> Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 14:36:50 +0200 > From: Thomas Preud'homme <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: Jared Maddox <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] inline assembly and optimization passes > Message-ID: <1808697.keR0AihLx1@trevize> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Le samedi 21 septembre 2013 00:02:58 Jared Maddox a ?crit : >> > Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 15:50:28 +0200 >> > From: Thomas Preud'homme <[email protected]> >> > To: [email protected] >> > Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] inline assembly and optimization passes >> > Message-ID: <1975955.xx8PpmsNzB@cerclon> >> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >
> Indeed, I'm not opposed to such an additional target. It wouldn't increase > the weight of tcc as only one target at a time is possible. > The fact that it can apparently be done as a target is, in fact, the single biggest reason why I myself think it makes sense. If I thought it had to be built in, I would just shake my head in astonishment instead. >> It probably is worth noting at this point that every once in a while >> someone comes along proposing that TCC add a C++ compiler, or at least >> some features. Obviously such a thing hasn't been done, but it does >> sometimes get proposed. And I at least think that you could get a >> pretty good language if you wrote down all of C++'s features, threw >> away the standard, and reworked the language to be less messy... > > I'm not sure what is your point. Are you suggesting we add the support for > some kind of C++-ng language? > If I ever feel enough like that I'll do it myself as either a translating compiler (which I've considered: I've also considered an alternate syntax for pointers & declarations for C) or another built-in compiler (ala the assembler), albeit not as C++ (I think the feature list is nice, but I would oh-so-much not want to implement them quite as C++ does). I was warning him that occasionally someone who thinks it's a really good idea occasionally pops up. > Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 09:13:46 -0500 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] inline assembly and optimization passes > Message-ID: <20130921141346.GA1739@apollo> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 02:36:50PM +0200, Thomas Preud'homme wrote: >> Le samedi 21 septembre 2013 00:02:58 Jared Maddox a ?crit : >> > > Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 15:50:28 +0200 >> > > From: Thomas Preud'homme <[email protected]> >> > > To: [email protected] >> > > Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] inline assembly and optimization passes >> > > Message-ID: <1975955.xx8PpmsNzB@cerclon> >> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> > > >> > > Le vendredi 20 septembre 2013 03:08:10 Sylvain BERTRAND a ?crit : >> > >> Hi, > [.. snip ..] >> > >> > So the GCC C compiler even depends on C++ features now? I had thought >> > they were planning to keep the "core" set of compilers as C-based. A >> > shame. >> >> Yes, see http://lwn.net/Articles/542457/ > > Interesting, it is based on what is popular at any given moment. > But, http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html > tells me they got it wrong. Someone probably should consider > php or python; there is a real chance any of those could be #1 > in the near future. > Python seems to me more likely than PHP, as I suspect that PHP will more-or-less be reliably isolated within the "server language" category, and is presumably benefiting mostly from movement out of C# (hey, wait a minute, what do you mean MS's Java-alike isn't REALLY cross-platform?) and Ruby (which supposedly has scaling & security problems). If I was going to push something, then I don't think I'd really quite be satisfied with any of the languages on the list. Ideally it would be OO (whether classes, or "blueprints" like LPC), C-style (though with better syntax for declarations & pointers), with both pointers AND garbage collection (preferably not stop-the-world, but instead incremental), have interfaces (ala Java) filled with closures (ala any serious "functional" language), and constructed with struct initialization syntax (ala C) and casting (ala C++), but no inheritence at all. And a standard library of course, but I would expect that to mostly be a "improved C & C++ standard library", e.g. with more data structures (SGI STL "ropes", for example) and other basic foundations (e.g. a class that provides the core behavior for Smalltalk/Objective-C/Javascript prototypes), rather than Java's infinite list libraries. Really, as far as I'm concerned, most people seem to focus on library design rather than language design when they pick up a new language: isn't that missing the point? Looking at it, I seem to have gotten off-track. _______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
