Re: So why compile to C++ at all?

• To: Israel@lith.com (Israel)
• Subject: Re: So why compile to C++ at all?
• From: Jason Trenouth <jason.trenouth@globalgraphics.com>
• Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 16:01:17 +0100
• Cc: info-dylan@ai.mit.edu
• In-Reply-To: <3b38c24a.86356724@news.lith.com>
• References: <3b38c24a.86356724@news.lith.com>
• Sender: owner-info-dylan@ai.mit.edu

On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 13:30:13 -0400 (EDT), Israel@lith.com (Israel) wrote:

> 
> 
> I've been wondering why so many compiled languages I see end up
> compiling their code to C or C++.  

Widely available pseudo-assembly language.

> Functional objects seems to compile
> Dylan to C.  

Fun'Dev compiles to native Intel instructions. Fun'O has Dylan->C
compilation technology but it doesn't ship in Fun'Dev.

> I may be missing something, I have very little computer
> science under my belt, but why would one need to do use another
> language as a middleman between it and machine code?

So you only need to write one backend to your Dylan compiler. You can leave
generating the native instructions to C compiler writers on each platform.

__Jason

• So why compile to C++ at all?
• From: Israel@lith.com (Israel)

• Prev: Re: Are there any .NET possibilities/implications for Dylan/Functional Developer?
• Next: Re: Are there any .NET possibilities/implications for Dylan/Functional Developer?
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread