Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED.news.iecc.com!nerds-end From: Hans-Peter Diettrich Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: fledgling assembler programmer Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2023 13:07:57 +0100 Organization: Compilers Central Sender: johnl@iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <23-03-017@comp.compilers> References: <23-03-001@comp.compilers> <23-03-002@comp.compilers> <23-03-003@comp.compilers> <23-03-007@comp.compilers> <23-03-008@comp.compilers> <23-03-012@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="26493"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" Keywords: C Posted-Date: 25 Mar 2023 10:49:24 EDT X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com In-Reply-To: <23-03-012@comp.compilers> Content-Language: en-US Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:3419 On 3/24/23 10:17 PM, gah4 wrote: > Fortran G was not written by IBM, but contracted out. And is not > (mostly) in assembler, but in something called POP. That is, it > is interpreted by the POP interpreter, with POPcode written using > assembler macros. Doing that, for one, allows reusing the code > for other machines, though you still need to rewrite the code > generator. But also, at least likely, it decreases the size of > the compiler. POP instructions are optimized for things that > compiler need to do. After a look at "open software" I was astonished by the number of languages and steps involved in writing portable C code. Also updates of popular programs (Firefox...) are delayed by months on some platforms, IMO due to missing manpower on the target systems for checks and the adaptation of "configure". Now I understand why many people prefer interpreted languages (Java, JavaScript, Python, .NET...) for a simplification of their software products and spreading. What's the actual ranking of programming languages? A JetBrains study does not list any compiled language in their first 7 ranks in 2022. C++ follows on rank 8. What does that trend mean to a compiler group? Interpreted languages still need a front-end (parser) and back-end (interpreter), but don't these tasks differ between languages compiled to hardware or interpretation? DoDi