>>
>>I wasn't trying to bite your head off (and I'm still not, so don't read
>>it that way).  But this list is so far full of conjecture on this issue
>>and devoid of hard fact.  Read through the archives and see for yourself.
> 
> 
> Oh, sorry, I took it the wrong way.. 
> 
> 
>>You're reporting conjecture.  I'm interested in HOW.  I know its
>>POSSIBLE, anything is POSSIBLE.  Is it PRACTICAL?
> 
> 
> As far as the gcc people are conserned if the c++ code is compilable on a linux machine, its just a matter of adding an additional stage in the compile, after c++ has been completed (in the real world I know this is not always the case and seldom ever is). But they are willing to answer any questions regarding it.. 
> 

The question is: How?  I mean I'm learning about GCC at the same time as I'm going to be doing this.  What would really help me is a basic example front end in C++, even if it did no more than create
rwxrwx--- helloworld

> 
> I do not have the skills to do it, and I am not asking you to do it for me, I am on a discussion site trying to get the information needed to help the people that are doing the job or thinking about. 
> 

I don't really either.  I know hardly anything about GCC.  I plan to learn it while I do it.  Chip in.  The difference between one who has the skill and one who doesn't is practice.

> 
>>As for my motives.  My passion in this is that I want a D compiler for
>>Linux that is easy to keep up to date as the language develops.  I could
>>give a rats behind *how* we do it provided the objective is achieved.
> 
> 
> My motivation for this is also the same, but i don't have the skills to work on a compiler front end, so I asked the people that do and they have not told me anything special using c++ instead of c. As for what i got as an answer was all the information i have, and its a change will be need in the bootstrap but does not need to be converted from c++ to c. 
> 

And thats fine.  I need a bit more:

1. Compile any of the example frontends for GCC
2. Copy it and put in your own "Just compile a program that prints hello world front end in C++"
3. show me how you did it.
4. Then I'll be convinced.

Otherwise I plan to look at both approaches and figure out which one is most feasible.  I really don't understand why this is so objectionable.

-andy

> 
>>-Andy
> 
> 

ben wrote:
> I would like to appoligize for starting this little war. I am going to speak with the gcc people and hope they can help me write a c++ frontend to it, for an example..
> 
> Later, Ben

I think you might have only caused a spark.  I think there was gas already on the dried leaves.  I'm sorry too.

THAT WOULD BE AWESOME!  And then I could concentrate on studying GCC and the other approach.

-Andy

andy wrote:

> I think you love Visual Basic and wish that it could be as ubiquitous as
> it once was.
> I wrote "I think" too.

Actually... I love VB!
Don't program it though, but because it is around I've got enough work not to program it!

> > Well, what do we have:
> > 1.    D front end compiled with C++ with C++ features.
> > 2.    GCC backend compiled with C written in C
> >
> > The compiler is probably controlled by the frontend. The frontend parses and
> > probably has to pass preprocessed stuff to the backend so the backend can generate
> > the code.
> > Well, this sounds to me like calling 'C' from a C++ program. This is not something
> > unheard of, actually It's done all the time. So what basically needs to be written
> > is a layer probably partually C++ and partially C that hooks op the frontend with
> > the backend. That's how simple it is.
> >
> My understanding from looking at GCC and reading the documentation is
> the C program calls the C++ program that makes calls to the C program.
> Consequently, I should point out the make process especially
> bootstrapping process is fairly complex.  Furthermore, I read that there
> will be callbacks involved, so its more like
> C --> C++ --> C -(callback)-> C++ -(maybe another call to)-> C

No problem!

> (which may be common, but I haven't seen too many examples of it)

Now I understand... You do not like C++ and probably do not have a lot of experience
interfacing between the two as you try to stay away from C++, understandable and than of
course this example is scary...
A C callback to C++ is no problem. I do those kind of things daily if not hourly.

> > When ever D whould be included in the GNU compiler suite, the C compiler would have
> > to be build first. Than the C++ compiler and than the D compiler.
> > So where are the real problems?
> Pointless speculation without actual knowledge. Misrepresentation of someone's opinions without actual knowledge for no apparent purpose other than to attack their character or start a distracting religious flamewar.  Those are problems.  Everything else is just a technical challange to be overcome by choosing the best method and accepting and mitigating (where possible) the tradeoffs.

