Wouter van Ooijen wrote:

>> There are a number of features in C++ that don't cause run-time overhead
>> and make programming nicer. Function overloading and (non-virtual)
>> classes are among them. But a compiler that provides these without the
>> rest is not a C++ compiler, and I'm not sure it's economically viable
>> to implement all the rest for the little use some of it would have.
> 
> So what's the trouble to get a full C++ compiler ...

The trouble is that there are not so many around. I think there is a reason
for that, and I think the reason is that writing a full C++ compiler is not
trivial and much effort must be expended for features that are not very
relevant in the areas we're talking about. That's probably a good reason
for some compiler vendors to use this effort to improve the optimization of
their C compiler, for example -- which leaves us without a C++ compiler
from them.

> ... and use only the features you like? 

I wouldn't have a problem at all. But I understand why someone would think
that writing a full C++ compiler for certain platforms is not worth the
effort. As a compiler user, I can simply choose not to use the parts I'm
not interested in. But a compiler writer can't write a C++ compiler without
them... if he does, he doesn't write a C++ compiler :)

Gerhard

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist