From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <296548bcaa75a96c024cfad9f2c0aae5@quintile.net> From: "Steve Simon" Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 23:21:51 +0000 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: Ruby port In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: f45a2f60-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > People are working on it. In fact, someone said something about an > update to the second edition C++ preprocessor a few days/weeks ago. That was me - however I must emphasise, cfront is certinly interesting, but not very useful for compiling modern code. It could be made better (more up-to-date libraries) but this would be a significant piece of work, porting another compiler is probably a much better way to get a useful C++ compiler. If somone had the money to throw at the problem an alternative route to g++ might be the Edison Design Group C++ front end, (available from Comeau Computing, who have even implemented it as a C++ to C translator). It claims to support all the modern idioms (including g++isms). This is cheap to buy once ported ($50). Sadly the first port would cost several orders more than that. Just wishful thinking. > Who uses Fortran 90? I beleive the supercomputing crowd use it quite a bit. > Who said anything about Firefox? The guy that made abaco also ported > the SpiderMonkey JavaScript engine to Plan 9, perhaps we could build > off of that? And how easy would it be to add a basic CSS? I should let Federico speak for himself, however my understanding is this is a lot more work than you might expect. -Steve