> "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | However with Tom's proposal, we need an existing java compiler for > | our target. > > I don't believe the issues at hand here (Java specific case) are as > severe as they sound from your messages.
Okay fine, let's quantify it. I downloaded the Dec 2005 gcc-testresults archive from: ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/mail-archives/gcc-testresults/gcc-testresults-2005-12.bz2 Then i ran this shell pipeline: grep '\--enable-languages=' gcc-testresults-2005-12 | sed 's/.*--enable-languages=//; s/ .*$//' | tr ',' '\n' | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr and I got: 1690 c 1659 c++ 1379 objc 1233 java 945 fortran 451 ada 292 treelang 229 obj-c++ 228 f95 185 f77 14 pascal 13 for 3 2 3Dc 1 treela= 1 c+ 1 ;t 1 3Dfortran (Note: fortran + f95 + f77 = 1358 or about on par with Java.) As you can see, Java currently gets less testing than c/c++ but its still about 3x the testing that Ada gets. Part of the reason for Ada's low numbers is the extra prerequisite placed on bootstrapping. I'd like to avoid having Java fall lower than it already is. > In 2006, I believe the availability of java front-ends for > bootsstrapping the GNU Java is sufficiently widespread enough to > outweight and overcome the potential problems you're anticipating. I don't think it matters how available it is. Many testers and developers just won't bother. > We desperatly need to get GCC more supported, more integrated into > widely used development tools. We cannot sustain improvements, > competition by isolating and painting ourselves into corners. > -- Gaby I think we agree on that goal and I've said my piece. If others think the benefits of using Java in the Java FE are worthwhile I won't oppose it. --Kaveh -- Kaveh R. Ghazi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
