versatilecoding.comwrote:
On 2008-05-19 02:27:17 -0400, James Kanze <james.ka...@gmail.comsaid:
Microsoft (and I think Borland) chose .cpp, and that has
become quasi-universel in the Windows world.
Yes, but it was the other way around: Borland started using
.cpp, and when Microsoft got around to C++ three years later,
they followed the established standard.
I knew that Borland had a C++ compiler long before Microsoft
did. I just wasn't sure that they used .cpp. And I'm not sure
that Borland had the weight to make it "the established
standard".
I've just taken a look at some old code that I wrote for the
Zortech C++ compiler---before Borland had C++, even. It uses
.cpp, so the usage of .cpp goes back to before Borland even.
And now I wonder where I saw .cxx---I know I've seen it, and I
think it was under MS-DOS, but if Zortech, Borland and Microsoft
all used .cpp, I don't know who's left. Glockenspiel, maybe?
(And we can "blame" Walter for .cpp:-).)
--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:ja*********@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34
On May 19, 11:07 pm, Jimmy Hartzell <jah...@cornell.eduwrote:
[...]
Does anyone use .c++, as in foo.c++? Would this be seen as
extremely weird/advised against?
A lot of systems don't allow the + character in filenames. I
wouldn't be too surprised if some shells also used it as a meta
character. For maximum portability, a filename should only
consist of alphanumerics and a single dot, very near the end.
You might risk an '_' or a '-', but that's about it.
Granted there are problems on other platforms, but has anyone
come across any problems with .C on Unix?
No. It was the standard until C++ was ported to MS-DOS (and
doubtlessly other OS's---I think Unix was sort of an exception
in using case sensitive filenames).
--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:ja*********@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34
On 2008-05-20 04:29:44 -0400, James Kanze <ja*********@gmail.comsaid:
On May 19, 1:04 pm, Pete Becker <p...@versatilecoding.comwrote:
>On 2008-05-19 02:27:17 -0400, James Kanze <james.ka...@gmail.comsaid:
>>Microsoft (and I think Borland) chose .cpp, and that has
become quasi-universel in the Windows world.
>Yes, but it was the other way around: Borland started using
.cpp, and when Microsoft got around to C++ three years later,
they followed the established standard.
I knew that Borland had a C++ compiler long before Microsoft
did. I just wasn't sure that they used .cpp. And I'm not sure
that Borland had the weight to make it "the established
standard".
We did.
--
Pete
Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. ( www.versatilecoding.com) Author of "The
Standard C++ Library Extensions: a Tutorial and Reference
( www.petebecker.com/tr1book)
James Kanze <ja*********@gmail.comwrote in news:830c70e0-9637-4637-89e1- b7**********@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>they followed the established standard.
I knew that Borland had a C++ compiler long before Microsoft
did. I just wasn't sure that they used .cpp. And I'm not sure
that Borland had the weight to make it "the established
standard".
I've just taken a look at some old code that I wrote for the
Zortech C++ compiler---before Borland had C++, even. It uses
.cpp, so the usage of .cpp goes back to before Borland even.
And now I wonder where I saw .cxx---I know I've seen it, and I
think it was under MS-DOS, but if Zortech, Borland and Microsoft
all used .cpp, I don't know who's left. Glockenspiel, maybe?
(And we can "blame" Walter for .cpp:-).)
Of course, Microsoft bought Lattice C++ to kick start their own C++
compiler (thus MS' first C++ compiler was version 3.0 because it was based
on Lattice C++ 2.5x). Lattice was also using .cpp at the time.
joe
On 20 mai, 14:53, Joe Greer <jgr...@doubletake.comwrote:
James Kanze <james.ka...@gmail.comwrote in news:830c70e0-9637-4637-89e1-
b7db16876...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
they followed the established standard.
I knew that Borland had a C++ compiler long before Microsoft
did. I just wasn't sure that they used .cpp. And I'm not sure
that Borland had the weight to make it "the established
standard".
I've just taken a look at some old code that I wrote for the
Zortech C++ compiler---before Borland had C++, even. It uses
.cpp, so the usage of .cpp goes back to before Borland even.
And now I wonder where I saw .cxx---I know I've seen it, and I
think it was under MS-DOS, but if Zortech, Borland and Microsoft
all used .cpp, I don't know who's left. Glockenspiel, maybe?
