Re: Building a compiler variant

"Bill Cunningham" <>
8 May 2004 21:12:05 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Building a compiler variant (AngleWyrm) (2004-02-12)
Re: Building a compiler variant (Lex Spoon) (2004-02-26)
Re: Building a compiler variant (Bill Cunningham) (2004-05-08)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: "Bill Cunningham" <>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 8 May 2004 21:12:05 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews,
References: 04-02-114 04-02-150
Keywords: design, C
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.

> -Lex

        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.


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.