On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 03:49:55 -0700 (PDT) andrewchambe...@gmail.com wrote: > Its a bad idea for many reasons. > > - The actual implementation is harder than convincing someone to just > use the official Go compiler. > - Some features don't map cleanly to C++ > - C++ programmers won't like it, and neither will go programmers. > - Nobody will fund the maintenance of this compiler and it will > quickly be abandoned.
There's also the problem of the conversion being one-way: if a C++ programmer spots an error in the generated code, it has to be traced back to the Go source, be fixed there and the C++ code re-generated. (And the another problem is that like with many "transpilers", a tiny change in the source might trigger swaths of changes in the generated content. And this also hints at that only the "reference" code base could be sensibly version-controlled.). So this approach is OK for cases like Facebook having been transpiling their PHP to C++ (because no one is supposed to hack on the generated code base -- just compile it and run), but much less so for having programmers hacking "on both sides" of the codebase. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
