[Prev][Next][Index]
Re: Larch/C++ and C++
Thanks. I read lcpp.ps.gz and found the part about significant
differences between LCL and LC++. Hmmm... LCL doesn't support <:,
and if I write LC++ specs, I can't use LCLint. Darn.
Eventually, given sufficient funding, there will be something like LCLint
for Larch/C++. However, if you need something like LCLint in the next 2
years, your best bet is to use LCLint itself; it's unique for now.
The current plan for Larch/C++ is to get a symbol table working.
Unfortunately, due to the complexity of C++, this has defeated 2 graduate
students (so far), in part because they weren't funded properly.
I find the comments about the daunting task of developing formal
semantics of Larch/C++ kinda funny. C++ is an unholy mess! And believe
me: the complexity of C++ that makes developing formalisms to describe
it are just a hint of the problems that show up in real-world use of C++.
[list of problems omitted]
I should just smile at this (:-). But it's true. C++ is somewhat of
a nightmare. All the problems in the Larch/C++ grammar are things
I've inherited (:-) from the C++ declaration syntax. Sigh.
But we shouldn't turn this mailing list into a discussion of the merits
or demerits of C++. Jeannette Wing suggested Larch/C++ as a project that
would have "real world impact". It's true -- C++ is certainly the real
world. If you want something nicer, try LM3 or Larch/Smalltalk.
Gary
Reference(s):