Re: [Tinycc-devel] TinyC++

[Rick C. Hodgin]

> And such a subset of the langage is practically not very useful. For
> instance, imagine a student beginning to code in such a small subset
of
> C++. His own code will indeed use a small part of C++, be he will very
> probably use C++ iostream-s, and these seems to require all of C++ (ie
> templates, multiple-inheritance, exceptions, overloading). So you
won't
> be able to give with a small subset of C++ all the usual and common
API
> C++ newbies are expecting.

For that they have g++. The idea of having TinyCC and TinyC++ with those
basic extensions to the C programming language, along with loosening
some syntax restrictions (such as requiring "struct") makes coding
simple things much easier.  And there's not necessarily any need for
iostream when the old functions are there, such as f/s/printf, etc.

> But again, I hope you did not understood I want to help implement
that.
> I don't have lot of interest and certainly not enough time.

I didn't particularly think that you wanted to implement it.  But by
your quick response I assumed you were one of the governing authorities
providing direction.

> BTW, are people able to use reliably tinycc on AMD64/Linux (in 64 bits
> mode)? I am not...

I don't know.  I don't have AMD64 machine right now.  Have several CPUs
lying around, but no motherboard.  I look to be getting one here in
January and will surely test it out at some point.

TinyCC in a scripting language, with TinyC++ providing encapsulation is
one of the greatest benefits I see.

Thanks for the quick response.

- Rick