From: "Alexei A. Frounze" <dummy_addressee AT hotmail DOT com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: interpreting C ???
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 15:47:30 -0500
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <9866n4$f2cb$1@ID-57378.news.dfncis.de>
References: <3A9D5EC9 DOT CE9D100C AT t-online DOT de> <983lrs$5kis$1 AT ID-57378 DOT news DOT dfncis DOT de> <slrn9acspg DOT rt DOT rpolzer AT rebounce DOT rpolzer-lx>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nas-203-120.rochester.navipath.net (64.20.203.120)
X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 983997989 493963 64.20.203.120 (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

"Rudolf Polzer" <rpolzer AT web DOT de> wrote in message
news:slrn9acspg DOT rt DOT rpolzer AT rebounce DOT rpolzer-lx...
> Alexei A. Frounze <dummy_addressee AT hotmail DOT com> schrieb Folgendes:
> > "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.
>
> I think you are right, but why? C can be transformed 1:1 into pascal

Yes, it can be. But this seems obvious when you do it by hand.
Now try to make a program that would convert C source to compilable and
working Pascal source.
Btw, there are even simple tasks like making program that ports TASM/MASM
source to NASM and back. We still don't have that utility, though it's a
much simpler thing.

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