[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Tinycc-devel] OT (Re: modern c++ compiler written in C)

From: u-tcc-uepj
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] OT (Re: modern c++ compiler written in C)
Date: Sat, 16 May 2015 11:14:28 +0200

On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 08:11:21AM +0200, Christian Jullien wrote:
> Sorry to insist

:) nice to see your devotion to the topic

> > cfront showed us a usable C++ dialect and also a proof that such a dialect
> can be efficiently implemented by a translator to C.
> Nobody doubt it's true. Cfront has been the de facto standard for years so
> it is clearly usable and you can do reasonable code with it. However, I
> recalled it was a pain to use C++ at that time on big to medium size
> project.

You are looking from a certain perspective. It is totally valid but not
the only valid one. E.g. my perspective as a casual C++ user and packager
is that I'd love cfront for the scale and the kind of development which
I do.

I guess there exist more small scale projects than big and medium ones,
so why would we ignore them?

> > - would be useful, as a compact and extremely fast compiler  for a
> practical subset of C++
> I've more trouble with this sentence. Useful for what these days?

See above.

> - to do some personal and simple work. Yes, but who wants to create a
> program that don't compile with g++ (streams work differently now - jus as
> an example).

Some things are certainly fixable, others may be tolerable.
Streams are easier than exceptions which you also mention.

> Do you really want to program without exceptions?

Yes, and there are reasons to.

> - do you really want to forget about nice C++ standard containers and
> algorithms that greatly simplify your life these days? Are you happy to

Not that I exactly feel that C++ brings a "great simplification" to my
projects, because both the language and the needed tools are complex
and hence in some way add complexity.

I do not pretend that my perspective is worth more than yours.
It is just that you would not use cfront but someone else would, for
different tasks than yours.

IOW, cfront or a similar subset would fill a niche where C is too limited,
modern C++ too complex/heavy and "C with classes" just right.

> Btw, if tcc compiles fast, it runs not so fast. If the Cfront and its
> associated libraries are compiled with tcc, there is a chance that it will
> be slower to compile than g++. When used with -O0 g++ is fast to compile
> even on my Rasberry Pi using a SD card.

This does not make sense to discuss without actually testing and also
excluding the unrelated bottlenecks.

I doubt otherwise that compilation with tcc can make cfront _that_ much
slower ;D
(kidding, I do not have the actual numbers at hand either)

> even it works no so bad, nobody will use it because of the LICENSE.

The license or the need for reimplementation stands of course in our way.
This first, any potential advantage then.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]