Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary. Now with pictures!
- Owen Jacobson
September 11, 2004, 8:31 am
rate this thread
Seconded. cgicc works way better if you want it to output compliant HTML
than if you want "normal" (nonstandard, table-driven, or otherwise
silly) HTML, though. IMO this is a feature, though from the mailing list I
seem to be in the minority.
Some say the Wired doesn't have political borders like the real world,
but there are far too many nonsense-spouting anarchists or idiots who
think that pranks are a revolution.
- Shailesh Humbad
September 11, 2004, 5:51 pm
Re: c++ web scripting
I tried cgicc prior to posting. The difference is the application
development cycle. I assume there are three steps with cgicc: edit
the code, run the compiler, and then reload the browser. When I say
scripting engine, I mean that there are only two steps: edit the code,
and reload the browser.
I see ch is an interpreter for a superset of C (with classes from
C++), but not full C++. Not only that, but I don't want
interpretation, I want cached, natively-compiled executables.
Like another poster said, it would be fairly easy to implement such a
thing. I'm just surprised it hasn't yet. Why use .Net for your web
projects when you can use C++, and skip the extra layer of complexity?