"Larry J. Elmore" <ljelmore / home.com> wrote in message
news:5THa6.86265$ge4.32105698 / news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...
> In article <022701c0839e$246b3110$2e03280a@puma>, "Christian"
> <christians / syd.microforte.com.au> wrote:
> > Slightly off-topic (hey, it hasn't stopped me before): why can we not
> > have an interpreted language that is based on C++, not C? Python is C,
> > Ruby is C, Perl is C. What about a language that is built using C++
> > and C++ principals, where we can extend and enhance in C++? Is there
> > one?
>
> Not that I'm aware of. C is used because it is _far_ more portable than
> C++.

Huh?  CFront will take a C++ program as input and create a C program as
output, thus the two would be equally portable, no?

Ken