I agree that our end goal would be to have a single compiler, though clearly there would be a long period of us maintaining both.
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 4:43 AM, Greg Stein <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 05:21, Emmanuel Bourg <[email protected]> wrote: > > Le 26/08/2010 22:54, Bjorn Borud a écrit : > > > >> if anyone is interested in this, I am going to talk to some people > >> tomorrow to get formal approval for open sourcing it. > >> > >> any thoughts? > > > > Having a Java base parser/compiler would be really nice! > > > > When I wrote my "light" compiler for Java [1] I first thought about > > rewriting the compiler in Java from scratch. Eventually I chose to hack > the > > existing C++ code, but from the perspective of a Java developer working > on > > Windows that was really a pain. Getting the Thrift source to compile > isn't > > really trivial, and using the compiler is rather impractical (I switch > back > > and forth between Windows and a Debian box). > > > > There is no reason to replace the existing compiler in C++, a Java > compiler > > can coexist. Choice is good. > > Dual maintenance is awful. It is a serious drag on the community to > try and support *two* compilers. I would be *very* against trying to > have coexisting compilers. We need to stick to one and make it > successful. > > Cheers, > -g >
