"Small C++" Anyone?

Discussion in 'C++' started by JohnQ, Mar 9, 2007.

  1. JohnQ

    JohnQ Guest

    (The "C++ Grammer" thread in comp.lang.c++.moderated prompted this post).

    It would be more than a little bit nice if C++ was much "cleaner" (less
    complex) so that it wasn't a major world wide untaking to create a toolchain
    for it. Way back when, there used to be something called "Small C". I wonder
    if the creator(s) of that would want to embark on creating a nice little
    Small C++ compiler devoid of C++ language features that make toolchain
    (including the compiler) a nightmare to implement (?). Yes, I realize that
    would be a subset or a "dialect" of C++. Or not! They could call it
    something else and avoid all the flak from the "use all of C++ all of the
    time" proponents. I'd try and tackle that myself if I had another 100 years
    to live. Alas, I don't so I have to stay focused on what I can produce at a
    higher level of usage instead of diving into something new and so low level.

    A "new" clean "little" language that is wholly a subset of C++ but is
    tremendously easier to implement and to create a toolchain for. That's the
    ticket! Could something like that "put C++ out of business"?

    John
    JohnQ, Mar 9, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. JohnQ

    Ian Collins Guest

    JohnQ wrote:
    > (The "C++ Grammer" thread in comp.lang.c++.moderated prompted this post).
    >
    > It would be more than a little bit nice if C++ was much "cleaner" (less
    > complex) so that it wasn't a major world wide untaking to create a toolchain
    > for it. Way back when, there used to be something called "Small C". I wonder
    > if the creator(s) of that would want to embark on creating a nice little
    > Small C++ compiler devoid of C++ language features that make toolchain
    > (including the compiler) a nightmare to implement (?). Yes, I realize that
    > would be a subset or a "dialect" of C++. Or not! They could call it
    > something else and avoid all the flak from the "use all of C++ all of the
    > time" proponents. I'd try and tackle that myself if I had another 100 years
    > to live. Alas, I don't so I have to stay focused on what I can produce at a
    > higher level of usage instead of diving into something new and so low level.
    >
    > A "new" clean "little" language that is wholly a subset of C++ but is
    > tremendously easier to implement and to create a toolchain for. That's the
    > ticket! Could something like that "put C++ out of business"?
    >

    That sounds a bit like going back to one of the original cfront
    compilers, or maybe EC++?

    --
    Ian Collins.
    Ian Collins, Mar 9, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. JohnQ

    Piyo Guest

    JohnQ wrote:
    > A "new" clean "little" language that is wholly a subset of C++ but is
    > tremendously easier to implement and to create a toolchain for. That's the
    > ticket! Could something like that "put C++ out of business"?
    >
    > John


    Not a particularly new discussion. Here is an idea to "simplify" C++
    called EC++:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embedded_C++

    I'd have to agree with Stroustrup here. Here are some other alternatives
    I could suggest you look into:

    a) Scala (if you are a Java man)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scala_(programming_language)
    b) D (if you like C++)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D_programming_language

    BTW, Are you sure it is alright to post things like this on this
    newsgroup?
    Piyo, Mar 9, 2007
    #3
  4. "JohnQ" <> wrote in message
    news:AQkIh.3570$...
    > (The "C++ Grammer" thread in comp.lang.c++.moderated prompted this post).
    >
    > It would be more than a little bit nice if C++ was much "cleaner" (less
    > complex) so that it wasn't a major world wide untaking to create a

    toolchain
    > for it. Way back when, there used to be something called "Small C". I

    wonder
    > if the creator(s) of that would want to embark on creating a nice little
    > Small C++ compiler devoid of C++ language features that make toolchain
    > (including the compiler) a nightmare to implement (?). Yes, I realize that
    > would be a subset or a "dialect" of C++. Or not! They could call it
    > something else and avoid all the flak from the "use all of C++ all of the
    > time" proponents. I'd try and tackle that myself if I had another 100

    years
    > to live. Alas, I don't so I have to stay focused on what I can produce at

    a
    > higher level of usage instead of diving into something new and so low

    level.
    >
    > A "new" clean "little" language that is wholly a subset of C++ but is
    > tremendously easier to implement and to create a toolchain for. That's the
    > ticket! Could something like that "put C++ out of business"?


    I think the very things that make C++ hard to implement (e.g. templates,
    namespaces) would wind up being requested or added to the "Small-C++" over
    time.

