home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
ftp.cs.arizona.edu
/
ftp.cs.arizona.edu.tar
/
ftp.cs.arizona.edu
/
icon
/
newsgrp
/
group00b.txt
/
000066_icon-group-sender _Wed Oct 4 07:58:13 2000.msg
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
2001-01-03
|
2KB
Return-Path: <icon-group-sender>
Received: (from root@localhost)
by baskerville.CS.Arizona.EDU (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id HAA04729
for icon-group-addresses; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 07:57:56 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <200010041457.HAA04729@baskerville.CS.Arizona.EDU>
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 19:47:21 +1000
From: rohan <rohan@micom.asn.au>
X-Accept-Language: en
To: Clinton L Jeffery <jeffery@imperial.egr.unlv.edu>
CC: D De Villiers <ddevilliers@lando.co.za>, icon-group@optima.CS.Arizona.EDU
Subject: Re: Icon for Palm ?
Errors-To: icon-group-errors@optima.CS.Arizona.EDU
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1049
>
> Clinton L Jeffery wrote:
>
>
> .
> ...............................................................................................snip
>
> If you want
> something better than the Icon (-> C) compiler, you want either a faster
> compiler, faster or smaller generated code, or perhaps a compiler that has
> no bugs. All desirable traits, and none of which are precluded by using
> a C compiler as one's "native code generator".
...................................................................................................snip
Clint jeffery@cs.unlv.edu
I would be quite happy to do development in an interpreted environment but
somehow the source-code + interpreter appended is not appealing.One of
the reasons I am interested in Icon is to get away from C; another is the
"look" of the code (all lower case cf. Oberon,C++).
One of the things about C which I'm trying to avoid (I may still go back) is
the memory leakage.My worry is that by translating code back to C and then
compiling I will be reintroducing the defects of C.
>