Ian Lance Taylor пишет:
Ivan Levashew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ian Lance Taylor пишет:
The other major TODO is to work out the details of using STL
containers with GC allocated objects. This means teaching gengtype
how to generate code to traverse STL containers, which would then be
used during GC. This is not a task for the faint-hearted.
That's one of the many reasons against C++. Even damn Cyclone will
beat C++ here.
Your comment makes little sense in context. Nobody could claim that
the existing gengtype code is simple. Not many people understand how
it works at all. In order to support STL containers holding GC
objects, it will need to be modified.
I'm sure there is a library of GC-managed components in C++.
The fact that modifying it is
nontrivial is not an argument either for or against C++.
Bruno has a better critique on C++.
I don't know what you mean by your reference to the Cyclone variant of
C, unless you are trying to say something about gcc's use of garbage
collection.
Cyclone has many options for memory management. I don't know for sure if
there is a need for GC in GCC at all.
Cyclone has a roots not only in C, but also ML. Some techniques like
pattern matching, aggregates, variadic arrays, tuples looks to be more
appropriate here than their C++'s metaprogrammed template analogues.
I'm just trying to be constructive.
Compilation is IMHO a task for functional PLs, and ML heritage is a plus.
Cyclone's current implementation compiles into C, so there will be no
bootstrapping problem as soon as there are C output in the tarballs.
Complexity of porting existing code base to C++ is comparable to one of
porting it to Cyclone (in contrast to moving it to a functional PL).
--
If you want to get to the top, you have to start at the bottom
