On Saturday 17 April 2004 18:10, Kai Grossjohann wrote:
> Daniela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Friday 16 April 2004 20:31, Kai Grossjohann wrote:
> >> Daniela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > What? C++ code is converted to C? Which compiler are you using, and
> >> > why the hell would a compiler do this?
> >>
> >> In the old days, C++ was implemented by a program called cfront, I
> >> believe, and it did convert C++ to C.
> >>
> >> If you can write a program that converts language X to C, then you get
> >> to take advantage of all the nifty optimizing C compilers out there.
> >> If you try to go the direct route to compiling into machine language,
> >> then you need to do the optimization part yourself.  So converting
> >> into C as an intermediary language is an option that requires less
> >> work.
> >
> > There's no harm in doing the optimizing yourself. If you compile
> > directly, then you can optimize much more because you can take advantage
> > of the structure of the language. Two different languages always have
> > different strengths and weak points.
> What I was trying to say is that using C as an intermediary language
> reduces effort.  Of course it is /possible/ to do the optimizing
> yourself, it is just more work.
> I think that "reducing effort" is a pretty damn good reason for doing
> something in a specific way.  I hope that answers your "why the hell"
> question.

Yes, I think reducing effort is a good reason, after all that's why I reduce 
the effort for the processor.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to