Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GCC Can Now Be Worked On In C++

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Shining Arcanine View Post
    ...
    there is so much wrong with this post, i wouldn't know where to begin... don't try to be a wise-ass about stuff you aren't really that familiar with.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by justinkb View Post
      there is so much wrong with this post, i wouldn't know where to begin... don't try to be a wise-ass about stuff you aren't really that familiar with.
      How about you begin, hmm? Reading your post is waste of everyone's time otherwise.

      cheers

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by reavertm View Post
        How about you begin, hmm? Reading your post is waste of everyone's time otherwise.

        cheers
        maybe read a few good C++ books, say Modern C++ Design by Alexandrescu for example. you'll get an idea why C++ isn't just syntactic sugar on C. not in your wildest dreams could you do in C what is demonstrated in that book. in particular, templates are a game changer, not just "a shorthand notation," as Shining Arcanine stupidly called it.

        his argument is moot anyway, since by that reasoning any programming language by definition would just be syntactic sugar on writing machine code. i think we can all agree that is a stupid notion to defend.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by justinkb View Post
          maybe read a few good C++ books, say Modern C++ Design by Alexandrescu for example. you'll get an idea why C++ isn't just syntactic sugar on C. not in your wildest dreams could you do in C what is demonstrated in that book. in particular, templates are a game changer, not just "a shorthand notation," as Shining Arcanine stupidly called it.
          C++ templates are a game changer as much as macrodefinitions in C.
          Alexandrescu was so much enthusiastic about C++ that he decided to design his own programming language. And abusing templates is as bad as abusing C macrodefinitions in terms of code safety and readability - you don't need to read books to know it - you need to write code.
          Technically every aspect of C++ can be implemented by the means of C macrodefinitions, in this regard C++ doesn't bring anything exciting apart from tighter type checking and primitive object oriented programming.
          Of course it's improvement over C, but just a bit.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by reavertm View Post
            C++ templates are a game changer as much as macrodefinitions in C.
            Alexandrescu was so much enthusiastic about C++ that he decided to design his own programming language. And abusing templates is as bad as abusing C macrodefinitions in terms of code safety and readability - you don't need to read books to know it - you need to write code.
            Technically every aspect of C++ can be implemented by the means of C macrodefinitions, in this regard C++ doesn't bring anything exciting apart from tighter type checking and primitive object oriented programming.
            Of course it's improvement over C, but just a bit.
            pretty much all of what you said here is simply untrue, so I can't be bothered anymore with discussing this here. "every aspect of C++ can be implemented with macro definitions"... i lol'd.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by reavertm View Post
              C++ templates are a game changer as much as macrodefinitions in C.
              Alexandrescu was so much enthusiastic about C++ that he decided to design his own programming language. And abusing templates is as bad as abusing C macrodefinitions in terms of code safety and readability - you don't need to read books to know it - you need to write code.
              Technically every aspect of C++ can be implemented by the means of C macrodefinitions, in this regard C++ doesn't bring anything exciting apart from tighter type checking and primitive object oriented programming.
              Of course it's improvement over C, but just a bit.
              My god, what a load of bullshit. Really, if you don't know C++, you'd better just shut up.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by zoomblab View Post
                here comes the pain
                LOL!


                Originally posted by nanonyme View Post
                Yes, we all know it's Gnu Compiler Collection, not Gnu C Compiler.
                As long as it will forever be possible to compile the C compiler without having the C++ compiler part of GCC, everyone should be rather happy...
                (just like it'd be a nice thing that you could fully compile a C++ compiler without ever having a C compiler in GCC; I don't know whether it's possible now, someone who knows could pong back)
                Originally posted by Ragas View Post
                GCC - Gnu Compiler Collection

                Does not only compile c-code, so your saying is moot.
                GCC++ ? xD

                I would like a branch here instead of sudden changes. So a new name is in order. It's not a simple task either way.

                Originally posted by justinkb View Post
                maybe read a few good C++ books, say Modern C++ Design by Alexandrescu for example. you'll get an idea why C++ isn't just syntactic sugar on C. not in your wildest dreams could you do in C what is demonstrated in that book. in particular, templates are a game changer, not just "a shorthand notation," as Shining Arcanine stupidly called it.

                his argument is moot anyway, since by that reasoning any programming language by definition would just be syntactic sugar on writing machine code. i think we can all agree that is a stupid notion to defend.
                Originally posted by bugmenot2 View Post
                My god, what a load of bullshit. Really, if you don't know C++, you'd better just shut up.
                LoL I knew this would bring on the flames!

