On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 08:50:44AM +0200, Christian Jullien wrote: > Of course, I know C++ programs that satisfy themselves with 'basic' C++ > features. The difficulty is to agree on 'basic' features. No two C++ users > use the same 'basic' features. Some want only encapsulation + ctor and dtor. > No more. Others want to add inheritance.
Basically this means that different people and tasks need different languages. The intention of "one size is to fit all / to cover all needs" leads to a very complex solution. Given that there are needs and people satisfied with C++ without templates and exceptions, it would be nice to keep that "pre-"standard and implementation alive. I have one extremely important application, the Coda file system, which belongs to this class. The complexity of modern C++ compilers is several orders of magnitude bigger than of the application itself. This is bad, for several reasons (begin with security...). Another very useful tool, FLTK, looks to be compatible with cfront and also is much less complex than the modern development tools. So it is not wrong per se to have a complex language, but the fault is to "pretend" that the next C++ version becomes better for all purposes and is expected to be the only available/used one. Strictly speaking each version is a definition of a new language, but an appearance of a new language does not render the other ones obsolete. The versions are treated like they do obsolete the previous ones, which is actually not true. Sergey Korshunoff wrote: > Solution? May be a small c++ compiler (cfront-1 .. cfront-3) which can be > considered LTS version. Sounds just right. Rune _______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
