Re: C translator possibilities
----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce M. Axtens <bruce.axtens at SIL.ORG>
To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 1:41 AM
Subject: C translator possibilities
> Dear Rob
>
> Language junkies like me are waiting patiently for the Euphoria to C
> translator because we will then be able to have our own Euphoria doing
> whatever we want with whatever language syntax we can imagine.
....
Yes indeed!
After years of refusing to reveal any details on any of the internal
workings
of Euphoria, it seems that Rob is now going to give the game away
completely.
Why the sudden need for a compiler, when we have been told repeatedly how
fast Euphoria runs? "Almost as fast as some compiled C programs", is a
phrase
I remember.
Is this compiler project just a way to avoid fixing those problems that have
been
discussed ad nauseum in this forum? Things that stand in the way of Euphoria
being more widely used: proper namespaceing, for example. Is it really so
difficult to fix this?
Look at the number of different "OOP" implementations that have been
contributed. All show a lot of clever thinking and hard work, but they all
suffer from the same problem, they are patches and work-arounds for
functionality that should be an integral part of Euphoria. OOP is 90% there
already. The remaining 10% is something that cannot be added by third
parties.
Look at the hassles that we encounter trying to pass data to and from C
functions.
This is a problem that isn't going to go away. Why not just add native C
datatypes to the language and be done with it?
It seems to me that there have been many more requests for these kinds of
things than there have been for a compiler.
Irv
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
