Re: Compiler implementation language preference ?

Path	csiph.com!xmission!news.snarked.org!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.misty.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED.news.iecc.com!nerds-end
From	Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com>
Newsgroups	comp.compilers
Subject	Re: Compiler implementation language preference ?
Date	Sat, 10 Nov 2018 21:46:59 -0500
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines	33
Sender	news@iecc.com
Approved	comp.compilers@iecc.com
Message-ID	<18-11-007@comp.compilers> (permalink)
References	<18-05-009@comp.compilers> <18-11-001@comp.compilers>
Mime-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding	8bit
Injection-Info	gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="76371"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com"
Keywords	code, design
Posted-Date	11 Nov 2018 04:42:13 EST
X-submission-address	compilers@iecc.com
X-moderator-address	compilers-request@iecc.com
X-FAQ-and-archives	http://compilers.iecc.com
Content-Language	en-US
Xref	csiph.com comp.compilers:2119

Show key headers only | View raw

On 2018-11-09 5:29 p.m., 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! I put up a branch (and heavily recoded)
> version of cparse on my machine, which is in C and has 3 layers of
> self-bootstrapping. GCC has several layers of self-bootstrpping,
> depending on what you implement from it (and distressingly, it has --
> as of version 6 -- acquired *dependencies* on libraries further
> upstream! That's a major no no!)
>
> GnuBC has a (largely eliminable) layer of bootstrapping to compile
> its predefined libraries into itself.
>
> Knuth's TeX engine is built on top of the (context-sensitive) parser
> in Web and/or cweb. The "tangle" and "weave" programs are the core
> that has to be bootstrapped. Tangle is Web->Pascal (ctangle cweb->C);
> weave is Web->TeX, cweave is cweb->TeX; (and all this is a setup for
> TeX.web, which has to be compiled via Web).
>
> Go is also self-built.

I would argue against that suitability test with the following simple
logic. My choice for implementation language is primarily the most
suitable language to implement the compiler.

Part of what you are suggesting is the compiler bootstrap process that
is a very different process. Even for that I would argue against only
using the same language As one of several possible choices including
cross compiling on another platform.

w..

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

Thread

Compiler implementation language preference ? Michael Justice <nullcompiler@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 04:58 -0400
  Re: Compiler implementation language preference ? w.clodius@icloud.com (William Clodius) - 2018-05-23 10:14 -0600
  Re: Compiler implementation language preference ? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2018-06-07 12:58 -0400
  Re: Compiler implementation language preference ? rockbrentwood@gmail.com - 2018-11-09 14:29 -0800
    Re: Compiler implementation language preference ? Kaz Kylheku <157-073-9834@kylheku.com> - 2018-11-10 04:00 +0000
    Re: Compiler implementation language preference ? Kaz Kylheku <157-073-9834@kylheku.com> - 2018-11-10 04:20 +0000
    Re: Compiler implementation language preference ? Richard <portempa@aon.at> - 2018-11-10 15:06 +0100
    Re: Compiler implementation language preference ? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2018-11-10 21:46 -0500
  Re: Compiler implementation language preference ? Nick <ibeam2000@gmail.com> - 2018-11-13 02:14 -0800
  Re: Compiler implementation language preference ? Aaron Gray <aaronngray@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 11:54 -0800
    Re: Compiler implementation language preference ? steve kargl <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2018-12-19 23:19 +0000
    Re: Compiler implementation language preference ? Aaron Gray <aaronngray@gmail.com> - 2018-12-21 04:17 -0800

csiph-web