Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C++ > "Small C++" Anyone?

Reply
Thread Tools

"Small C++" Anyone?

 
 
JohnQ
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-09-2007
(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


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ian Collins
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-09-2007
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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Piyo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-09-2007
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%2B%2B

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_%...ng_language%29
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?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Dennis \(Icarus\)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-10-2007
"JohnQ" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:AQkIh.3570$(E-Mail Removed) ...
> (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


 
Reply With Quote
 
dave_mikesell@fastmail.fm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-10-2007
On Mar 9, 5:06 pm, "JohnQ" <(E-Mail Removed)>
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++.


 
Reply With Quote
 
kwikius
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-10-2007
On 9 Mar, 22:06, "JohnQ" <(E-Mail Removed)> 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






 
Reply With Quote
 
throatslasher
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-10-2007
On Mar 9, 2:16 pm, Piyo <(E-Mail Removed)> 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%2B%2B
>
> 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_%...ng_language%29
> 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.

 
Reply With Quote
 
JohnQ
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-10-2007

"Ian Collins" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> 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


 
Reply With Quote
 
JohnQ
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-10-2007

"Piyo" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:u1lIh.6426$(E-Mail Removed) t...
> 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%2B%2B
>
> 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_%...ng_language%29


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


 
Reply With Quote
 
Ian Collins
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-10-2007
JohnQ wrote:
> "Ian Collins" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>>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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Advertisments