Re: development of C++ compiler
- From: "H. S. Lahman" <hsl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:31:31 GMT
Responding to Grizlyk...
Some statements:
There are C++ compilers, that has been written in old good C. Are C or
pascal perfect languages that can be used to build any powerful OO
language with mutable source representation, as C++ could be?
Obviously no.
C++ is the most technically deficient of the major OOPLs mostly because it was originally constrained to be a pre-processor for C (i.e., cfront). IOW, defining OOPLs in terms of non-OOPLs doesn't work out well.
OTOH, the execution models for languages like C and PASCAL are well understood so there is nothing to prevent an OOA/D being transformed into C or PASCAL (though PASCAL would be tricky because of the lack of address manipulation). In fact, the commercial full code generators for OOA models routinely target straight C as the output for performance reasons. So there should be nothing to prevent cross-compilation from an OOPL to <most> non-OOPLs.
Is current C++ can be used to build the OO language? Obviously no,
because unfortunatelly C++ simultaneously is not-trivial for
implementation in C or pascal, but quite limited for users.
I'm not sure I understand this. C++ /is/ an OOPL, so why would it be used to "build" an OOPL? Conversely, C++ does map directly into C because it was originally developed as a C preprocessor.
Some questions:
I have got a hint, that we can select "core of C++" (that does not
mean the core must be completely compatible with current C++ or its
subset) and use the not-mutable core language to build all concrete-
hardware "complete C++" compilers. The "complete C++" language can be
the powerful OO language with mutable source representation,
structured by dialects.
Ah. I am getting the impression you want to design a /new/ OOPL that will produce C++ as an intermediate step, much like cfront and Eiffel produce C. Given the technical deficiencies of C++ from an OO perspective, I don't understand why one would want to do this. IOW, if one is going to define a new OOPL based upon an existing OOPL, I think there are a lot better choices than C++ for that basis.
--
There is nothing wrong with me that could
not be cured by a capful of Drano.
H. S. Lahman
hsl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Pathfinder Solutions
http://www.pathfindermda.com
blog: http://pathfinderpeople.blogs.com/hslahman
"Model-Based Translation: The Next Step in Agile Development". Email
info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for your copy.
Pathfinder is hiring: http://www.pathfindermda.com/about_us/careers_pos3.php.
(888)OOA-PATH
.
- References:
- development of C++ compiler
- From: Grizlyk
- development of C++ compiler
- Prev by Date: Re: Retrieving unnecessary data
- Next by Date: Re: Why is Object Oriented so successfull
- Previous by thread: Re: development of C++ compiler
- Next by thread: To reduce your body weight & slim your body
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
