Comment by cxr
6 hours ago
That's not a counterpoint—at least not to anything in the comment that you're (nominally) "responding" to.
So why has it been posted it as a reply, and why label it a counterpoint?
6 hours ago
That's not a counterpoint—at least not to anything in the comment that you're (nominally) "responding" to.
So why has it been posted it as a reply, and why label it a counterpoint?
Read them again a couple more times and it may become clear.
The prior post seemed to be claiming that this required any form of a bootstrapping process, when it does not.
You have lost the plot, and you are wrong.
This particular compiler does require bootstrapping, and that's obviously what "the compiler" is referring to in that comment.
Building your compiler in another language doesn't help at all. In fact, it just makes it worse. Dogfooding C++20 in your compiler that isn't even built in C++ is obviously impossible.
It absolutely does not. There is no part of C++20 that requires the implementing compiler to be written in C++20.
My original point is that you can write a compiler for any language in any language.
6 replies →