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 http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"