    Dennis
    Dennis \(Icarus\), Mar 10, 2007
    #4
  5. JohnQ

    Guest

    On Mar 9, 5:06 pm, "JohnQ" <>
    wrote:
    > (The "C++ Grammer" thread in comp.lang.c++.moderated prompted this post).
    >
    > It would be more than a little bit nice if C++ was much "cleaner" (less
    > complex) so that it wasn't a major world wide untaking to create a toolchain
    > for it.


    We already have D, Java, etc. Just create coding standards for you
    and your team to use. No need to dumb down the language. There's
    something for everyone in C++.
    , Mar 10, 2007
    #5
  6. JohnQ

    kwikius Guest

    On 9 Mar, 22:06, "JohnQ" <> wrote:

    > A "new" clean "little" language that is wholly a subset of C++ but is
    > tremendously easier to implement and to create a toolchain for. That's the
    > ticket! Could something like that "put C++ out of business"?


    AFAICS there are 2 approaches to programming language design. Either
    make it for the compiler writer, or make it for the user.

    The end result of the first approach is functional laguages and in
    fact these are generally reckoned to be good when you wish to automate
    things ( e.g when writing a compiler). C++ is the end result of the
    second approach. It is a wonderful language to write code in ( Once
    you have learned the main features and acquired some mastery), but a
    compiler writers nightmare).

    I had a brief dip into D. This aims to do something like what you
    want. However it seems that as users discuss their usage and make
    feature requests, so D is starting to become more and more complicated
    and quirky just like C++ :)


    regards
    Andy Little
    kwikius, Mar 10, 2007
    #6
  7. On Mar 9, 2:16 pm, Piyo <> wrote:
    > JohnQ wrote:
    > > A "new" clean "little" language that is wholly a subset of C++ but is
    > > tremendously easier to implement and to create a toolchain for. That's the
    > > ticket! Could something like that "put C++ out of business"?

    >
    > > John

    >
    > Not a particularly new discussion. Here is an idea to "simplify" C++
    > called EC++:
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embedded_C++
    >
    > I'd have to agree with Stroustrup here. Here are some other alternatives
    > I could suggest you look into:
    >
    > a) Scala (if you are a Java man)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scala_(programming_language)
    > b) D (if you like C++)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D_programming_language
    >
    > BTW, Are you sure it is alright to post things like this on this
    > newsgroup?


    It most certainly is not "alright" to post "things" like this on this
    newsgroup. "These" kind of posts really ride my wig off, and I think
    you know what I mean. Folks, it is truly a sad day.
    throatslasher, Mar 10, 2007
    #7
  8. JohnQ

    JohnQ Guest

    "Ian Collins" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > JohnQ wrote:
    >> (The "C++ Grammer" thread in comp.lang.c++.moderated prompted this post).
    >>
    >> It would be more than a little bit nice if C++ was much "cleaner" (less
    >> complex) so that it wasn't a major world wide untaking to create a
    >> toolchain
    >> for it. Way back when, there used to be something called "Small C". I
    >> wonder
    >> if the creator(s) of that would want to embark on creating a nice little
    >> Small C++ compiler devoid of C++ language features that make toolchain
    >> (including the compiler) a nightmare to implement (?). Yes, I realize
    >> that
    >> would be a subset or a "dialect" of C++. Or not! They could call it
    >> something else and avoid all the flak from the "use all of C++ all of the
    >> time" proponents. I'd try and tackle that myself if I had another 100
    >> years
    >> to live. Alas, I don't so I have to stay focused on what I can produce at
    >> a
    >> higher level of usage instead of diving into something new and so low
    >> level.
    >>
    >> A "new" clean "little" language that is wholly a subset of C++ but is
    >> tremendously easier to implement and to create a toolchain for. That's
    >> the
    >> ticket! Could something like that "put C++ out of business"?
    >>

    > That sounds a bit like going back to one of the original cfront
    > compilers, or maybe EC++?


    EC++ sounds like a good starting point, along with a compiler implementation
    complexity analysis of each feature of C++. Surely cfront (but the cfront
    implementations are all proprietary as far as I know) and "Inside the C++
    Object Model" would be good references for the implementation. Now just to
    get someone to actually produce the thing. An open source project? Perhaps
    PJ Plauger's outfit has this already done? An open source may be desireable
    (or at least available source for those who wanted to flesh out a toolchain
    with analyzers and such).

