Path: csiph.com!3.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news.linkpendium.com!news.linkpendium.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED.news.iecc.com!nerds-end From: Richard Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: Compiler implementation language preference ? Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 15:06:29 +0100 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 14 Sender: news@iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <18-11-005@comp.compilers> References: <18-05-009@comp.compilers> <18-11-001@comp.compilers> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="74926"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" Keywords: design, comment Posted-Date: 11 Nov 2018 04:40:24 EST X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.3 Content-Language: en-US Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:2117 On 09.11.18 23:29, rockbrentwood@gmail.com wrote: > A test of whether the language, itself, is worth using -- assuming it is a > general purpose language -- is whether you'd be willing to write the compiler, > itself, in it! This does not prove anything about applicability of the language for anything other than writing a similar compiler. Richard [Good point. Compilers use a variety of data structures and recursive algorithms so if you can write a compiler, it's likely an adequate systems language. On the other hand, IBM Fortran H was written in itself which only made sense because the alternative was assembler. -John]