Constexpr-8cc: Compile-time C Compiler

Re:Constexpr-8cc: Compile-time C Compiler by kitsuac on Friday November 18, 2016 @05:06PM (#12990490)

If it's too difficult for you to use, then use another language which holds your hand more. But for many of us, it's an incredibly powerful language and there isn't really anything comparable when you need to squeeze every instruction cycle out of the CPU while still using HLL features. I don't find it difficult at all to use. Sure it's complicated, but not everything worth doing is trivially simple.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Constexpr-8cc: Compile-time C Compiler by santaclaus on Friday November 18, 2016 @05:40PM (#12990675)

> there isn't really anything comparable when you need to squeeze every instruction cycle out of the CPU while still using HLL features

Rust seems like a promising alternative in the future.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Constexpr-8cc: Compile-time C Compiler by AdamJacobMuller on Friday November 18, 2016 @05:50PM (#12990724)

> promising alternative

Agreed, but, sometimes people need to do stuff RFN. And sometimes that doesn't leave time for learning new things, even if they might be somewhat better.

And edit to add that I think rust, in particular, is doing some very interesting things to hugely reduce the learning curve and make it a better language for newcomers.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Constexpr-8cc: Compile-time C Compiler by Retra on Friday November 18, 2016 @06:17PM (#12990860)

I pretty much only program in C++ at work and Rust at home now, and I think Rust is hands-down a better designed language. It just feels more coherent and consistent.

I used to despise C++, but ever since I've had to abandon all usage of it's std library, I don't mind it anymore. It's a bit less crufty that way. Though I'm still peeved every time the compiler dumps 30 pages of every virtual method in existence because it couldn't find one that matched my call.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Constexpr-8cc: Compile-time C Compiler by dom0 on Friday November 18, 2016 @07:07PM (#12991074)

> I pretty much only program in C++ at work and Rust at home now, and I think Rust is hands-down a better designed language. It just feels more coherent and consistent.

C++ turned out kinda... good -- considering that it started out as "tacking classes on C".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Constexpr-8cc: Compile-time C Compiler by Koshkin on Friday November 18, 2016 @08:18PM (#12991424)

Classes (with destructors) is the single most powerful and important addition to plain C. In C, even exceptions can be emulated, more or less naturally, but destructors cannot (without a compiler-specific extension). So, I'd argue that the best parts were the ones that came in early. The latest version of C++, of course, is nothing to sneeze at, either.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Constexpr-8cc: Compile-time C Compiler by svckr on Saturday November 19, 2016 @05:01AM (#12992750)

Agreed. RAII is something I miss deeply in many other languages.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Constexpr-8cc: Compile-time C Compiler by Koshkin on Friday November 18, 2016 @08:22PM (#12991441)

> abandon... std library

You are bound, then, "to reimplement it, poorly."

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Constexpr-8cc: Compile-time C Compiler by Retra on Friday November 18, 2016 @08:38PM (#12991500)

Nah, my coworkers did that 30 years ago. :)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Constexpr-8cc: Compile-time C Compiler by santaclaus on Friday November 18, 2016 @08:43PM (#12991518)

The EA STL is competitive with the standard library!

[ Parent | on HN ]