Hello Everybody

I just checked with the gcc people and you can use a c++ front end.. Basically people are just saying that they will have to add an additional stage to the compile, so the c++ compiler is properly setup before you start the frontend..

Thanks ben

ben wrote:
> Hello Everybody 
> 
> I just checked with the gcc people and you can use a c++ front end.. Basically people are just saying that they will have to add an additional stage to the compile, so the c++ compiler is properly setup before you start the frontend..
> 
> Thanks ben

Talk is cheap.  Show me one, lets see an example.

andy wrote:

> ben wrote:
>> Hello Everybody
>> 
>> I just checked with the gcc people and you can use a c++ front end.. Basically people are just saying that they will have to add an additional stage to the compile, so the c++ compiler is properly setup before you start the frontend..
>> 
>> Thanks ben
> 
> Talk is cheap.  Show me one, lets see an example.

Where did I say I knew how to do it, I said that I asked some of there developers if its possible.. There was a large discussion regarding moving to c or trying to use c++ for the front end.. I asked and they say its possible.. Why don't you stop saying "show me" and try, I am sure the developers at gcc will help.. What are the possible differences, right now gcc has 3 stages on the last stage the c++ compiler and all the libraries needed are compiled, after that it should be possible to compile the d front end.

Ben

andy wrote:

> ben wrote:
>> Hello Everybody
>> 
>> I just checked with the gcc people and you can use a c++ front end.. Basically people are just saying that they will have to add an additional stage to the compile, so the c++ compiler is properly setup before you start the frontend..
>> 
>> Thanks ben
> 
> Talk is cheap.  Show me one, lets see an example.

One question Andy, this is a news group about gcc front end for d, and everytime there is a discussion about it you always say stuff like talk is cheap. why are you here, this is a discission group (people talk) about a compiler front end, I am trying to help by suppling information about gcc and what the gcc people have said. What are you doing? Are you spacifically here to make sure linux never gets it, or you just want to make sure people think its alot worse then it is.. Or perhaps you like c more.

Later

> Or perhaps you like c more.

When you read some other post you will know soon...
Some people just do not like C++. Which is fine. I love my wife. I am just glad
not everybody does. <g>
Andy's disadvantage is that he would like to have D on Linux, but D is written
with some C++ features. I personally would just go ahead and compile the D front
end in C++ and the GNU backend in C and interface the two. It would basically
come down to a C++ class system calling a C library which is done all over the
world and which should not be a problem. However, Andy has stated so here that
he does not like C++, so the D front will have to be rewritten in C. <g> My
personal opinion... dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, why would someone try to fix
what ain't broken??? It's just going to generate a LOT more work as changes to
the C++ front will have to be ported to the C front which is probably going to
create derivations of the language... Than we at least have an other language
that isn't the same all over the place. <g>
Unfortunately I really do not have the time to get involved in this. I really
would like to, but I have a mortage to pay, a T1 to pay, a car to pay, a phone
to pay oh, I forgot I need to eat too! <g>

Jan

Hello

The seperation between d is what I am also worried about. I don't care what language people are using as long as its consistent across platforms, I don't like java but I am using it for that reason, I can be assured that sun java on windows or linux is pretty much the same.. Having to port all walters changes to c for the linux front end would end up causing a split. Thanks Ben

Jan Knepper wrote:

>> Or perhaps you like c more.
> 
> When you read some other post you will know soon...
> Some people just do not like C++. Which is fine. I love my wife. I am just
> glad not everybody does. <g>
> Andy's disadvantage is that he would like to have D on Linux, but D is
> written with some C++ features. I personally would just go ahead and
> compile the D front end in C++ and the GNU backend in C and interface the
> two. It would basically come down to a C++ class system calling a C
> library which is done all over the world and which should not be a
> problem. However, Andy has stated so here that he does not like C++, so
> the D front will have to be rewritten in C. <g> My personal opinion...
> dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, why would someone try to fix what ain't
> broken??? It's just going to generate a LOT more work as changes to the
> C++ front will have to be ported to the C front which is probably going to
> create derivations of the language... Than we at least have an other
> language that isn't the same all over the place. <g> Unfortunately I
> really do not have the time to get involved in this. I really would like
> to, but I have a mortage to pay, a T1 to pay, a car to pay, a phone to pay
> oh, I forgot I need to eat too! <g>
> 
> Jan

ben wrote:

> The seperation between d is what I am also worried about. I don't care what language people are using as long as its consistent across platforms,

Agreed.

> I don't like java but I am using it for that reason,

I think that's Andy's favorite, so you guys might be at opposite ends.

> I can be assured that sun java on windows or linux is pretty much the same..

I hope so. I do not use Java, do not like nor dislike it. However I have heard
different stories about this.
One of the concerns about Java seems to be that it does not full fill this
promise...

> Having to port all Walters changes to c for the linux front end would end up causing a split.

I also think it is not a good idea.

Jan

> 
> One question Andy, this is a news group about gcc front end for d, and everytime there is a discussion about it you always say stuff like talk is cheap. why are you here, this is a discission group (people talk) about a compiler front end, I am trying to help by suppling information about gcc and what the gcc people have said. What are you doing? Are you spacifically here to make sure linux never gets it, or you just want to make sure people think its alot worse then it is.. Or perhaps you like c more. 
> 
> Later

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.