So is this thank you!
I am not trying to start a flame war!!!
You just feel actacked because of now I *think* obvious lack in the area of interfacing C
with C++ out of which I totally understandable understand your questioning of redoing the
D front in C...
I however, do not see or expect serious problems interfacing the two and out of that
would not question rewriting C++ code in C.

> You're attempting to convince me on an approach, then have me do the work and then find out if its feasible.  I assure you this is not possible, I tend to like to determine whether an approach is feasible before getting to far down the path.

No I don't. I just seem to have quite a bit more C and C++ experience than you... So... I have done a lot of interfacing between C and C++ and yet have to find the first instance where I have to rewrite code in C.

> How about instead of you and Ben spinning your wheels trying to convince me of the approach, you take a few minutes, download GCC take a look at the documetnation I sent and write a quick C++ example front end if its so simple?  (maybe rewrite the tiny example in C++) humm?  It would probably take equal amount of time (again assuming its as simple as you say), and be far more productive.  That would be a FAR more convincing argument.

OK, sounds like something I could get into... Again I do not have a lot of time. Also, since Walter is out, please send (perferable FTP) me the missing file for the D front.

Thanks!
Jan

andy wrote:

> ben wrote:
> > I would like to appoligize for starting this little war. I am going to speak with the gcc people and hope they can help me write a c++ frontend to it, for an example..
> >
> > Later, Ben
>
> I think you might have only caused a spark.  I think there was gas already on the dried leaves.  I'm sorry too.
>
> THAT WOULD BE AWESOME!  And then I could concentrate on studying GCC and the other approach.

Me too. leave C -> C++ -> C interfacing up to me.
If you want to read something else pretty arrogant...
http://www.janknepper.com/Programming/C++/C++.html
Jan

> What would really help me is a basic
> example front end in C++, even if it did no more than create
> rwxrwx--- helloworld

Could you specify that more?
I mean, you want a front end that just can compile the Hello World example?

Jan

Jan Knepper wrote

>Where can I find it?
>

<kindly-scrolls-through-archive-and-repost-for-you/>

>  
>
In article <3CF645E3.3030006@apache.org>, andy says...

>>
>>1. http://cobolforgcc.sourceforge.net/cobol_14.html
>>2. http://www.eskimo.com/~johnnyb/computers/toy/
>>3. http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-3.1/gccint/Languages.html#Languages
>>
>>The great thing is once we get some manner of framework for working with GCC, I think working with walters code should be easy.
>>
>>Project URL for anyone who missed it is at: http://sourceforge.net/projects/brightd -
>

>>>Why would it requires a specially compiled version of gcc?
>>>I think Walter's code would flow right throug g++ which also should be able to
>>>interface to the backend.
>>>      
>>>
>>You are in error.
>>    
>>
>
>Simply Why?
>  
>
Look.  No amount of explaining on my part will convince you that this is not an elementary excercise, you need to see this on your own.

>  
>
>>>      
>>>
>>So?  Who cares?  This is NOT about my C++ dislike.
>>    
>>
>
>I don't, but dislikes usually make that you don't know alot about it. Just the few things
>you do not like, at least with me that's the case which than of course disabled you to do
>what you would like to do with it.
>  
>
No.  I do not profess to have many years of experience in C++ ( 2 ).  I have written mostly headless code in it (last think I remember writting was an NT service).   The reason I dislike C++ are the projects I've worked on with others.  If I were coding strictly on my own or with someone who writes as good of code as Walter does (only perhaps with a bit more in the way of comments), then I'd find C++ adequate (like I do C).  The trouble is that I've never seen exsiting C++ code where multiple people worked on it and it wasn't a horrible mess.  Do I know how to write a decent C++ program that is not a mess.  Yes, but C++ is a language which more adequately facillitates entropy.

I've seen horrible software written in many languages, but the most horrible software I've seen was written in a mix of C++ and C, the second most horrible piece of software I've seen was written in VB.  The afore mentioned C++ code utilized multiple inheritance in ways that would just hurt your head and I shan't describe it further because it still hurts my head to think of it.  

For the record, I know PERL and use it when I need an advanced shell script, but I feel the same way about it as I do C++ for anything more substantial than a shell script.

Consequently (and attempting to bring this irrelevant and offtopic conversation back on the subject), most of the things that I see as promoting software entropy in C++ are missing or greatly improved in D.  

