|
|
|
|
|
|
by muth02446
511 days ago
|
|
|
Ultimately, the plan for Cwerg is to be self-hosting, so C++ is just another stepping stone.
I am curious about the issues with C++17 (vs say C++11) though. About using C++: Cwerg is NOT going "all in" on C++ and tries to use as little STL as possible.
There are some warts here and there that C++17 fixes and those are used by Cwerg - nothing major. There is also a lightweight C wrapper for Cwerg Backend. About not using C: I do not get the fetishizing of C. String handling is just atrocious, no concept of a span, no namespaces, poorer type system, etc.
Cwerg is actually trying to fix these. If Cwerg was written in C instead of C++, a lot of the constructs would become MACRO-magic. About Backends: Currently supported are: 64 bit ARM, 32 bit ARM (no thumb), 64 bit x86
There are no plans to support 32 bit x86 |
|
|
It's about dependability and bootstrapping. GCC 4.7 was the last version implemented in C, and it supports C++98/03 and a subset of C++11.
> There are some warts here and there that C++17 fixes [..] nothing major
But it's C++17 and thus requires many more bootstrap cycles until we have a compiler. I think a backend which only supports a subset of the features of a C++17 compiler should not depend on C++17, otherwise its usefulness is restricted by the availability of such a compiler.
> I do not get the fetishizing of C. String handling is just atrocious...
C is just a pretty primitive high-level language (with a very strange syntax) a compiler of which exists on almost any system. The next complexity step is C++98 (or the subset supported by cfront), which solves your issues and is even good enough to build something as complex as Qt and KDE.
> There are no plans to support 32 bit x86
Ok, thanks. The support for ARM32 already enables many use cases.