Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C++ > Difference between *.hxx and *.h header files?

Reply
Thread Tools

Difference between *.hxx and *.h header files?

 
 
Joe Greer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-20-2008
James Kanze <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:830c70e0-9637-4637-89e1-
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed):

>> 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
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
James Kanze
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-20-2008
On 20 mai, 14:53, Joe Greer <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> James Kanze <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:830c70e0-9637-4637-89e1-
> (E-Mail Removed):


> >> 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:(E-Mail Removed)
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
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Joe Greer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-20-2008
James Kanze <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> On 20 mai, 14:53, Joe Greer <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> James Kanze <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>> news:830c70e0-9637-4637-89e1-

>
>> (E-Mail Removed):

>
>> >> 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
 
Reply With Quote
 
James Kanze
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-21-2008
On May 20, 9:44 pm, Joe Greer <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> James Kanze <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
> innews:(E-Mail Removed):


> > On 20 mai, 14:53, Joe Greer <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> James Kanze <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> >> news:830c70e0-9637-4637-89e1-


> >> (E-Mail Removed):


> >> >> 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:(E-Mail Removed)
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
 
Reply With Quote
 
Joe Greer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-21-2008
James Kanze <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:b85ec449-4b96-4f23-b0b4-
(E-Mail Removed):

>
>> 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
 
Reply With Quote
 
Joe Greer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-21-2008
James Kanze <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:b85ec449-4b96-4f23-b0b4-
(E-Mail Removed):

>
>> 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
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jerry Coffin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-21-2008
In article <Xns9AA55ED33DB8Fjgreerdoubletakecom@85.214.90.236 >,
(E-Mail Removed) 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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
James Kanze
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-21-2008
On 21 mai, 15:18, Joe Greer <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> James Kanze <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:b85ec449-4b96-4f23-b0b4-
> (E-Mail Removed):
> >> 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:(E-Mail Removed)
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
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Header files with "header.h" or <header.h> ?? mlt C++ 2 01-31-2009 02:54 PM
Difference between including a header file in .h and .cpp 'Mani C++ 4 04-03-2006 08:10 AM
Difference between bin and obj directories and difference between project references and dll references jakk ASP .Net 4 03-22-2005 09:23 PM
Difference between a library file and a header file in C s.subbarayan C Programming 4 05-21-2004 11:49 AM
Exact difference between 'const char *' and 'char *', also diff between 'const' and 'static' Santa C Programming 1 07-17-2003 02:10 PM



Advertisments