>  
>
>>>Well, I also have tried to compile the front end and as it seems there are header
>>>files missing. I have tried to create some fake once, but it would require some
>>>serious study as to see how it interfaces. Unfortunately I do not have the time for
>>>that at this moment.
>>>      
>>>
>>I got them from walter.  He didn't leave them out on purpose, and the
>>others he left out because he didn't think them important.
>>    
>>
>
>Could you put them on FTP please?
>  
>
Where?  I imagine he included them in the recent release.

>>If C++ was all that great, then there would be no point in D..humm.  My
>>dislike for C++ is irrelevant.  If the C++ approach would work, I'd not
>>even have to necessarily code in C++ very much.
>>    
>>
>
>I don't say C++ is that great. I just happen to like it and have quite a bit of experience
>with it.
>Indeed if the C++ approach works the whole project would make a lot more sense to me as no
>work is being redone. That's one thing I really do not like, not for myself nor others.
>  
>
I avoid working in C++ and therefore do not have a great deal of experience in it (2+ years).  I also do not have a great deal of experience burning my own flesh, although I've rubbed against hot pans on the stove by accident on a few accassions and once tripped and touched my finger to my bar-b-que grill, from this experience I feel fully qualified in saying that having one's flesh burnt seriously sucks and I will continue to avoid it (just like C++).

Since you do not plan to contribute to the project, I do not understand why rework would be an issue for you.

>  
>
>>If I didn't have a car I couldn't get to work.  Public transportation
>>here sucks and Cabs are $35 bucks a trip (hardly worth it).
>>    
>>
>
>I live out in the stix, the nearest store is about 5 miles away...
>I don't even think we have public transportation anywhere close!
>  
>
I actually live reasonably out in the stix.  Although there is a gas station/conv store within a few miles.

>  
>
>>I'm doing this in non-continuous blocks.  OKAY LETS GET ONE THING
>>STRAIGHT.  MY PROBLEM IS NOT C++ its GCC.  And until you ACTUALLY look
>>at GCC and at least ONE of the front end examples (which should take you
>>all of 2 hours if your skill matches your gab), you've NO idea what I'm
>>talking about.
>>    
>>
>
>Well thanks!
>Just point me to where I can find the stuff.
>I might REWRITE one of the front ends in C++. That would be an easy and quick way to go.
>  
>
Then I'll be convinced.  With me, code speaks way louder than words.  I honestly hope you prove me a baffoon and make short
work of it.  From there, the stooge shall quietly take your example and begin working out a way to plug the D front end onto it.

BTW, Ben mentioned he was insterested in doing the same thing, so you might want to utilize his assistance in the interest in saving time.

-Andy

>Jan
>
>
>
>  
>

Jan Knepper wrote:
>>What would really help me is a basic
>>example front end in C++, even if it did no more than create
>>rwxrwx--- helloworld
> 
> 
> Could you specify that more?
> I mean, you want a front end that just can compile the Hello World example?
> 
> Jan
> 
> 

I was just saying a GCC front end in C++ that at least just compiled a rudimentary executable printing HELLO WORLD or some other trivial operation.

How about this:

hello.nty -----

out "Hello World";

---------------

The language having a single operation "out" which roughly maps to printf.  Bonus points if it does "Hello World\n"; :-)

-Andy

> <kindly-scrolls-through-archive-and-repost-for-you/>

Thanks!

> In article <3CF645E3.3030006@apache.org>, andy says...
>
> >>
> >>1. http://cobolforgcc.sourceforge.net/cobol_14.html
> >>2. http://www.eskimo.com/~johnnyb/computers/toy/
> >>3. http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-3.1/gccint/Languages.html#Languages
> >>
> >>The great thing is once we get some manner of framework for working with GCC, I think working with walters code should be easy.
> >>
> >>Project URL for anyone who missed it is at: http://sourceforge.net/projects/brightd -
> >

OK, did you try to compile Toy?

> >>>Why would it requires a specially compiled version of gcc?
> >>>I think Walter's code would flow right throug g++ which also should be able to
> >>>interface to the backend.
> >>You are in error.
> >Simply Why?
> Look.  No amount of explaining on my part will convince you that this is not an elementary excercise, you need to see this on your own.

OK, hopefully later this week.

> >>So?  Who cares?  This is NOT about my C++ dislike.
> >I don't, but dislikes usually make that you don't know alot about it. Just the few things you do not like, at least with me that's the case which than of course disabled you to do what you would like to do with it.
> No.  I do not profess to have many years of experience in C++ ( 2 ).  I
> have written mostly headless code in it (last think I remember writting
> was an NT service).

