From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <218917ef0711121339l65f11a7fx69ca20fe5fc44824@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 23:39:05 +0200 From: "Aki Nyrhinen" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: Ruby port In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <13426df10711121101p7f1677a2qcd4dc4f18222117d@mail.gmail.com> Topicbox-Message-UUID: f43622fa-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 in my limited experience, converting programs that are not excercises in how to use all the possible peculiarities of posix are reasonably easy to get compiling under ape. the problem is, nobody wants reasonably easy. c++ would be very nice too, so there would be one step less on the road towards firefox. i'm sure ron is more interested in fortran90. On Nov 12, 2007 9:39 PM, Steve Simon wrote: > > Fact is gcc is a de-facto standard > > I'm still trying to understand exactly what you mean by this. > > There was talk at one time about a gcc to kenc > preprocessor, this wouldn't solve the C++ problem > but would such a thing be worth attempting? > > Have the c99 additions to kenc made such a > translator irrelevnt? > > Is the "problem" more the lack of g++ and perhaps > glibc than the gcc C compiler itself or am I > missing somthing. > > I'm not trolling, I want to know. > > -Steve >