Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bionet!agate!ucbvax!ucsd!rutgers!att!ulysses!andante!alice!ark
From: ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: C++ --> C
Message-ID: <9204@alice.UUCP>
Date: 15 Apr 89 19:58:00 GMT
References: <173@cs.columbia.edu> <7050005@hpcupt1.HP.COM>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Liberty Corner NJ
Lines: 16

In article <7050005@hpcupt1.HP.COM>, jwolf@hpcupt1.HP.COM (John Wolf) writes:
> Sun's g++ is a true compiler, not a translater (i.e. produces object code
> not C source code) - I think.  But find an AT&T C++ compiler (really a 
> translator) and you maybe in business.

Why do pepole say that a compiler that produces C as its
object code isn't a `true compiler' but a compiler that
produces assembly language is?  Do you think it's significantly
easier to translate C++ into C than into assembly language?

[answer: it isn't -- but it certainly is easier to translate
C++ into C that will run on a dozen different machines than it
is to translate C++ into a dozen different assembly languages!]
-- 
				--Andrew Koenig
				  ark@europa.att.com