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