(And we can "blame" Walter for .cpp:-).)
Of course, Microsoft bought Lattice C++ to kick start their
own C++ compiler (thus MS' first C++ compiler was version 3.0
because it was based on Lattice C++ 2.5x). Lattice was also
using .cpp at the time.
I didn't know that Lattice ever had a C++ compiler. (I thought
they were out of business before C++ came along.) I know that
Microsoft's first C compiler was from Lattice, which is why the
command to invoke it was lc (= Lattice C).
--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:ja*********@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34
James Kanze <ja*********@gmail.comwrote in
news:36**********************************@1g2000pr g.googlegroups.com:
On 20 mai, 14:53, Joe Greer <jgr...@doubletake.comwrote:
>James Kanze <james.ka...@gmail.comwrote in
news:830c70e0-9637-4637-89e1-
>b7db16876...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>they followed the established standard.
I knew that Borland had a C++ compiler long before Microsoft
did. I just wasn't sure that they used .cpp. And I'm not sure
that Borland had the weight to make it "the established
standard".
I've just taken a look at some old code that I wrote for the
Zortech C++ compiler---before Borland had C++, even. It uses
.cpp, so the usage of .cpp goes back to before Borland even.
And now I wonder where I saw .cxx---I know I've seen it, and I
think it was under MS-DOS, but if Zortech, Borland and Microsoft
all used .cpp, I don't know who's left. Glockenspiel, maybe?
(And we can "blame" Walter for .cpp:-).)
>Of course, Microsoft bought Lattice C++ to kick start their
own C++ compiler (thus MS' first C++ compiler was version 3.0
because it was based on Lattice C++ 2.5x). Lattice was also
using .cpp at the time.
I didn't know that Lattice ever had a C++ compiler. (I thought
they were out of business before C++ came along.) I know that
Microsoft's first C compiler was from Lattice, which is why the
command to invoke it was lc (= Lattice C).
You may be right. It was way long ago. Sigh.
joe
On May 20, 9:44 pm, Joe Greer <jgr...@doubletake.comwrote:
James Kanze <james.ka...@gmail.comwrote
innews:36**********************************@1g2000 prg.googlegroups.com:
On 20 mai, 14:53, Joe Greer <jgr...@doubletake.comwrote:
James Kanze <james.ka...@gmail.comwrote in
news:830c70e0-9637-4637-89e1-
b7db16876...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
they followed the established standard.
I knew that Borland had a C++ compiler long before Microsoft
did. I just wasn't sure that they used .cpp. And I'm not sure
that Borland had the weight to make it "the established
standard".
I've just taken a look at some old code that I wrote for the
Zortech C++ compiler---before Borland had C++, even. It uses
.cpp, so the usage of .cpp goes back to before Borland even.
And now I wonder where I saw .cxx---I know I've seen it, and I
think it was under MS-DOS, but if Zortech, Borland and Microsoft
all used .cpp, I don't know who's left. Glockenspiel, maybe?
(And we can "blame" Walter for .cpp:-).)
Of course, Microsoft bought Lattice C++ to kick start their
own C++ compiler (thus MS' first C++ compiler was version 3.0
because it was based on Lattice C++ 2.5x). Lattice was also
using .cpp at the time.
I didn't know that Lattice ever had a C++ compiler. (I thought
they were out of business before C++ came along.) I know that
Microsoft's first C compiler was from Lattice, which is why the
command to invoke it was lc (= Lattice C).
You may be right.
Or not. I'm sure that the first release of Microsoft C was in
fact Lattice, repackaged. And that when I went to look for a
C++ compiler for my MS-DOS machine (1989?), all I found was
Zortech---but that doesn't mean anything; I didn't find
Glockenspiel, for example, but I know now that it was around
then as well.
It was way long ago. Sigh.
Yep, but...
Out of curiosity, I did a web search for Lattice compilers,
and... the company still exists, and still makes C compilers!
Including one for the Z80 (with executables which run under
CP/M) and one for OS/2---all products which I would have sworn
didn't exist any more. Takes me back over twenty years.
No mention of C++, though.