Well, if you would, you would put it on your resume or not???

> The reason I dislike C++ are the projects I've worked on with others.

That's not C++'s fault...

> If I were coding strictly on my own or with
> someone who writes as good of code as Walter does (only perhaps with a
> bit more in the way of comments), then I'd find C++ adequate (like I do
> C).  The trouble is that I've never seen exsiting C++ code where
> multiple people worked on it and it wasn't a horrible mess.

<g>
I have, but it takes STRONG guidance and somebody really needs to define the style/rules, etc.

> Do I know how to write a decent C++ program that is not a mess.  Yes, but C++ is a language which more adequately facillitates entropy.

I know.

> I've seen horrible software written in many languages, but the most horrible software I've seen was written in a mix of C++ and C, the second most horrible piece of software I've seen was written in VB.  The afore mentioned C++ code utilized multiple inheritance in ways that would just hurt your head and I shan't describe it further because it still hurts my head to think of it.

I've seen those things too. I call it "excessive C++" <g>
This is not C++'s fault, but the designers...
Of course C++ allows you to do it, which I think is great...

> For the record, I know PERL and use it when I need an advanced shell script, but I feel the same way about it as I do C++ for anything more substantial than a shell script.

Don't know perl.

> Consequently (and attempting to bring this irrelevant and offtopic conversation back on the subject), most of the things that I see as promoting software entropy in C++ are missing or greatly improved in D.

Sure are.

> >>>Well, I also have tried to compile the front end and as it seems there are header files missing. I have tried to create some fake once, but it would require some serious study as to see how it interfaces. Unfortunately I do not have the time for that at this moment.
> >>I got them from walter.  He didn't leave them out on purpose, and the others he left out because he didn't think them important.
> >Could you put them on FTP please?
> Where?  I imagine he included them in the recent release.

I'll give you a userid+passwd via private mail.

> >>If C++ was all that great, then there would be no point in D..humm.  My dislike for C++ is irrelevant.  If the C++ approach would work, I'd not even have to necessarily code in C++ very much.
> >I don't say C++ is that great. I just happen to like it and have quite a bit of experience
> >with it.
> >Indeed if the C++ approach works the whole project would make a lot more sense to me as no
> >work is being redone. That's one thing I really do not like, not for myself nor others.
> I avoid working in C++ and therefore do not have a great deal of experience in it (2+ years).  I also do not have a great deal of experience burning my own flesh, although I've rubbed against hot pans on the stove by accident on a few accassions and once tripped and touched my finger to my bar-b-que grill, from this experience I feel fully qualified in saying that having one's flesh burnt seriously sucks and I will continue to avoid it (just like C++).

That's comparing apples and oranges, but point taken.
I would not go and burn my own flesh eather, but I have been know of taking a razor and cutting
some stuff out of my foot... (No kiddig!) Also, I have not problems refraining from 'pleasures'
in life and tend to pressure myself to hard... (only slept from 4:30 to 7:45 last night). So
basically, the more difficult it gets for me, the more fun I have.

> Since you do not plan to contribute to the project, I do not understand why rework would be an issue for you.

I think that time could be spend better... I spend too little time with my better half...

> >>If I didn't have a car I couldn't get to work.  Public transportation here sucks and Cabs are $35 bucks a trip (hardly worth it).
> >I live out in the stix, the nearest store is about 5 miles away... I don't even think we have public transportation anywhere close!
> I actually live reasonably out in the stix.  Although there is a gas station/conv store within a few miles.

No gas for at least 6/7 miles.

> >>I'm doing this in non-continuous blocks.  OKAY LETS GET ONE THING STRAIGHT.  MY PROBLEM IS NOT C++ its GCC.  And until you ACTUALLY look at GCC and at least ONE of the front end examples (which should take you all of 2 hours if your skill matches your gab), you've NO idea what I'm talking about.
> >Well thanks!
> >Just point me to where I can find the stuff.
> >I might REWRITE one of the front ends in C++. That would be an easy and quick way to go.
> Then I'll be convinced.  With me, code speaks way louder than words.  I
> honestly hope you prove me a baffoon and make short
> work of it.  From there, the stooge shall quietly take your example and
> begin working out a way to plug the D front end onto it.
>
> BTW, Ben mentioned he was insterested in doing the same thing, so you might want to utilize his assistance in the interest in saving time.

