Re: Is C++ really used ?

David Chase wrote:


> > Is C++ so bad for compilers, after all I'm using it and it seems


> I worked on one compiler written in C++, and it was a little bit like
> being a subcontractor on the Tower of Babel.


<snip>


The arguments you give are perhaps valid, but not specific to
compilers/parsers. Yes, C++ is complex and tedious, but is does have
some very good features w.r.t. Java (performance, static type
checking, const), and "C" (reasonable type-safety, encapsulation,
readability).


But the real question is "why isn't C++ used for *compilers*". I
offer that the main reason is portabilty. You must bootstrap the
compiler from an existing base. If the compiler is written in C++ and
you want it to be portable across several platforms, it is a nightmare
trying to reconcile the various flavors of C++ that abound. It is
also a bootstrapping problem, and it is more likely that you will
encounter a viable "C" compiler on whatever system than a viable C++
compiler.


My is verified by the approaches of GNU g++ (which has a mission of
being written only in "C"), and of Edison Design Group (who sell a
very-high-quality, portable C++ front-end written in "C").


I am writing a C++ parser in C++, but it's not for production across
many systems, so I can live with the current limitations.


john lilley
--

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