Damir, I'm happy to answer your question. >One of my friends asked me if he could use cint as a replacement for Perl. > What are the advantages-disadvantages of such a request ? You can use cint as a replacement for perl. But this doesn't mean cint is better for the purpose. Here are a few thoughts, # readline and argument separation Cint has include/ReadF.C library for simple readline and argument separation. This only has a primitive functionality, but usable. You could make fancier o neif you desire. # associative array I'm trying to provide precompiled library for STL map container. Experimental release for Win32 VC++ is included in the latest cint source package. If this library gets stable, it pushes cint into this direction. Major problem I face here is STL allocator issue. STL overloads new operator for use of allocator which does not match very well to cint. >I can personnaly think about two or three things : >- Perl is probably more suited to automate things For text processing and some automation things, I agree. >- Is it more or less stable than CINT ? Probably a little bit more mature I can not make good comment here. In fact, Perl was already there when I started to make cint. So, it has more history and may be more mature. >- But you cannot compile things in Perl I think you can build-in C functions into Perl. But can not compile perl script. My overall comment is You could use cint as replacement for Perl. By providing text processing and associative array library, one can use cint in reasonable comfort in text processing and automation work. But probably not quite as good as Perl. There are applications that cint fits better. One language solution, precompiling C/C++ classes and functions, possible speed advantage with native+bytecode compilation, etc... Masaharu Goto
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 04 2000 - 00:34:40 MET