From: Ben Tilly <ben_tilly@...>
Date: 2001-01-22T13:48:42+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:9700] Re: 101 Misconceptions About Dynamic Languages

"Ken Alverson" <Ken@Alverson.com> wrote:
>
>"Larry J. Elmore" <ljelmore@home.com> wrote in message
>news:5THa6.86265$ge4.32105698@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...
> > In article <022701c0839e$246b3110$2e03280a@puma>, "Christian"
> > <christians@syd.microforte.com.au> wrote:
> > > Slightly off-topic (hey, it hasn't stopped me before): why can we not
> > > have an interpreted language that is based on C++, not C? Python is C,
> > > Ruby is C, Perl is C. What about a language that is built using C++
> > > and C++ principals, where we can extend and enhance in C++? Is there
> > > one?
> >
> > Not that I'm aware of. C is used because it is _far_ more portable than
> > C++.
>
>Huh?  CFront will take a C++ program as input and create a C program as
>output, thus the two would be equally portable, no?

I would doubt it.  I have not looked closely, but
glancing at http://www.unipress.com/toolkit/cfront.html
it seems to be Unix specific (not even a Linux version!)
and proprietary.  Even if the output C is portable and
easy to link to, the development platform is now limited
to people with CFront.

At least in the open source world, this would be an undue
restriction.

Cheers,
Ben
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com