From: "Alexei A. Frounze" 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" 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/