|Building a compiler variant firstname.lastname@example.org (AngleWyrm) (2004-02-12)|
|Re: Building a compiler variant email@example.com (Lex Spoon) (2004-02-26)|
|Re: Building a compiler variant firstname.lastname@example.org (Bill Cunningham) (2004-05-08)|
|From:||"Bill Cunningham" <email@example.com>|
|Date:||8 May 2004 21:12:05 -0400|
|Organization:||Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com|
|Posted-Date:||08 May 2004 21:12:05 EDT|
> The moderator had a good suggestion.
> I might suggest choosing a different basis than C++ for future
> projects. In particular, languages like Scheme and Lisp have good
> macro systems, which in turn make it quite easy to experiment with
> language features. Additionally, any *simple* language would be an
> improvement over C++. If you want an OO language, Smalltalk may be
> worth looking at; it has something like 6 expression types in the
> grammar. You can make radical changes relatively easily. Once you
> have figured out exactly what you want the feature to do, then you may
> consider coming back and adding it to C++ later.
> Also, if you work in C++ you might want to consider abusin--I mean,
> *using* the template system and the operator overloading. MacNamara's
> FC++ has done some incredible stuff that you would think requires a
> preprocessor, so you might want to go take a look at it. By sticking
> with templates and operators, you end up with something that can run
> anywhere that C++ is available.
What about C? I know it's not OOP but what is simple is everyone's
opinion. There's Simula and Java too that are OOP.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.