Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I can't believe Paul Eggert can't learn enough C++ to work on Bison.
I'm sure I could learn it better, if I had the time and the need. > Exactly, that's why I don't propose ML either, nor C# or Java. > > But then again, let's agree that moving to C++ is a totally > different matter. I don't see why moving to Java would be that much more work than moving to C++. The basic code and algorithms would be almost the same code. You'd have to change the program structure and headers of course, and fiddle with the syntax a bit, but you'd need to do that for C++ anyway, if you wanted to actually _use_ C++. > one of the first things we would win with C++ is the bitset support. > We would have lost so much time maintaining it in C. I'm not sure I agree. I've done the brunt of that maintenance work since the code was contributed, and it hasn't been a real problem. (But anyway, if its bitsets you want, Java's got 'em. :-) > M4 is indeed, a problem. But I'm taking about the front-end of > Bison, and the backend is irrelevant here. But the project in question is a backend project. Now I'm confused about why we're discussing this issue of language choice. If you want to generate code that implements an interactive parser in C++, by all means do so. Personally, though, I'd rather use Java. Or Scheme. Or Python. Or ML. Or Smalltalk. Or Ruby. Or Javascript. Or ... you get the idea.
