Re: [Tinycc-devel] CFront for TinyCC?

[Steffen Nurpmeso]

Christian Jullien wrote in
 <000c01d7cff0$b9c009b0$2d401d10$@orange.fr>:
 |Hi Domingo,
 |This is very interesting but I wonder what it will be used for?
 |
 |Stroustrup and others explicitly say that CFront should not be used \
 |for any purpose except for historical research purpose:
 |
 |http://www.softwarepreservation.org/projects/c_plus_plus/index.html#rele\
 |ase_30
 |"The source code in this section is posted with the permission of the \
 |copyright owner for historical research purposes only."
 |
 |It's fine if you use it within this scope otherwise you should not \
 |promote this dev. as a way to have a "kind of" C++ on top of tcc.

Oh i _always_ hated that thing one had to read after egcs ended in
g++ saying "generates real object code"!
I love languages like Nim (never used it but i think it really
rocks programmers) who provide a syntax and hints that rock
programmers, but preprocesses the outcome to plain C that can be
build with basic compilers!  Isn't that just fantastic??

However as far as i know they simply failed to pimp that thing for
templates etc, which is why they gave up on it?  I personally
would love to be able to write C+, a bit of namespaces, simple
templates and objects with methods (as opposed to functions with
objects) on top of plain C.  That is overly cool.

I did not know about cfront-3, thanks for the pointer, i will try
it once i have new bandwidth.  It once tried to bring cfront to
live from an archived version from the beginning of the 90s or so,
i have forgotten where that came from.  Non-Plan9.  But i gave up,
too much effort for some island that will never make it.

Cool!

--steffen
|
|Der Kragenbaer,                The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter           he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter  wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert Gernhardt)