Just out of my mind, as an early C++ adopter (1993).
Turbo C++, Borland C++, Watcom C++, Green Hills C++, Microsoft C++ 7.0, djgpp for MS-DOS.
Turbo C++, Borland C++, Watcom C++, Green Hills C++, Microsoft C++ 7.0, C++ Builder, Symantec C++, Metrowerks C++, C++ Builder, Visual C++ for Windows 3.x onwards.
MPW C++, Metrowerks C++, Visual C++ for Mac OS.
Borland C++, CSet++, Visual Age for C++ for OS/2.
aC++ for HP-UX, xlC++ for Aix, Sun Forte C++ for Solaris.
gcc for most UNIX systems.
These are just the ones I remember without having to do a search.
Writing portable C++ code in those days was quite an adventure, specially since we only had the CFront followed by C++ ARM as standards, while ANSI/ISO were working on the first actual standard.
Sure, but you're not really disagreeing with me. I was saying that C++ wasn't dominated by a particular implementation, i.e. it wasn't a "fake standard".
It was and is a standard that MANY independent implementations tried to conform to!
Turbo C++, Borland C++, Watcom C++, Green Hills C++, Microsoft C++ 7.0, djgpp for MS-DOS.
Turbo C++, Borland C++, Watcom C++, Green Hills C++, Microsoft C++ 7.0, C++ Builder, Symantec C++, Metrowerks C++, C++ Builder, Visual C++ for Windows 3.x onwards.
MPW C++, Metrowerks C++, Visual C++ for Mac OS.
Borland C++, CSet++, Visual Age for C++ for OS/2.
aC++ for HP-UX, xlC++ for Aix, Sun Forte C++ for Solaris.
gcc for most UNIX systems.
These are just the ones I remember without having to do a search.
Writing portable C++ code in those days was quite an adventure, specially since we only had the CFront followed by C++ ARM as standards, while ANSI/ISO were working on the first actual standard.