Daniela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Friday 16 April 2004 20:31, Kai Grossjohann wrote: >> Daniela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > What? C++ code is converted to C? Which compiler are you using, and >> > why the hell would a compiler do this? >> >> In the old days, C++ was implemented by a program called cfront, I >> believe, and it did convert C++ to C. >> >> If you can write a program that converts language X to C, then you get >> to take advantage of all the nifty optimizing C compilers out there. >> If you try to go the direct route to compiling into machine language, >> then you need to do the optimization part yourself. So converting >> into C as an intermediary language is an option that requires less >> work. > > There's no harm in doing the optimizing yourself. If you compile directly, > then you can optimize much more because you can take advantage of the > structure of the language. Two different languages always have different > strengths and weak points.
What I was trying to say is that using C as an intermediary language reduces effort. Of course it is /possible/ to do the optimizing yourself, it is just more work. I think that "reducing effort" is a pretty damn good reason for doing something in a specific way. I hope that answers your "why the hell" question. > BTW, when I need somthing optimized, I'll do it in assembly anyway. *cough* Kai _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