Well, this is an open forum. Ben should be able to followup on this.
I will check with him though.
Thanks!
Jan

>>>>Project URL for anyone who missed it is at:
>>>>http://sourceforge.net/projects/brightd -
>>>
> 
> OK, did you try to compile Toy?
> 

Yes, it took some doing, but I eventually got it to compile.  I don't remember everything I had to do.  I did have to modify the make file, but I think it was mostly mis-defined paths (which you should be able to  figure out pretty easily).

I COULDN'T get it to compile on windows.  There seems to be a missing header file and/or library include somewhere.

>>Look.  No amount of explaining on my part will convince you that this is
>>not an elementary excercise, you need to see this on your own.
> 
> 
> OK, hopefully later this week.
> 

Excellent.

>>No.  I do not profess to have many years of experience in C++ ( 2 ).  I
>>have written mostly headless code in it (last think I remember writting
>>was an NT service).
> 
> 
> Well, if you would, you would put it on your resume or not???
> 

Which C++ or the NT Service.  I'm a contractor.  I put everything on my resume, proud or not.  Especially in this economy.

> 
>>The reason I dislike C++ are the projects I've worked on with others.
> 
> 
> That's not C++'s fault...
> 

And its not PERL's fault that most perl programs are incomprehensible spaghetti, but it certainly doesn't help.

> 
>>If I were coding strictly on my own or with
>>someone who writes as good of code as Walter does (only perhaps with a
>>bit more in the way of comments), then I'd find C++ adequate (like I do
>>C).  The trouble is that I've never seen exsiting C++ code where
>>multiple people worked on it and it wasn't a horrible mess.
> 
> 
> <g>
> I have, but it takes STRONG guidance and somebody really needs to define the style/rules, etc.
> 

And when I have a say in the matter, this happens.  Generally speaking this is not the natural order of things.

> 
>>Do I know how to write a decent C++ program that is not a mess.  Yes, but C++ is a language
>>which more adequately facillitates entropy.
> 
> 
> I know.
> 

Then you know have an understanding of why exactly

> 
>>I've seen horrible software written in many languages, but the most
>>horrible software I've seen was written in a mix of C++ and C, the
>>second most horrible piece of software I've seen was written in VB.  The
>>afore mentioned C++ code utilized multiple inheritance in ways that
>>would just hurt your head and I shan't describe it further because it
>>still hurts my head to think of it.
> 
> 
> I've seen those things too. I call it "excessive C++" <g>
> This is not C++'s fault, but the designers...
> Of course C++ allows you to do it, which I think is great...
> 

I'm from the school of the moderate.  The language should not support horrible practices, let the programmers write that in themselves.

> 
>>For the record, I know PERL and use it when I need an advanced shell
>>script, but I feel the same way about it as I do C++ for anything more
>>substantial than a shell script.
> 
> 
> Don't know perl.
> 

Its pretty dern useful.  PERL should be in anyone's toolcase.  I hope to learn awk one day soon.

> 
>>Consequently (and attempting to bring this irrelevant and offtopic
>>conversation back on the subject), most of the things that I see as
>>promoting software entropy in C++ are missing or greatly improved in D.
> 
> 
> Sure are.
> 

And so we come to a greater understanding.

>>
>>Where?  I imagine he included them in the recent release.
> 
> 
> I'll give you a userid+passwd via private mail.
> 

cool.  Check that the latest release donesn't include newer ones.  I found one file, but walter sent the other to the newsgroup.  Still looking for that one.

>>I avoid working in C++ and therefore do not have a great deal of
>>experience in it (2+ years).  I also do not have a great deal of
>>experience burning my own flesh, although I've rubbed against hot pans
>>on the stove by accident on a few accassions and once tripped and
>>touched my finger to my bar-b-que grill, from this experience I feel
>>fully qualified in saying that having one's flesh burnt seriously sucks
>>and I will continue to avoid it (just like C++).
> 
> 
> That's comparing apples and oranges, but point taken.
> I would not go and burn my own flesh eather, but I have been know of taking a razor and cutting
> some stuff out of my foot... (No kiddig!) Also, I have not problems refraining from 'pleasures'
> in life and tend to pressure myself to hard... (only slept from 4:30 to 7:45 last night). So
> basically, the more difficult it gets for me, the more fun I have.
> 

Hehe..  I do this: http://jakarta.apache.org/poi (a port of a horribly overcomplicated convoluted file format to a language with poor support for low level IO and inefficient data structures!  HA!)

