1. Re: some suggestions
Jareth writes:
> 1. Why an Euphoria to C translator and no "real" compiler ?
> ( or maybe Euphoria to nasm ?!? )
* C is easier to produce than assembly language
* C is easier to debug
* C is more portable, especially when Euphoria moves to
other CPU's and operating systems.
* C allows more code sharing between the interpreter
and the translator.
* A C compiler provides valuable optimizations
that I don't want to have to duplicate.
* C is easier to interface to other C code, libraries etc.
> 2. What about droping all system-dependant stuff from
> the translator and generate the complete
> required (Ansi) C sourcecode, so that the translated program would
> compile under any system with an (Ansi) C compiler ???
I don't want to release the complete source code to
the Euphoria run-time system. It would also be faster
to link with a library, than repeatedly compile the same C
files. Also, if you stick to system-independant
ANSI C, there aren't many interesting things that you can do,
other than print "Hello World" on a text mode screen.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
