Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register


Groups > comp.compilers > #214

Re: Language Design

Path csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!news.glorb.com!news.ripco.com!rahul.net!wasp.rahul.net!rahul.net!news.misty.com!news.iecc.com!nerds-end
From Gene <gene.ressler@gmail.com>
Newsgroups comp.compilers
Subject Re: Language Design
Date Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:28:18 -0700 (PDT)
Organization Compilers Central
Lines 24
Sender news@iecc.com
Approved comp.compilers@iecc.com
Message-ID <11-07-038@comp.compilers> (permalink)
References <11-07-027@comp.compilers>
NNTP-Posting-Host news.iecc.com
X-Trace gal.iecc.com 1311799752 65670 64.57.183.58 (27 Jul 2011 20:49:12 GMT)
X-Complaints-To abuse@iecc.com
NNTP-Posting-Date Wed, 27 Jul 2011 20:49:12 +0000 (UTC)
Keywords design
Posted-Date 27 Jul 2011 16:49:12 EDT
X-submission-address compilers@iecc.com
X-moderator-address compilers-request@iecc.com
X-FAQ-and-archives http://compilers.iecc.com
Xref x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.compilers:214

Show key headers only | View raw


On Jul 18, 4:16 pm, Billy Mays
<81282ed9a88799d21e77957df2d84bd6514d9...@myhashismyemail.com> wrote:
> I am trying to design a programming language for a simple processor
> (16 bit, ~10 instructions, 16 registers).  I am not sure what a
> language actually needs in order to be more useful than pure assembly,
> but is also reasonable to implement. ...
> --
> Bill
> [Rather than trying to invent yet another language, I'd retarget some
>existing 16 bit C compiler. -John]

The old Turbo Pascal 2.0 dialect was pretty remarkable. There was a
version for Z80 (CP/M) and 8086 (MSDOS).  I think the whole compiler
was only 50K or so.  The runtime was tiny (as it had to be), yet
included floating point (6-byte proprietary), variable-length strings
(up to 255 chars, not ANSI standard), sets over domains up to 255 in
cardinality, primitive extensions to write memory and I/O ports,
graphics (x86 only), an overlay system that was good enough to handle
a 200K SLOC program for on the Z80, and probably some other stuff I'm
foregetting. All this is to say that you could a lot worse than to re-
implement this dialect of Pascal as well as it was in this case.
Pascal is also straightforward to compile, especially if you don't
allow nested functions/procedures (although Turbo did).

Back to comp.compilers | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar


Thread

Language Design Billy Mays <81282ed9a88799d21e77957df2d84bd6514d9af6@myhashismyemail.com> - 2011-07-18 16:16 -0400
  Re: Language Design Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> - 2011-07-18 18:10 -0400
  Re: Language Design Srinivas Nayak <sinu.nayak2001@gmail.com> - 2011-07-18 22:54 -0700
  Re: Language Design anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-19 13:12 +0000
  Re: Language Design Andreas Zwinkau <zwinkau@kit.edu> - 2011-07-20 13:26 +0200
  Re: Language Design mac <acolvin@efunct.com> - 2011-07-23 01:11 +0000
  Re: Language Design Christophe de Dinechin <christophe.de.dinechin@gmail.com> - 2011-07-23 08:17 -0700
  Re: Language Design Oleg Sesov <osesov@gmail.com> - 2011-07-23 14:58 -0700
  Re: Language Design Gene <gene.ressler@gmail.com> - 2011-07-26 10:28 -0700
    Re: Language Design Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> - 2011-07-28 13:22 -0400
    Re: Language Design torbenm@diku.dk (Torben Ægidius Mogensen) - 2011-08-08 16:11 +0200
  Re: Language Design tm <thomas.mertes@gmx.at> - 2011-07-27 08:11 -0700
  Re: Language Design "s_dubrovich@yahoo.com" <s_dubrovich@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-04 18:43 -0700
  Re: Language Design for a tiny processor "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-08-08 22:54 +0100

csiph-web