    John
    JohnQ, Mar 10, 2007
    #8
  9. JohnQ

    JohnQ Guest

    "Piyo" <> wrote in message
    news:u1lIh.6426$...
    > JohnQ wrote:
    >> A "new" clean "little" language that is wholly a subset of C++ but is
    >> tremendously easier to implement and to create a toolchain for. That's
    >> the ticket! Could something like that "put C++ out of business"?
    >>
    >> John

    >
    > Not a particularly new discussion. Here is an idea to "simplify" C++
    > called EC++:
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embedded_C++
    >
    > I'd have to agree with Stroustrup here. Here are some other alternatives
    > I could suggest you look into:
    >
    > a) Scala (if you are a Java man)
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scala_(programming_language)


    No proprietary environment languages please. I like C++. I don't really want
    a different language, just an "improved" C++. (Of course, the standards
    folks would say that if it's not in the spec, it's not C++. Call it
    whatever, I don't want drastic departure from a subset of C++.)

    > b) D (if you like C++)
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D_programming_language


    I took a cursory look at D and find it a drastic departure from C++. I'm not
    looking for a new language lock/stock/barrel, perhaps just a subset with
    maybe just a few additions. "A better C++" if you will. But unlike "a better
    C", less would be more.

    > BTW, Are you sure it is alright to post things like this on this
    > newsgroup?


    Why not? Forward-thinking about the future of C++ is on topic. As is
    analysis of the complexity of implementing C++ features.

    John
    JohnQ, Mar 10, 2007
    #9
  10. JohnQ

    Ian Collins Guest

    JohnQ wrote:
    > "Ian Collins" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>
    >>That sounds a bit like going back to one of the original cfront
    >>compilers, or maybe EC++?

    >
    >
    > EC++ sounds like a good starting point, along with a compiler implementation
    > complexity analysis of each feature of C++.


    EC++ is an abomination. If you want to use a small subset of C++, do
    just that. The last thing the world wants is yet another bastardised
    language.

    > Surely cfront (but the cfront
    > implementations are all proprietary as far as I know) and "Inside the C++
    > Object Model" would be good references for the implementation. Now just to
    > get someone to actually produce the thing.


    cfront is an historical artefact, we have moved on.

    --
    Ian Collins.
    Ian Collins, Mar 10, 2007
    #10
  11. JohnQ

    JohnQ Guest

    "throatslasher" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mar 9, 2:16 pm, Piyo <> wrote:
    >> JohnQ wrote:
    >> > A "new" clean "little" language that is wholly a subset of C++ but is
    >> > tremendously easier to implement and to create a toolchain for. That's
    >> > the
    >> > ticket! Could something like that "put C++ out of business"?

    >>
    >> > John

    >>
    >> Not a particularly new discussion. Here is an idea to "simplify" C++
    >> called EC++:
    >>
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embedded_C++
    >>
    >> I'd have to agree with Stroustrup here. Here are some other alternatives
    >> I could suggest you look into:
    >>
    >> a) Scala (if you are a Java
    >> man)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scala_(programming_language)
    >> b) D (if you like C++)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D_programming_language
    >>
    >> BTW, Are you sure it is alright to post things like this on this
    >> newsgroup?

    >
    > It most certainly is not "alright" to post "things" like this on this
    > newsgroup.


    Why do you think that? Are you one of those that are always typing "don't
    reinvent the wheel... if it's not an _STL_ container, it's not C++... blah,
    blah"?.

    > "These" kind of posts really ride my wig off, and I think you know what I
    > mean.


    Why?

    > Folks, it is truly a sad day.


    Sounds like you're over-reacting about something. What's your beef?

    John
    JohnQ, Mar 10, 2007
    #11
  12. JohnQ

    JohnQ Guest

    "Dennis (Icarus)" <> wrote in message
    news:43f6b$45f216ed$1860878d$...
    > "JohnQ" <> wrote in message
    > news:AQkIh.3570$...
    >> (The "C++ Grammer" thread in comp.lang.c++.moderated prompted this post).
    >>
    >> It would be more than a little bit nice if C++ was much "cleaner" (less
    >> complex) so that it wasn't a major world wide untaking to create a

    > toolchain
    >> for it. Way back when, there used to be something called "Small C". I

    > wonder
    >> if the creator(s) of that would want to embark on creating a nice little
    >> Small C++ compiler devoid of C++ language features that make toolchain
    >> (including the compiler) a nightmare to implement (?). Yes, I realize
    >> that
    >> would be a subset or a "dialect" of C++. Or not! They could call it
    >> something else and avoid all the flak from the "use all of C++ all of the
    >> time" proponents. I'd try and tackle that myself if I had another 100

    > years
    >> to live. Alas, I don't so I have to stay focused on what I can produce at

    > a
    >> higher level of usage instead of diving into something new and so low

    > level.
    >>
    >> A "new" clean "little" language that is wholly a subset of C++ but is
    >> tremendously easier to implement and to create a toolchain for. That's
    >> the
    >> ticket! Could something like that "put C++ out of business"?

