Comment by kragen | Hacker News Reader

Comment by kragen | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

interestingly the article claims (that tiemann claims that) g++ came out in 01987, making it the first native-code-generating c++ compiler, and http://www.edm2.com/index.php/Zortech_C%2B%2B says zortech c++ came out in 01988. did zortech c++ actually come out earlier than that? or, did g++ actually come out later than that?

if not, i think tiemann beat you by a bit there, though i agree that zortech was more influential throughout the 80s and 90s

https://gcc.gnu.org/releases.html says the first version of gcc to include g++ was 1.15.3 on 01987-12-18. unfortunately it doesn't seem to be preserved in https://ftp.gnu.org/old-gnu/gcc/ where the oldest version present is gcc 1.23 from 01988-06-26; possibly there's a comp.sources archive or something?

Tiemann released his compiler in Dec 1987, labeling it a beta release. ZTC++ came out in April 88, and was a shrink-wrapped commercial product. I obviously passed ZTC++ around to friends and associates before it was released, but didn't keep any records of that. That was in the days of mailing floppy disks around.

It comes down to whether you consider a beta a release or not.

I don't know if Mike Tiemann wrote his own code generator or not. ZTC++ was written entirely by myself, from preprocesser to object file.

he didn't write his own code generator, no; g++ used (and uses) gcc's code generator, which i think he'd written some of, but not nearly all of. and of course it used gcc's preprocessor, cccp, as well. but it wasn't generating c output like cfront, it was producing the same ir the c frontend did

according to that page, there were four more numbered versions of gcc before april, but i don't know enough to say whether they were beta-quality or not; i didn't start using gcc myself until four years later. but if you were on the net at that time you could get a copy of g++, beta or no, while zortech's product wasn't available yet at any price

Funny that you prefix 1987 with 01987, as if 5 digits years is needed anything soon... yet, conveniently saying 80s or 90s without the "19" part like we won't exist in 50 more years.

you won't

Not me but for 30+ high chance

Reply on news.ycombinator.com