On 9/2/2015 9:55 PM, Ola Fosheim Grostad wrote:
> Most C++ compilers are dead.

Actually, only a tiny handful of original C++ compilers were ever created. The rest are just evolved versions of them.

To list them (from memory):

Cfront (Bjarne Stroustrup)
Zortech C++ (Me)
G++ (Michael Tiemann)
Clang
Edison Design Group (Daveed Vandevorde)
Taumetric (Michael Ball)
Microsoft

There were a lot of original C compilers developed, but they pretty much all failed to make the transition to C++.

On Thursday, 3 September 2015 at 06:54:05 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 9/2/2015 9:09 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> As Walter once said, "Be the change you wish to see."
>
> I think that was Andrei. But I do agree with it.

It's Gandhi.

On Thursday, 3 September 2015 at 06:18:54 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> It is twice as slow as native. That's far from allowing generation of pure assembly.

It is translatable to pure assembly, addressing is modulo heap size. Performance is a different issue since it does not provide SIMD yet.

On Thursday, 3 September 2015 at 09:56:55 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Thursday, 3 September 2015 at 06:18:54 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>> It is twice as slow as native. That's far from allowing generation of pure assembly.
>
> It is translatable to pure assembly, addressing is modulo heap size. Performance is a different issue since it does not provide SIMD yet.

SIMD is not even remotely close to explaining the perf difference.

On 3 September 2015 at 13:57, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On 9/2/2015 7:48 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
>>
>> but still i'm meh on the practical usefulness of such things. I guess if
>> you
>> target a canvas and run your code in it that makes more sense but my
>> preferred
>> style is a progressive enhancement webpage where you want to know the
>> browser
>> platform and work with it rather than around it.
>
>
> I don't see a whole lot of point to generating JS from another language. You can't do anything more than JS can do, and you're likely to be doing less.

You have a pile of existing code, you need to run it on a webpage, and
don't have time/budget to rewrite that code.
Emscripten is an opportunity, it is an enabling technology. Something
that you can do and brings a nice business opportunity that you just
wouldn't do otherwise, as in our case:
http://udserver.euclideon.com/demo/
It would have been great if this were written in D, but we reverted to
C++ because LDC doesn't support Emscripten (yet?).

Our major active project at work also now depends on Emscripten and PNaCl; 2 exotic LDC targets which would get my office onto D quicksmart! I've never suffered C++ so violently.

On Thursday, 3 September 2015 at 07:04:11 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> Actually, only a tiny handful of original C++ compilers were ever created. The rest are just evolved versions of them.

what about Borland's compiler?

On Thursday, 3 September 2015 at 06:45:16 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> There's a lot of stuff other languages can do that JS can't. For example, classes, which a lot of developers prefer to use in favor of the weird object system in JS.

You can kinda do classes in JS, it just isn't pretty syntax. In the D to JS toy I did, I just did an array of function pointers to handle the virtual functions, similar to how D is compiled to machine code.

It'd be fairly ugly to write by hand but when converting languages, it works well enough.

On 03-Sep-2015 16:09, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Thursday, 3 September 2015 at 07:04:11 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> Actually, only a tiny handful of original C++ compilers were ever
>> created. The rest are just evolved versions of them.
>
> what about Borland's compiler?

Seconded, it was horrible but still was there since MS-DOS.

-- 
Dmitry Olshansky

On 2015-09-03 15:09, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

> what about Borland's compiler?

That would be Taumetric in Walter's list [1][2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borland_C%2B%2B
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo_C%2B%2B

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 9/3/2015 1:31 AM, deadalnix wrote:
> On Thursday, 3 September 2015 at 06:54:05 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 9/2/2015 9:09 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>> As Walter once said, "Be the change you wish to see."
>>
>> I think that was Andrei. But I do agree with it.
>
> It's Gandhi.

Ah, makes sense. Thanks for the correction.