    >
    > I think the very things that make C++ hard to implement (e.g. templates,
    > namespaces) would wind up being requested or added to the "Small-C++" over
    > time.


    No, of course they wouldn't. Otherwise there would be no sense in creating
    "Small C++": you'd have Std C++! Perhaps fresh and new ideas would be added
    though, where they cannot be in Std C++ because of the constraint of
    backward compatibility and resistance to reconsider (or throw away) what has
    already been implemented (read, C++ is stagnating as an evolving language in
    the "taken as gospel" aspects (not AOP), but there are already known lessons
    from the implementation that could be improved upon in a "new" language
    unencumbered with the Std C++ entrenchment).

    There, did I say that right? It's not meant to fluster any feathers.

    John
    JohnQ, Mar 10, 2007
    #12
  13. JohnQ

    JohnQ Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mar 9, 5:06 pm, "JohnQ" <>
    > wrote:
    >> (The "C++ Grammer" thread in comp.lang.c++.moderated prompted this post).
    >>
    >> It would be more than a little bit nice if C++ was much "cleaner" (less
    >> complex) so that it wasn't a major world wide untaking to create a
    >> toolchain
    >> for it.

    >
    > We already have D, Java, etc. Just create coding standards for you
    > and your team to use. No need to dumb down the language. There's
    > something for everyone in C++.


    Yes, one could just use the subset of C++ that one wants to. But that still
    doesn't make the possibility of more entrants (as well as DIYers) into the
    toolchain market. I think there is a lot of good possibilities out there but
    the complexity of implementation keeps the number of participants lower than
    desireable. It's hard to build better things when you are faced with so much
    complexity of implementation at the onset. I'm not suggesting changing C++,
    but rather deriving a new, VERY C++-like language. (Aside: "something for
    everyone in C++" may be the problem).

    Just a thought.

    John
    JohnQ, Mar 10, 2007
    #13
  14. JohnQ

    Ian Collins Guest

    JohnQ wrote:
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>On Mar 9, 5:06 pm, "JohnQ" <>
    >>wrote:
    >>
    >>>(The "C++ Grammer" thread in comp.lang.c++.moderated prompted this post).
    >>>
    >>>It would be more than a little bit nice if C++ was much "cleaner" (less
    >>>complex) so that it wasn't a major world wide untaking to create a
    >>>toolchain
    >>>for it.

    >>
    >>We already have D, Java, etc. Just create coding standards for you
    >>and your team to use. No need to dumb down the language. There's
    >>something for everyone in C++.

    >
    >
    > Yes, one could just use the subset of C++ that one wants to. But that still
    > doesn't make the possibility of more entrants (as well as DIYers) into the
    > toolchain market.


    gcc is available just about everywhere. C is a very simple language,
    how many people bother to compete in the C toolchain market? Answer,
    not many, it is too full. Just about every platform has a proprietary C
    compiler as well as gcc. There isn't the demand for alternatives.

    --
    Ian Collins.
    Ian Collins, Mar 10, 2007
    #14
  15. Ian Collins wrote:
    > JohnQ wrote:
    > > <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > >
    > >>On Mar 9, 5:06 pm, "JohnQ" <>
    > >>wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>(The "C++ Grammer" thread in comp.lang.c++.moderated prompted this post).
    > >>>
    > >>>It would be more than a little bit nice if C++ was much "cleaner" (less
    > >>>complex) so that it wasn't a major world wide untaking to create a
    > >>>toolchain
    > >>>for it.
    > >>
    > >>We already have D, Java, etc. Just create coding standards for you
    > >>and your team to use. No need to dumb down the language. There's
    > >>something for everyone in C++.

    > >
    > >
    > > Yes, one could just use the subset of C++ that one wants to. But that still
    > > doesn't make the possibility of more entrants (as well as DIYers) into the
    > > toolchain market.

    >
    > gcc is available just about everywhere. C is a very simple language,
    > how many people bother to compete in the C toolchain market? Answer,
    > not many, it is too full. Just about every platform has a proprietary C
    > compiler as well as gcc. There isn't the demand for alternatives.
    >
    > --
    > Ian Collins.