--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:ja*********@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34
James Kanze <ja*********@gmail.comwrote in news:b85ec449-4b96-4f23-b0b4- 17**********@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>
>You may be right.
Or not. I'm sure that the first release of Microsoft C was in
fact Lattice, repackaged. And that when I went to look for a
C++ compiler for my MS-DOS machine (1989?), all I found was
Zortech---but that doesn't mean anything; I didn't find
Glockenspiel, for example, but I know now that it was around
then as well.
>It was way long ago. Sigh.
Yep, but...
Out of curiosity, I did a web search for Lattice compilers,
and... the company still exists, and still makes C compilers!
Including one for the Z80 (with executables which run under
CP/M) and one for OS/2---all products which I would have sworn
didn't exist any more. Takes me back over twenty years.
No mention of C++, though.
I did some research of my own and it appears that I was wrong (no big
surprise there. I still have reruns of old sitcoms running through my head
though). MS bought Lattice to jump start their C compiler, but their first
C++ compiler was VC 1.0. At the time the company I was working for was
firmly sticking with C until the battles with C++ and Objective C had a
clearer winner. Which is probably why I was a bit confused. Interesting
tromp through history though.
joe
James Kanze <ja*********@gmail.comwrote in news:b85ec449-4b96-4f23-b0b4- 17**********@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>
>You may be right.
Or not. I'm sure that the first release of Microsoft C was in
fact Lattice, repackaged. And that when I went to look for a
C++ compiler for my MS-DOS machine (1989?), all I found was
Zortech---but that doesn't mean anything; I didn't find
Glockenspiel, for example, but I know now that it was around
then as well.
>It was way long ago. Sigh.
Yep, but...
Out of curiosity, I did a web search for Lattice compilers,
and... the company still exists, and still makes C compilers!
Including one for the Z80 (with executables which run under
CP/M) and one for OS/2---all products which I would have sworn
didn't exist any more. Takes me back over twenty years.
No mention of C++, though.
I did some research of my own and it appears that I was wrong (no big
surprise there. I still have reruns of old sitcoms running through my head
though). MS bought Lattice to jump start their C compiler, but their first
C++ compiler was VC 1.0. At the time the company I was working for was
firmly sticking with C until the battles with C++ and Objective C had a
clearer winner. Which is probably why I was a bit confused. Interesting
tromp through history though.
joe
In article <Xn*********************************@85.214.90.236 >, jg****@doubletake.com says...
[ ... ]
I did some research of my own and it appears that I was wrong (no big
surprise there. I still have reruns of old sitcoms running through my head
though). MS bought Lattice to jump start their C compiler, but their first
C++ compiler was VC 1.0. At the time the company I was working for was
firmly sticking with C until the battles with C++ and Objective C had a
clearer winner. Which is probably why I was a bit confused. Interesting
tromp through history though.
Actually, MS' first C++ compiler was "Microsoft C/C++ 7.0". VC++ 1.0 was
the next release after that.
--
Later,
Jerry.
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
On 21 mai, 15:18, Joe Greer <jgr...@doubletake.comwrote:
James Kanze <james.ka...@gmail.comwrote in news:b85ec449-4b96-4f23-b0b4-
17c0c1efd...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
You may be right.
Or not. I'm sure that the first release of Microsoft C was in
fact Lattice, repackaged. And that when I went to look for a
C++ compiler for my MS-DOS machine (1989?), all I found was
Zortech---but that doesn't mean anything; I didn't find
Glockenspiel, for example, but I know now that it was around
then as well.
It was way long ago. Sigh.
Yep, but...
Out of curiosity, I did a web search for Lattice compilers,
and... the company still exists, and still makes C compilers!
Including one for the Z80 (with executables which run under
CP/M) and one for OS/2---all products which I would have sworn
didn't exist any more. Takes me back over twenty years.
No mention of C++, though.
I did some research of my own and it appears that I was wrong
(no big surprise there. I still have reruns of old sitcoms
running through my head though).
An interesting article (about brand names that have disappeared)
in the NY Times magazine. One example they used: show people
who've been to Disneyland as a kid a trumped up image of
Disneyland with Mickey and Bugs Bunny, and most of them will
very clearly remember shaking hands with Bugs Bunny when they
were there. (Bugs Bunny, of course, is not a Disney character,
and there's never been a Bugs Bunny at Disneyland. Even if most
people who've been there remember seeing him if shown an image
with him in it.)