                In all honesty. Why can't GCC branch out into say GCC++ or a more fitting name.. Keep normal GCC in standard C? That would be the best idea in my books. I like the idea of having an entirely different project for experimentation rather than mix up something that's already working perfectly fine. I'm sure C++ can be done well, but only by other C++ programmers. I am guessing that C++ was intended for larger projects anyway and maybe the developers see some benefit by using C++ for such a large and complex project. I'm trying my best to be wise here and not continue on the flaming... xD It's hilarious.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Regardless of the merits of C++,
                  Polluting a project the size of gcc with bits of another language is just stupid.
                  Why not just let gcc devs put python in where it might be useful? How 'bout some perl for parsing?

                  Switching to C++ should be a fork or at least major version bump, and should be followed by (it would take years to do this, btw) systematically rewriting the whole mess to be better structured around C++

                  Rewriting gcc (or some of the compilers in gcc) in C++ might be a good thing.
                  Just allowing folks to sprinkle in a little C++ here and there is really really bad.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by d4ddi0 View Post
                    Regardless of the merits of C++,
                    Polluting a project the size of gcc with bits of another language is just stupid.
                    Why not just let gcc devs put python in where it might be useful? How 'bout some perl for parsing?

                    Switching to C++ should be a fork or at least major version bump, and should be followed by (it would take years to do this, btw) systematically rewriting the whole mess to be better structured around C++

                    Rewriting gcc (or some of the compilers in gcc) in C++ might be a good thing.
                    Just allowing folks to sprinkle in a little C++ here and there is really really bad.
                    Yes lets just sprinkle in some java, python, lisp and ada into the mixing bowl. In fact, let's make it so confusing that even babble will be more readable and maintainable. Write half the comments in italian, the other 44% in greek and the rest in Japanese. Make the documentation only in latin.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by d4ddi0 View Post
                      Regardless of the merits of C++,
                      Polluting a project the size of gcc with bits of another language is just stupid.
                      Why not just let gcc devs put python in where it might be useful? How 'bout some perl for parsing?

                      Switching to C++ should be a fork or at least major version bump, and should be followed by (it would take years to do this, btw) systematically rewriting the whole mess to be better structured around C++

                      Rewriting gcc (or some of the compilers in gcc) in C++ might be a good thing.
                      Just allowing folks to sprinkle in a little C++ here and there is really really bad.
                      They are not polluting the language because everything is already C++ anyway (but everything is currently C too, depending on how you view it). Its not like they need a different compiler to compile the C++ parts like the other languages you suggest. Everything is just compiled with one compiler, a C++ compiler.

                      A recent example of this is OpenTTD, originally it was completely C. They then made it compilable in C++ and slowly allowed people to convert parts into C++ (As in use C++ features).

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by bugmenot2 View Post
                        My god, what a load of bullshit. Really, if you don't know C++, you'd better just shut up.
                        Good lord, apparently another frustrated kid trying to improve his self esteem. Where are you guys coming from? If you're not willing to provide any merit in your posts, troll somewhere else please. It's technical oriented and thematic forum and it should stay so.
                        (as a matter of fact I'm active C++ developer for over 10 years, I suppose I know C++ a little)

                        Let's make it clear, I don't mind rewriting gcc in C++ at all, when done right it should in fact improve code manageability a lot.

                        I merely responded to this childish post:
                        Originally posted by justinkb View Post
                        there is so much wrong with this post, i wouldn't know where to begin... don't try to be a wise-ass about stuff you aren't really that familiar with.
                        Some of you guys should take a deep breath or better take a walk before pressing enter.

                        cheers

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by reavertm View Post
                          If you're not willing to provide any merit in your posts, troll somewhere else please. It's technical oriented and thematic forum and it should stay so.
                          (as a matter of fact I'm active C++ developer for over 10 years, I suppose I know C++ a little)
                          I, and presumably bugmenot2, didn't feel the need to really get into technicalities, since the claim that anything you can do with templates can be done with preprocessor macros was just too stupid. so stupid in fact, it makes me hope I never happen upon any of the code you have written in those 10 years...

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by divan View Post
                            They are not polluting the language because everything is already C++ anyway (but everything is currently C too, depending on how you view it). Its not like they need a different compiler to compile the C++ parts like the other languages you suggest. Everything is just compiled with one compiler, a C++ compiler.

                            A recent example of this is OpenTTD, originally it was completely C. They then made it compilable in C++ and slowly allowed people to convert parts into C++ (As in use C++ features).
                            Although C is (mostly) technically valid C++, the way that well written C++ is written and structured is vastly different from C. If they don't want to use OOP paradigms throughout, they are better off sticking to C.

                            I'm not against a massive rewrite of the project, if the gcc devs are up to the task. But, yes, having little bits of C++ inside a C project is pollution.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by justinkb View Post
                              I, and presumably bugmenot2, didn't feel the need to really get into technicalities, since the claim that anything you can do with templates can be done with preprocessor macros was just too stupid.
                              spot on

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X