Sorry to insist > cfront showed us a usable C++ dialect and also a proof that such a dialect can be efficiently implemented by a translator to C.
Nobody doubt it's true. Cfront has been the de facto standard for years so it is clearly usable and you can do reasonable code with it. However, I recalled it was a pain to use C++ at that time on big to medium size project. Many features where missing to make good OOP subsystems. As it started its life, I was a "C with classes" and as such was already an improvement over POD C structs. > - would be useful, as a compact and extremely fast compiler for a practical subset of C++ I've more trouble with this sentence. Useful for what these days? - to teach OOP? Unless license is clarified you'll not have the right to use it, even for teaching. g++ is fast enough to compile one class and to see how encapsulation works. - to do some personal and simple work. Yes, but who wants to create a program that don't compile with g++ (streams work differently now - jus as an example). Do you really want to program without exceptions? - do you really want to forget about nice C++ standard containers and algorithms that greatly simplify your life these days? Are you happy to write your own List class that internally uses void* ? Are you also happy to test all return code when you call a method to know if an error occurred? Sorry I pass Btw, if tcc compiles fast, it runs not so fast. If the Cfront and its associated libraries are compiled with tcc, there is a chance that it will be slower to compile than g++. When used with -O0 g++ is fast to compile even on my Rasberry Pi using a SD card. > - is realistically doable Sure it is Now I appreciate the challenge to let a modified Cfront be compiled by tcc but, once it proved it works, I see no reasons to use it in any cases. And even it works no so bad, nobody will use it because of the LICENSE. Christian -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: vendredi 15 mai 2015 21:53 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] OT (Re: modern c++ compiler written in C) On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 07:32:02PM +0000, [email protected] wrote: > > Historical research - yes. Any practical application - only at one's > > own risk, left to the discretion of AT&T to wipe one out of > > existence or not. > > Due to this legal issue, cfront is not worth it. > > Any other alternative? cfront showed us a usable C++ dialect and also a proof that such a dialect can be efficiently implemented by a translator to C. This means that the effort to recreate such a translator from scratch - would be useful, as a compact and extremely fast compiler for a practical subset of C++ - is realistically doable This is my feeling about the best or the only possible way to combine many of the attractive features of tcc and C++/OOP. An easier but much less certain way would be to try to talk to someone at AT&T - this would be certainly a lot more efficient, _if_ it could work. Rune _______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel _______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