MS bought Lattice to jump start their C compiler, but their
first C++ compiler was VC 1.0.
MS didn't buy Lattice; they licensed the compiler. Lattice was
later bought by SAS, then its managers bought it back out again
(at least according to the corporate site).
At the time the company I was working for was firmly sticking
with C until the battles with C++ and Objective C had a
clearer winner.
I had C++ on my PC (the Zortech) before I was using it
professionally. I didn't hear of Objective C until after C++
had more or less established itself---at the time I bought the
Zortech compiler, the company I was at was evaluating languages
for the next big step: the competition was between Ada, C++ and
Eiffel.
--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:ja*********@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34
Mark Sullivan wrote:
What is the difference between the extensions *.hxx and just *.h for header files ?
Can they co-exist?
Mark
None to the compiler, though any editor you're using may treat them
differently (e.g. in terms of syntax highlighting, etc.) And yes, they
can co-exist.
See: http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lit....html#faq-27.9
It doesn't mention .hxx files specifically, but it's just another
variant of the same thing.
Regards,
Stu This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: Steven T. Hatton |
last post by:
In the past there have been lengthy discussiions regarding the role of
header files in C++. People have been very adamat about header files
serving as in interface to the implementation. I do...
|
by: Exits Funnel |
last post by:
Hello,
I'm a little confused about where I should include header files and was
wondering whether there was some convention. Imagine I've written a
class foo and put the definition in foo.h and...
|
by: pooja |
last post by:
Suppose i have created a class c1 with f1()in c1.cpp
and included this c1.cpp in file1.cpp file , which is also having
main() by giving the statement #include "c1.cpp".
the same i can do by...
|
by: Pradyut |
last post by:
what's the difference between a .h and a .hpp file
Also please tell me something about .rh files
--
Pradyut
http://pradyut.tk
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/d_dom/...
|
by: nrhayyal |
last post by:
Hi c++ Gurus,
Need your blessing.
while testing few aspects with respect to header file inclusions, i
observed few things which i would like to share with you.
i have a file sqlca.h in which a...
|
by: John Goche |
last post by:
Hello,
The extern keyword can be used in C and C++
to share global variables between files by
declaring the variable in header file and
defining it in only one of the two files.
For example,...
|
by: zouyongbin |
last post by:
Stanley B Lippman in his "C++ Primer" that a definition like this
should not appear in a header file:
int ix;
The inclusion of any of these definitions in two or more files of the
same...
|
by: Pablo Suarez |
last post by:
When I code
#include "myheader.h"
then this header file is searched in the current directory.
But where does the compiler search the header file when I write
#include <myheader.h>
|
by: Stephen Howe |
last post by:
Hi
Just going over some grey areas in my knowledge in C++:
1) If I have
const int SomeConst = 1;
in a header file, it is global, and it is included in multiple translations
units, but it...
|
by: ryjfgjl |
last post by:
In our work, we often receive Excel tables with data in the same format. If we want to analyze these data, it can be difficult to analyze them because the data is spread across multiple Excel files...
|
by: emmanuelkatto |
last post by:
Hi All, I am Emmanuel katto from Uganda. I want to ask what challenges you've faced while migrating a website to cloud.
Please let me know.
Thanks!
Emmanuel
|
by: BarryA |
last post by:
What are the essential steps and strategies outlined in the Data Structures and Algorithms (DSA) roadmap for aspiring data scientists? How can individuals effectively utilize this roadmap to progress...
|
by: nemocccc |
last post by:
hello, everyone, I want to develop a software for my android phone for daily needs, any suggestions?
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
There are some requirements for setting up RAID:
1. The motherboard and BIOS support RAID configuration.
2. The motherboard has 2 or more available SATA protocol SSD/HDD slots (including MSATA, M.2...
|
by: marktang |
last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However,...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can...
|
by: tracyyun |
last post by:
Dear forum friends,
With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each...
|
by: agi2029 |
last post by:
Let's talk about the concept of autonomous AI software engineers and no-code agents. These AIs are designed to manage the entire lifecycle of a software development project—planning, coding, testing,...
| |