    It seems like you want just another pass in the C compiler for the
    code generation. Then templates etcetera can be implemented.
    Templates can be implemented in C, they're much more concise in C++
    with the mangling and etcetera.

    Ross F.

    --
    Finlayson Consulting
    Ross A. Finlayson, Mar 10, 2007
    #15
  16. JohnQ

    JohnQ Guest

    "kwikius" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 9 Mar, 22:06, "JohnQ" <> wrote:
    >
    >> A "new" clean "little" language that is wholly a subset of C++ but is
    >> tremendously easier to implement and to create a toolchain for. That's
    >> the
    >> ticket! Could something like that "put C++ out of business"?

    >
    > AFAICS there are 2 approaches to programming language design. Either
    > make it for the compiler writer, or make it for the user.


    Beyond those "only 2" are good engineering that considers all the aspects
    and creates something practical, elegantly simple. Your "there are only 2
    approaches" is myopic or extremism: only seeing endpoints rather than a
    range or continuum of possibility. I think maybe C++ suffers from "gold
    plating" (the excess functionality of templates for example).

    > I had a brief dip into D. This aims to do something like what you
    > want.


    Does it? How? I didn't get that impression from reading about it at the
    website.

    > However it seems that as users discuss their usage and make
    > feature requests, so D is starting to become more and more complicated
    > and quirky just like C++ :)


    See, so it's hardly what I hint at.

    John
    JohnQ, Mar 11, 2007
    #16
  17. "JohnQ" <> wrote in message
    news:KcGIh.3458$...
    >
    > "Dennis (Icarus)" <> wrote in message
    > news:43f6b$45f216ed$1860878d$...
    > > "JohnQ" <> wrote in message
    > > news:AQkIh.3570$...
    > >> (The "C++ Grammer" thread in comp.lang.c++.moderated prompted this

    post).
    > >>
    > >> It would be more than a little bit nice if C++ was much "cleaner" (less
    > >> complex) so that it wasn't a major world wide untaking to create a

    > > toolchain
    > >> for it. Way back when, there used to be something called "Small C". I

    > > wonder
    > >> if the creator(s) of that would want to embark on creating a nice

    little
    > >> Small C++ compiler devoid of C++ language features that make toolchain
    > >> (including the compiler) a nightmare to implement (?). Yes, I realize
    > >> that
    > >> would be a subset or a "dialect" of C++. Or not! They could call it
    > >> something else and avoid all the flak from the "use all of C++ all of

    the
    > >> time" proponents. I'd try and tackle that myself if I had another 100

    > > years
    > >> to live. Alas, I don't so I have to stay focused on what I can produce

    at
    > > a
    > >> higher level of usage instead of diving into something new and so low

    > > level.
    > >>
    > >> A "new" clean "little" language that is wholly a subset of C++ but is
    > >> tremendously easier to implement and to create a toolchain for. That's
    > >> the
    > >> ticket! Could something like that "put C++ out of business"?

    > >
    > > I think the very things that make C++ hard to implement (e.g. templates,
    > > namespaces) would wind up being requested or added to the "Small-C++"

    over
    > > time.

    >
    > No, of course they wouldn't. Otherwise there would be no sense in creating
    > "Small C++": you'd have Std C++! Perhaps fresh and new ideas would be

    added
    > though, where they cannot be in Std C++ because of the constraint of
    > backward compatibility and resistance to reconsider (or throw away) what

    has
    > already been implemented (read, C++ is stagnating as an evolving language

    in

    Templates (generics) solve a nice set of real-world problems.
    I'd expect that, were this not a part of "small-c++" a tempalte/generic sort
    of mechanism would be rather quickly requested.

    Same with namespaces.

    > the "taken as gospel" aspects (not AOP), but there are already known

    lessons
    > from the implementation that could be improved upon in a "new" language
    > unencumbered with the Std C++ entrenchment).


    Indeed.

    >
    > There, did I say that right? It's not meant to fluster any feathers.
    >


    Dennis
    Dennis \(Icarus\), Mar 11, 2007
    #17
  18. JohnQ

    JohnQ Guest

    "Ian Collins" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > JohnQ wrote:
    >> "Ian Collins" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>>
    >>>That sounds a bit like going back to one of the original cfront
    >>>compilers, or maybe EC++?

    >>
    >>
    >> EC++ sounds like a good starting point, along with a compiler
    >> implementation
    >> complexity analysis of each feature of C++.

    >
    > EC++ is an abomination.


    Why?