You're reporting conjecture.  I'm interested in HOW.  I know its POSSIBLE, anything is POSSIBLE.  Is it PRACTICAL?

In essence, you're saying "why don't you prove my point that its possible".  Well I know its possible.  Its possible given time and resources to cause a temporaral paradox and suck the whole universe into a big black hole while simultaneously balancing a ball on ones head.  It would probably exceed the amount of time and resources available.

I fully and totally admit I DO NOT LIKE C++, but I prefer the approach of using Walter's front end and only working on the middle.  I do NOT know if its practical, and I do NOT know HOW.  You're saying its "possible" -- thats very nice.  You want ME to try it.  Well the last guy got on and said its possible to do it the other way, so do I spend the next 6 months proving each person right or wrong and achieve nothing useful by myself or do I encourage each of you to show a useful approach and pick the one I want to participate in, which do you suggest...loaded question I know.  In the next few weeks when my schedule clears up a bit, I'm going to pick an approach and start on it.  It will be one that is not only possible but practical and by definition will be one that I have some clue as to *how* to execute.  I've NOT made up my mind one way or another.  I'm also actively compaigning some folks who I know have skills necessary to pull this off to give me a hand.

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.

-Andy

Jan Knepper wrote:
>>Or perhaps you like c more.
> 
> 
> When you read some other post you will know soon...
> Some people just do not like C++. Which is fine. I love my wife. I am just glad
> not everybody does. <g>
> Andy's disadvantage is that he would like to have D on Linux, but D is written
> with some C++ features. I personally would just go ahead and compile the D front
> end in C++ and the GNU backend in C and interface the two. It would basically
> come down to a C++ class system calling a C library which is done all over the
> world and which should not be a problem. However, Andy has stated so here that
> he does not like C++, so the D front will have to be rewritten in C. <g> My

Actually, I haven't made up my mind what approach.  I was hoping to get some factual information on what approach to take, but so far all I've gotten is conjecture.  I DO not like C++, never have, never will, but if we could plug Walters front end over a translation layer of sorts, I'd LOVE that approach.  But if it requires specially compiled versions of gcc, etc, etc...it won't be worth it.  Supporting a rewrite of Walter's front end is FAR easier (because its FAR better code) than any significant part of GCC.

My principal problem is that there are NO examples of how to do it in C++.  There are examples in C.  I've even gotten one to compile! Perhaps there is a reason, perhaps there isn't.  If someone showed me the light, I'd be fine with it.  Talk is cheap.

Oddly enough with all of this mischaracterization of my opinion on the matter I was favoring the other approach provided I/someone else could figure out how.

> personal opinion... dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, why would someone try to fix
> what ain't broken??? It's just going to generate a LOT more work as changes to

I haven't made up my mind.  You apparently have.  You seem to hold many strong opinions.  I've been goofing around with gcc and Walter's front end.  Thats the progress up to now.

For anyone who doesn't like my approach the course of action is simple. 

Start writing something!

> the C++ front will have to be ported to the C front which is probably going to
> create derivations of the language... Than we at least have an other language
> that isn't the same all over the place. <g>

Again, I've summarized this before.  Like I said, it will depend on practical it is.  I must study gcc more in depth.

> Unfortunately I really do not have the time to get involved in this. I really
> would like to, but I have a mortage to pay, a T1 to pay, a car to pay, a phone
> to pay oh, I forgot I need to eat too! <g>
> 

I paid off my car with my house.  Anyhow, I've got plenty of work to do as well (1.5 jobs, wife, kids, bills, co-loco, etc), I just plan to squeeze this in.  Its all a matter of priorities.  If this were important to you, you'd make time for it.  Its not.  No biggie.


-Andy


> Jan
> 
> 

Jan Knepper wrote:
> ben wrote:
> 
> 
>>The seperation between d is what I am also worried about. I don't care what
>>language people are using as long as its consistent across platforms,
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 

Agreed.

> 
>>I don't like java but I am using it for that reason,
> 
> 
> I think that's Andy's favorite, so you guys might be at opposite ends.
> 

Wow man, Jan why don't I just not talk and you tell people my opinions.  I guess it doesn't matter whether you actually know what I think, as that hasn't stopped you up to know.


> 
>>I can be assured that sun java on windows or linux is pretty much the same..
> 
> 
> I hope so. I do not use Java, do not like nor dislike it. However I have heard
> different stories about this.
> One of the concerns about Java seems to be that it does not full fill this
> promise...
> 

I like some things about Java.  I like Java better than C++ -- This HAS NOTHING to do with anything.

I'm interested in finding the most practical approach.  Sorry if that offends anyone's zealous sensibilites.  I'm open to the other approach.  I do not yet see an approach that allows the method you so strongly prefer (without any apparent idea if its even ACTUALLY possible, from what I can tell, having never actually looked at the gcc code and speaking only theoretically.).  If find one, great.  If someone else does, even better.

-Andy