llvm dev - Jul 2008 - [LLVMdev] gcc in c++

Hi,

Have you seen this: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-06/msg00385.html
There is a new branch for converting gcc to C++.

Best regards,
--Edwin

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:44:46 +0300, Török Edwin wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Have you seen this: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-06/msg00385.html
> There is a new branch for converting gcc to C++.
> 
> Best regards,
> --Edwin
The sad thing is that they seem to be replacing one unsafe language with 
another, presumably with enormous effort. 

The only hopeful sign in that thread is the proposal for using Cyclone 
instead, starting here:http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-06/msg00502.html

But it is summarily tossed out, without examination:
 http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-06/msg00644.html

If all we can ever use are languages that everyone knows, there will be 
no progress.

-- hendrik

On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Hendrik Boom <hendrik at topoi.pooq.com>
wrote:
> The sad thing is that they seem to be replacing one unsafe language with
> another, presumably with enormous effort.
>
> The only hopeful sign in that thread is the proposal for using Cyclone
> instead, starting here:http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-06/msg00502.html
>
> But it is summarily tossed out, without examination:
>  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-06/msg00644.html
>
> If all we can ever use are languages that everyone knows, there will be
> no progress.
Another perspective on this sort of issue, if you haven't seen it:
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2007/10/tablua_fracta.html.

Part of what makes LLVM interesting is that there's the potential to
put together a new language on top of LLVM relatively easily, and get
powerful optimizers and cross-platform compatibility without having to
write any middle-end and back-end code.  I think this really has the
potential to allow writing new languages and higher-quality
implementations for existing languages that can compete with C/C++ in
places where C/C++ traditionally dominate.

-Eli

On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Hendrik Boom <hendrik at topoi.pooq.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:44:46 +0300, Török Edwin wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Have you seen this: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-06/msg00385.html
>> There is a new branch for converting gcc to C++.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> --Edwin
>
> The sad thing is that they seem to be replacing one unsafe language with
> another, presumably with enormous effort.
>
> The only hopeful sign in that thread is the proposal for using Cyclone
> instead, starting here:http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-06/msg00502.html
>
> But it is summarily tossed out, without examination:
>  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-06/msg00644.html
As it should be.
>
> If all we can ever use are languages that everyone knows, there will be
> no progress.
Who is we? I haven't seen any patches from you to GCC. I grepped all
the Changelogs.

In any case, you will only make no progress  by your definition of progress.
It would certainly be progress by the GCC project's definition of progress.

You are more than free to help in your goal of getting GCC written in
a new languages by moving GCC yourself, and showing it has serious
advantages.
See how much support you get.
You certainly won't get support simply by doing what Ivan did, which
is never contribute real work yet suggest we all do something wildly
different just because they think it is better.

The reality is GCC is moving to C++ because it's community of active
developers wants to move to C++. You can argue this is a bad idea.
The consensus is that it isn't a bad idea.  The consensus is also that
our time is better spent on coding our compiler than evaluating and
learning new languages.  If someone came along and showed us we could
do all we ever wanted with some whizz bang new language and it would
require minimal effort on our part, i'm sure we'd use it.
Nobody has done this.

You certainly will never achieve the goal of getting people to use new
languages by sitting on the sidelines and saying how sad it is.

--Dan