From:	"Alexei A. Frounze" <dummy_addressee AT hotmail DOT com>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: interpreting C ???
Date:	Tue, 6 Mar 2001 18:47:42 -0500
Lines:	31
Message-ID:	<983lrs$5kis$1@ID-57378.news.dfncis.de>
References:	<3A9D5EC9 DOT CE9D100C AT t-online DOT de>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	nas-202-7.rochester.navipath.net (64.20.202.7)
X-Trace:	fu-berlin.de 983915197 184924 64.20.202.7 (16 [57378])
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Newsreader:	Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

"Kai Dietrich" <toepferei DOT dietrich AT t-online DOT de> wrote in message
news:3A9D5EC9 DOT CE9D100C AT t-online DOT de...
> Hi!
>
> Is there a QBasic like interpreter for the C (C++?) language written
> with GCC aviable (with sourcecode)? If not, do you think it is possible
> to write one (I'm thinking heavily about this and I already had some
> ideas how to realize it)?

1st of all, due to a complex nature of C, it's interpretation is a real
pain. And you don't have to start making a C interpretator in order to
figure out this. Just try to make a Basic interpretator and then think of
all those extra features which C has and how you would try to add them. It's
kinda mission impossible, unless you're as genius as somebody who has
already made a C compiler.
If you don't like Basic, use Pascal instead. It's much much better than
Basic and it's not that complicated as C. And there exist a number of Pascal
interpreters. I saw a few ones and I can conclude that, as a matter of fact,
Pascal interpretation is way easier than C interpretation.
But why interpreting something, anyway?

Good Luck
--
Alexei A. Frounze
alexfru [AT] chat [DOT] ru
http://alexfru.chat.ru
http://members.xoom.com/alexfru/
http://welcome.to/pmode/

- Raw text -