> 
>>Since you do not plan to contribute to the project, I do not understand why rework would be
>>an issue for you.
> 
> 
> I think that time could be spend better... I spend too little time with my better half...
> 
> 

I hear that.

>>BTW, Ben mentioned he was insterested in doing the same thing, so you
>>might want to utilize his assistance in the interest in saving time.
> 
> 
> Well, this is an open forum. Ben should be able to followup on this.
> I will check with him though.

Collaboration does not commonly happen by accident.

Prost,

-Andy


> Thanks!
> Jan
> 
> 

I would like to point out that you can write crap in any language, its the languages that have the ability to write clean code are the good ones.. ie

c, my god there is some bad c code, stuff that the copiler can't even figure
out enough to optimize it.
perl - well that is just an invitation for hackers, almost everybody i know
that use perl are programmers that like righting unreadable small tight
(tight is usually not the case, they just think it is) code,

php - everybody I know  that program in php have this consept for everything
"Put it in an array, then parse array", that even happens when looping
though the results of a database. Every app have looked though (well alot
of them have this)
while (not the end of query) {
        put in array
}

while not the end of array {
        do something
}
What is the point of that.

c++ - overloading and inheratince does not have to be used in everything program like its the "function main()".

The list goes on.. The point is not the bad things, cause theres no stoping some people, its the good things. c++ allows you to write class, so all you have to worry about is the interface (if you make sure your values are private) and if nessesary build a testing harness for each class. (its been a while for c so don't worry about syntex)

--------
cMath.cpp
--------

class cMath() {
        long add(int,int)
        long add(long,long)
private:
        long value
}

------------
cMathTest.c
------------
int main() {
        math = new cMath();
        long a,b;
        a = math->add(100,100);
        b = math->add(100000,100000);
        if (a != 200) {
                cout << "ERROR, cMath has an error in add(int,int)" << endl;
                cout << "Correct result is 200";
                cout << "cMath result is " << a;
        }
        if (b != 200000) {
                cout << "ERROR, cMath has an error in add(long,long)" << endl;
                cout << "Correct result is 200000";
                cout << "cMath result is " << b;
        }
}

So if you decide to change all the code inside cMath to assembly and do bitshifting when possible then you can run the test harness on top of it again. To make sure everything is being tested correctly, including overflows and such. If everybody wrote each class with a harness, then the harness can be the example program, and as long as you up stuff like overflows and such in the testing harness, your code would be increadebly solid, and very easy to change the internals without introducing bugs.

Later, Ben


Jan Knepper wrote:

>> <kindly-scrolls-through-archive-and-repost-for-you/>
> 
> Thanks!
> 
>> In article <3CF645E3.3030006@apache.org>, andy says...
>>
>> >>
>> >>1. http://cobolforgcc.sourceforge.net/cobol_14.html
>> >>2. http://www.eskimo.com/~johnnyb/computers/toy/
>> >>3.
>> >>http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-3.1/gccint/Languages.html#Languages
>> >>
>> >>The great thing is once we get some manner of framework for working with GCC, I think working with walters code should be easy.
>> >>
>> >>Project URL for anyone who missed it is at: http://sourceforge.net/projects/brightd -
>> >
> 
> OK, did you try to compile Toy?
> 
>> >>>Why would it requires a specially compiled version of gcc?
>> >>>I think Walter's code would flow right throug g++ which also should be
>> >>>able to interface to the backend.
>> >>You are in error.
>> >Simply Why?
>> Look.  No amount of explaining on my part will convince you that this is not an elementary excercise, you need to see this on your own.
> 
> OK, hopefully later this week.
> 
>> >>So?  Who cares?  This is NOT about my C++ dislike.
>> >I don't, but dislikes usually make that you don't know alot about it. Just the few things you do not like, at least with me that's the case which than of course disabled you to do what you would like to do with it.
>> No.  I do not profess to have many years of experience in C++ ( 2 ).  I
>> have written mostly headless code in it (last think I remember writting
>> was an NT service).
> 
> Well, if you would, you would put it on your resume or not???
> 
>> The reason I dislike C++ are the projects I've worked on with others.
> 
> That's not C++'s fault...
> 
>> If I were coding strictly on my own or with
>> someone who writes as good of code as Walter does (only perhaps with a
>> bit more in the way of comments), then I'd find C++ adequate (like I do
>> C).  The trouble is that I've never seen exsiting C++ code where
>> multiple people worked on it and it wasn't a horrible mess.
> 
> <g>
> I have, but it takes STRONG guidance and somebody really needs to define
> the style/rules, etc.
> 
>> Do I know how to write a decent C++ program that is not a mess.  Yes, but C++ is a language which more adequately facillitates entropy.
> 
> I know.
> 
>> I've seen horrible software written in many languages, but the most horrible software I've seen was written in a mix of C++ and C, the second most horrible piece of software I've seen was written in VB.  The afore mentioned C++ code utilized multiple inheritance in ways that would just hurt your head and I shan't describe it further because it still hurts my head to think of it.
> 
> I've seen those things too. I call it "excessive C++" <g>
> This is not C++'s fault, but the designers...
> Of course C++ allows you to do it, which I think is great...
> 
>> For the record, I know PERL and use it when I need an advanced shell script, but I feel the same way about it as I do C++ for anything more substantial than a shell script.
> 
> Don't know perl.
> 
>> Consequently (and attempting to bring this irrelevant and offtopic conversation back on the subject), most of the things that I see as promoting software entropy in C++ are missing or greatly improved in D.
> 
> Sure are.
> 
>> >>>Well, I also have tried to compile the front end and as it seems there are header files missing. I have tried to create some fake once, but it would require some serious study as to see how it interfaces. Unfortunately I do not have the time for that at this moment.
>> >>I got them from walter.  He didn't leave them out on purpose, and the others he left out because he didn't think them important.
>> >Could you put them on FTP please?
>> Where?  I imagine he included them in the recent release.
> 
> I'll give you a userid+passwd via private mail.
> 
>> >>If C++ was all that great, then there would be no point in D..humm.  My dislike for C++ is irrelevant.  If the C++ approach would work, I'd not even have to necessarily code in C++ very much.
>> >I don't say C++ is that great. I just happen to like it and have quite a
>> >bit of experience with it.
>> >Indeed if the C++ approach works the whole project would make a lot more
>> >sense to me as no work is being redone. That's one thing I really do not
>> >like, not for myself nor others.
>> I avoid working in C++ and therefore do not have a great deal of experience in it (2+ years).  I also do not have a great deal of experience burning my own flesh, although I've rubbed against hot pans on the stove by accident on a few accassions and once tripped and touched my finger to my bar-b-que grill, from this experience I feel fully qualified in saying that having one's flesh burnt seriously sucks and I will continue to avoid it (just like C++).
> 
> That's comparing apples and oranges, but point taken.
> I would not go and burn my own flesh eather, but I have been know of
> taking a razor and cutting some stuff out of my foot... (No kiddig!) Also,
> I have not problems refraining from 'pleasures' in life and tend to
> pressure myself to hard... (only slept from 4:30 to 7:45 last night). So
> basically, the more difficult it gets for me, the more fun I have.
> 
>> Since you do not plan to contribute to the project, I do not understand why rework would be an issue for you.
> 
> I think that time could be spend better... I spend too little time with my better half...
> 
>> >>If I didn't have a car I couldn't get to work.  Public transportation here sucks and Cabs are $35 bucks a trip (hardly worth it).
>> >I live out in the stix, the nearest store is about 5 miles away... I don't even think we have public transportation anywhere close!
>> I actually live reasonably out in the stix.  Although there is a gas station/conv store within a few miles.
> 
> No gas for at least 6/7 miles.
> 
>> >>I'm doing this in non-continuous blocks.  OKAY LETS GET ONE THING STRAIGHT.  MY PROBLEM IS NOT C++ its GCC.  And until you ACTUALLY look at GCC and at least ONE of the front end examples (which should take you all of 2 hours if your skill matches your gab), you've NO idea what I'm talking about.
>> >Well thanks!
>> >Just point me to where I can find the stuff.
>> >I might REWRITE one of the front ends in C++. That would be an easy and
>> >quick way to go.
>> Then I'll be convinced.  With me, code speaks way louder than words.  I
>> honestly hope you prove me a baffoon and make short
>> work of it.  From there, the stooge shall quietly take your example and
>> begin working out a way to plug the D front end onto it.
>>
>> BTW, Ben mentioned he was insterested in doing the same thing, so you might want to utilize his assistance in the interest in saving time.
> 
> Well, this is an open forum. Ben should be able to followup on this.
> I will check with him though.
> Thanks!
> Jan