[9fans] C++ compiler anyone?

[9fans] C++ compiler anyone?

[pac]

Hi,
does anyone have a functional C++ compiler for Release 3?


--
Peter A. Cejchan
Dept. Paleobiology, Inst. Geology Acad. Sci.,
Rozvojova 135, Prague 6
CZ-16502 Czech Republic
<cej@cejchan.gli.cas.cz>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  C++ is to C as lung cancer is to lung  :-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Re: [9fans] C++ compiler anyone?

[Boyd Roberts]

> does anyone have a functional C++ compiler ...

it's questionable if such a thing exists.

Re: [9fans] C++ compiler anyone?

[Russ Cox]

> does anyone have a functional C++ compiler for Release 3?

Functional C++?  As though C++ were missing the kitchen
sink.  Can't you guys just stick with Scheme or ML?

Russ

Re: [9fans] C++ compiler anyone?

[Dan Cross]

In article <20010731160942.224A719A04@mail.cse.psu.edu> you write:
>> does anyone have a functional C++ compiler for Release 3?
>
>Functional C++?  As though C++ were missing the kitchen
>sink.  Can't you guys just stick with Scheme or ML?

Err, I think that's ``functional'' as in ``working'' not as
in functional programming.  The idea of functional C++ is...
scary.  But there's always ocaml....

	- Dan C.

(ps- has anyone worked on getting HUGS or GHC working under
Plan 9?  Has anyone ever wondered why there's not an FPL called
Curry?)

Re: [9fans] C++ compiler anyone?

[Theo Honohan]

On Tuesday 31 July, Dan Cross wrote ("Re: [9fans] C++ compiler anyone?"):
>
> (ps- has anyone worked on getting HUGS or GHC working under
> Plan 9?

No, but hugs should be very easy.  GHC, on the other hand, would
probably be quite a handful.

> Has anyone ever wondered why there's not an FPL called
> Curry?)

Oh, look!
http://www.informatik.uni-kiel.de/~curry/

Re: [9fans] C++ compiler anyone?

[Dan Cross]

In article <E15Rep2-0001uq-00@starfruit.iw3d.co.uk>,
Theo Honohan <9fans@cse.psu.edu> wrote:
>No, but hugs should be very easy.  GHC, on the other hand, would
>probably be quite a handful.

Yes, that's what I thought as well.  GHC would be prefered, but
is non-trivial to port.

>> Has anyone ever wondered why there's not an FPL called
>> Curry?)
>
>Oh, look!
>http://www.informatik.uni-kiel.de/~curry/

Oh neato....  Now we need a programming language called ``pepto'' to
counter act all this curry code.

        - Dan C.

Re: [9fans] C++ compiler anyone?

[pac]

>> In article <20010731160942.224A719A04@mail.cse.psu.edu> you write:
>> >> does anyone have a functional C++ compiler for Release 3?
>> >
>> >Functional C++?  As though C++ were missing the kitchen
>> >sink.  Can't you guys just stick with Scheme or ML?
>> 

BTW, is there Scheme, or Lisp, for Plan 9?

>> Err, I think that's ``functional'' as in ``working'' not as
>> in functional programming.  The idea of functional C++ is...
>> scary.  But there's always ocaml....
Yes, I am just looking for a (working) C++ compiler. Sorry for the word "functional" --> beat my English!


>> 
>> 	- Dan C.
>> 
>> (ps- has anyone worked on getting HUGS or GHC working under
>> Plan 9?  Has anyone ever wondered why there's not an FPL called
>> Curry?)
>> 



--
Peter A. Cejchan
Dept. Paleobiology, Inst. Geology Acad. Sci.,
Rozvojova 135, Prague 6
CZ-16502 Czech Republic
<cej@cejchan.gli.cas.cz>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea:
Please, consider your support to the Public Library of Science initiative at
http://www.publiclibraryofscience.org

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Re: [9fans] C++ compiler anyone?

[andrey mirtchovski]

i don't see why porting gcl to p9 would be a problem -- compile the
interpreter with ape and fire your lithp code away...

clisp is a bit more difficult though -- its cli involves ncurses...

have i had a working p9 installation i wouldn't mind giving it a go (i.e.
you should try compiling gcl yourself :) 

sorry, no advice on scheme :(

andrey

ps: i'd like to know how do 9fans feel towards LITHP or Haskell and the like
'functional' stuff...

On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, pac wrote:

> BTW, is there Scheme, or Lisp, for Plan 9?
> 

Re: [9fans] C++ compiler anyone?

[Andrew Pochinsky]

   From: pac <cej@cejchan.gli.cas.cz>
   Sender: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu

   BTW, is there Scheme, or Lisp, for Plan 9?


I partially ported SXM to Plan 9, take a look at
<http://www.malgil.com/sxm/> There are still missing things in the
Plan 9 version, the most conspicuous being the lack of Unicode
support. It could probably be fixed without changing the SXM character
model, though.

--andrew

Re: [9fans] C++ compiler anyone?

[Quinn Dunkan]

>    From: pac <cej@cejchan.gli.cas.cz>
>    Sender: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu
> 
>    BTW, is there Scheme, or Lisp, for Plan 9?
> 
> 
> I partially ported SXM to Plan 9, take a look at
> <http://www.malgil.com/sxm/> There are still missing things in the
> Plan 9 version, the most conspicuous being the lack of Unicode
> support. It could probably be fixed without changing the SXM character
> model, though.

In the past I've wondered how to do lisp indenting with proportional fonts.
For haskell you can just use tabs and not try to get fancy with offside rule
(I do haskell in wily), but that doesn't work so well for lisp.  I guess you
just switch to fixed mode and deal with it.

Re: [9fans] C++ compiler anyone?

[David Gordon Hogan]

> ps: i'd like to know how do 9fans feel towards LITHP or Haskell and the like
> 'functional' stuff...

I'm quite interested in it, and its cousin, logic programming.  (I have an
implementation of Prolog written in limbo...).

It's something I definately want to explore further, but I'm busy
with other things right now.

I don't like LISP, due to its lack of syntax and the fact that it's not
a pure functional language (ie functions can have side effects).
I think that greater gains can be achieved by insisting on referential
transparency, and using techniques like monads to characterize state,
IO, exceptions etc., a la Haskell.

Re: [9fans] C++ compiler anyone?

[David Gordon Hogan]

> Yes, I am just looking for a (working) C++ compiler. Sorry for the word "functional" --> beat my English!

I'm porting GCC 3.0.  Watch this space...

Re: [9fans] C++ compiler anyone?

[pac]

dhog@plan9.bell-labs.com (David Gordon Hogan) wrote in message news:<20010801181647.D872919A4C@mail.cse.psu.edu>...
> > Yes, I am just looking for a (working) C++ compiler. Sorry for the word "functional" --> beat my English!
> 
> I'm porting GCC 3.0.  Watch this space...

Wonderful! When you are ready to make a release, please, update the Wiki page at
http://cm.bell-labs.com/wiki/plan9/50/index.html

Thank you very much! Cheers, 
Peter