    > If you want to use a small subset of C++, do
    > just that. The last thing the world wants is yet another bastardised
    > language.


    Sounds like passion rather than objectivity.

    >> Surely cfront (but the cfront
    >> implementations are all proprietary as far as I know) and "Inside the C++
    >> Object Model" would be good references for the implementation. Now just
    >> to
    >> get someone to actually produce the thing.

    >
    > cfront is an historical artefact, we have moved on.


    Or "stagnated"? :p Dish it out and take it. LOL. To someone wishing to
    create "a better C++" and not wanting to reinvent the wheel, cfront may save
    some people some time.

    John
    JohnQ, Mar 11, 2007
    #18
  19. JohnQ

    JohnQ Guest

    "Ian Collins" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > JohnQ wrote:
    >> <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>
    >>>On Mar 9, 5:06 pm, "JohnQ" <>
    >>>wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>(The "C++ Grammer" thread in comp.lang.c++.moderated prompted this
    >>>>post).
    >>>>
    >>>>It would be more than a little bit nice if C++ was much "cleaner" (less
    >>>>complex) so that it wasn't a major world wide untaking to create a
    >>>>toolchain
    >>>>for it.
    >>>
    >>>We already have D, Java, etc. Just create coding standards for you
    >>>and your team to use. No need to dumb down the language. There's
    >>>something for everyone in C++.

    >>
    >>
    >> Yes, one could just use the subset of C++ that one wants to. But that
    >> still
    >> doesn't make the possibility of more entrants (as well as DIYers) into
    >> the
    >> toolchain market.

    >
    > gcc is available just about everywhere.


    But, I assume, pretty unapproachable at the source code level. You see, the
    whole point is to not have to wade through the mud of complexity for
    features that are undesireably in "Small C++".

    > C is a very simple language,
    > how many people bother to compete in the C toolchain market? Answer,
    > not many, it is too full. Just about every platform has a proprietary C
    > compiler as well as gcc. There isn't the demand for alternatives.


    You won't really know that until you create "that other thing", now will
    you.

    John
    JohnQ, Mar 11, 2007
    #19
  20. JohnQ

    JohnQ Guest

    "Ross A. Finlayson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Ian Collins wrote:
    >> JohnQ wrote:
    >> > <> wrote in message
    >> > news:...
    >> >
    >> >>On Mar 9, 5:06 pm, "JohnQ" <>
    >> >>wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >>>(The "C++ Grammer" thread in comp.lang.c++.moderated prompted this
    >> >>>post).
    >> >>>
    >> >>>It would be more than a little bit nice if C++ was much "cleaner"
    >> >>>(less
    >> >>>complex) so that it wasn't a major world wide untaking to create a
    >> >>>toolchain
    >> >>>for it.
    >> >>
    >> >>We already have D, Java, etc. Just create coding standards for you
    >> >>and your team to use. No need to dumb down the language. There's
    >> >>something for everyone in C++.
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > Yes, one could just use the subset of C++ that one wants to. But that
    >> > still
    >> > doesn't make the possibility of more entrants (as well as DIYers) into
    >> > the
    >> > toolchain market.

    >>
    >> gcc is available just about everywhere. C is a very simple language,
    >> how many people bother to compete in the C toolchain market? Answer,
    >> not many, it is too full. Just about every platform has a proprietary C
    >> compiler as well as gcc. There isn't the demand for alternatives.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Ian Collins.

    >
    > It seems like you want just another pass in the C compiler for the
    > code generation. Then templates etcetera can be implemented.
    > Templates can be implemented in C, they're much more concise in C++
    > with the mangling and etcetera.


    To be honest, I don't know what "Small C++" would look like. I just know it
    would start out as a subset of C++ with some substitutional features
    probably. It would be a good exercise if nothing else.

    John
    JohnQ, Mar 11, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. JDS

    Anyone?? Anyone at all??

    JDS, Sep 26, 2005, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    368
    Montgomery BOO...URNS
    Sep 29, 2005
  2. Ric Nicholls
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    443
    Greg Schmidt
    Jul 18, 2003
  3. JuanPedro
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,693
    Ioannis Vranos
    Dec 5, 2004
  4. Steve Williams

    Anyone? Anyone?

    Steve Williams, Sep 16, 2003, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    372
    Steve Williams
    Sep 16, 2003
  5. gregarican

    Anyone, anyone...Bueller?

    gregarican, Jun 22, 2007, in forum: Ruby
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    83
    gregarican
    Jun 22, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page