Path: utzoo!dptcdc!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!columbia!read.columbia.edu!kearns
From: kearns@read.columbia.edu (Steve Kearns)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: C++ --> C
Message-ID: <6293@columbia.edu>
Date: 18 Apr 89 15:02:26 GMT
References: <173@cs.columbia.edu> <7050005@hpcupt1.HP.COM> <9204@alice.UUCP> <5408@videovax.tv.Tek.com>
Sender: news@columbia.edu
Reply-To: kearns@read.UUCP ()
Organization: Columbia University Department of Computer Science
Lines: 21

One of Bjarne's stated principles with C++ was:
(*) When faced with the possibility of making the language
	(and manual) simpler by making the compiler more complicated,
	do it.

While I think that compiling to C is a fine idea, ATT cripples
the idea by requiring the translation to take place in a 
"close to recursive" way.  Specifically, every C++ statement must
translate into an equivalent C statement.  
(This was reported by Andrew Koenig
at a talk here).  The upshot of this design desicision is that
instead of using C as a fancy assembly language, ATT is trying
to write a "simple" translator to C.  

This is a bad decision, and goes against the priniciple outlined
above.  An example of this is their implementation of inline
functions, which inlines functions EXCEPT IF THINGS GET A LITTLE
COMPLICATED.  

So, I would suggest keeping the c++ -> c translation, but using
c as an assembly language instead of using "recursive translation".