Re: implementation language [was: library for unicode collation in C for texi2any?]

[Per Bothner]

On 10/14/23 09:12, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 10:25:23AM -0700, Per Bothner wrote:
> > C++ has a more extensive and useful standard library than C.
>
> I guess there is an hash map, but I am not sure that we would need much
> more.

In addition to hash maps and maybe some other container classes,
I suggest using C++ std::string as being safer and more convenient that C 
strings.

> I am not a good judge, but it is unclear to me that the rewriting in
> perl was a mistake, it allowed to have the current design, which I
> believe is much better than the design of makeinfo in C had.  It is
> easier to redesign in a high level language and then translate the parts
> than need to be sped up to a low level language than do everything in a
> low level language.

I think C++ is about as high-level as Perl, and I think you can
write programs that as similarly concise and legible.
My hunch is that tp/Texinfo written in C++ would be at most a small amount (20% 
?)
more verbose, and to many (including myself) it would be much more readable.

Regardless, the one doing the work gets to choose their tools.
--
        --Per Bothner
per@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/