From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 17 11:10:11 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CAE316A4CF for ; Sat, 17 Apr 2004 11:10:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emptyhost.emptydomain.de (213-203-244-156.kunde.vdserver.de [213.203.244.156]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 968C143D1D for ; Sat, 17 Apr 2004 11:10:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kai@emptydomain.de) Received: by emptyhost.emptydomain.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4D8101B802; Sat, 17 Apr 2004 20:10:17 +0200 (CEST) To: Daniela References: <200404151110.i3FBAaoo048373@adsl-68-76-19-75.dsl.klmzmi.ameritech.net> <200404161720.37041.dgw@liwest.at> <87pta73bs2.fsf@emptyhost.emptydomain.de> <200404162241.56535.dgw@liwest.at> From: Kai Grossjohann Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 20:10:17 +0200 In-Reply-To: <200404162241.56535.dgw@liwest.at> (dgw@liwest.at's message of "Fri, 16 Apr 2004 22:41:56 +0000") Message-ID: <87y8ouscfq.fsf@emptyhost.emptydomain.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110002 (No Gnus v0.2) Emacs/21.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Beginning C++ in FreeBSD X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 18:10:11 -0000 Daniela writes: > On Friday 16 April 2004 20:31, Kai Grossjohann wrote: >> Daniela writes: >> > What? C++ code is converted to C? Which compiler are you using, and >> > why the hell would a compiler do this? >> >> In the old days, C++ was implemented by a program called cfront, I >> believe, and it did convert C++ to C. >> >> If you can write a program that converts language X to C, then you get >> to take advantage of all the nifty optimizing C compilers out there. >> If you try to go the direct route to compiling into machine language, >> then you need to do the optimization part yourself. So converting >> into C as an intermediary language is an option that requires less >> work. > > There's no harm in doing the optimizing yourself. If you compile directly, > then you can optimize much more because you can take advantage of the > structure of the language. Two different languages always have different > strengths and weak points. What I was trying to say is that using C as an intermediary language reduces effort. Of course it is /possible/ to do the optimizing yourself, it is just more work. I think that "reducing effort" is a pretty damn good reason for doing something in a specific way. I hope that answers your "why the hell" question. > BTW, when I need somthing optimized, I'll do it in assembly anyway. *cough* Kai