Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED.news.iecc.com!nerds-end From: George Neuner Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: source languages, was Wrestling with phase 1 of a C compiler Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2022 16:03:22 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 28 Sender: news@iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <22-09-007@comp.compilers> References: <22-09-001@comp.compilers> <22-09-004@comp.compilers> <22-09-005@comp.compilers> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="32394"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" Keywords: PL/I, history, Lisp Posted-Date: 14 Sep 2022 16:26:33 EDT X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:3159 On Mon, 12 Sep 2022 13:01:21 -0700 (PDT), gah4 wrote: > : >PL/I does have a powerful preprocessor, though I don't know so many >actually using its power. It even has preprocessor procedures, if you >need them. > : Back in the day I would have reached for Lisp ... certainly for rapid prototyping and/or experimentation with new compilation techniques. The trouble with Lisp in the (distant) past was the high cost of a workstation capable of running it acceptably. That no longer is an issue, so Lisp can be an excellent choice for compiler development. For various reasons I prefer Scheme over Lisp, so for a modern "batteries-included" Scheme environment I would reach for Racket. Certainly mileage varies, but unless you are hell bent on maximum performance [how many people *really* derive benefit from being able to compile 10K lines/second/core?], in my opinion almost any modern HLL would be a better choice than C for writing a compiler. George