4 ms·
Well, this is certainly an argument for more simple languages (syntactically) like LISP, C, even Tcl, over C++ and Java. Because I don't think anyone really und
by far33d 19y ago
Well, this is certainly an argument for more simple languages (syntactically) like LISP, C, even Tcl, over C++ and Java. Because I don't think anyone really understands how the C++ compiler really works (it took a looooong time to get a C++ compiler that actually adhered to the standard).
- paul 19y agoI wouldn't put c++ in the same category as Java. C++ has many layers of "stuff" (templates, macros, etc) while the Java compiler is so simple that you can easily do a reverse-compile. Personally, I'd rather have a useful syntax and maybe a standard parser that gives easy access to the parse tree. I wrote a Javascript-to-Javascript compiler (that did optimization and correctness checks along the way) once and the fact that JS has syntax wasn't a big problem. (especially since I ripped off the parser from Rhino)
- far33d 19y agoMy mistake on Java - frankly, I haven't written any in quite a while.
- tx 19y agoJava has much simpler syntax than C, you got your buckets wrong.
- palish 19y agoLisp has no syntax. :)