Re: [Unicon-group] Use of iconc over iconx

[Sergey Logichev]

Brian,I am completely agree with you. If we would have native object code independ from language itself we could expand limits to the infinity. I remember that glory days, when I programmed on VAX/VMS (openVMS). No matter which compiler you take you could link object files from Fortan, Pascal, C, ASM and so on sources. It was in the core of whole system. Now we just begin approach to this (on Windows at least). As for me I need it, no questions.Sincerely,Sergey 14.06.2017, 02:49, "Brian Tiffin" :Bruce & Breeanna Rennie wrote: Good morning to all this lovely day, Reading the various responses to Clinton's original message on [unicon -C ==> -fs tweak], gives rise to a question. How many people actively use the iconc over iconx? Since I started using Icon back in 1986, I have never come across a situation where I have ever used iconc. As a matter of course, I always use iconx. If the program is too slow, I rewrite it to speed it up, change the algorithm, change the data structures, etc. What sort of programs do people write that necessitate the use of iconc?One of my wish list items is Unicon procedures linked as nativeexecutable object files (sans main). That will put Unicon on a higherplaying field, in my opinion, where Unicon features can be included in Cprojects, COBOL, Fortran, C++, Python, what have you. Allow for thecreation of dynamic shared object libraries, etc. But, there needs tobe a little work to avoid emitting C ABI "main". Only a little work forthat dream to come true. Unicon could then be a first class citizenwith GCC mixing and things like the GDB debugger.  I note that one of the advantages of iconc is the type inferencing that is used, what would it take to include this in the unicon compiler itself? regards Bruce RennieCheers,Brian--Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's mostengaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___Unicon-group mailing listUnicon-group@lists.sourceforge.nethttps://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/unicon-group--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
Unicon-group mailing list
Unicon-group@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/unicon-group

Re: [Unicon-group] Use of iconc over iconx

[Brian Tiffin]

Bruce & Breeanna Rennie wrote:
> Good morning to all this lovely day,
>
> Reading the various responses to Clinton's original message on [unicon
> -C ==> -fs tweak], gives rise to a question.
>
> How many people actively use the iconc over iconx?
>
> Since I started using Icon back in 1986, I have never come across a
> situation where I have ever used iconc. As a matter of course, I
> always use iconx. If the program is too slow, I rewrite it to speed it
> up, change the algorithm, change the data structures, etc.
>
> What sort of programs do people write that necessitate the use of iconc?
One of my wish list items is Unicon procedures linked as native
executable object files (sans main).  That will put Unicon on a higher
playing field, in my opinion, where Unicon features can be included in C
projects, COBOL, Fortran, C++, Python, what have you.  Allow for the
creation of dynamic shared object libraries, etc.  But, there needs to
be a little work to avoid emitting C ABI "main".  Only a little work for
that dream to come true.  Unicon could then be a first class citizen
with GCC mixing and things like the GDB debugger.
>
> I note that one of the advantages of iconc is the type inferencing
> that is used, what would it take to include this in the unicon
> compiler itself?
>
> regards
>
> Bruce Rennie

Cheers,
Brian


--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Unicon-group mailing list
Unicon-group@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/unicon-group