Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: rbowman Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Naughty =?UTF-8?B?Q+KZrw==?= Date: 7 Jan 2026 21:36:32 GMT Lines: 25 Message-ID: References: <10jiufh$1an77$1@paganini.bofh.team> <10jlqu8$mvh2$3@dont-email.me> <10jlt75$iih$1@reader2.panix.com> <10jmbmm$tsjo$1@dont-email.me> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net 4woZGC8//gdGMcIaHhL92AJ0BDsUyKB6Sim6mw75KSCnoEDBv7 Cancel-Lock: sha1:zsoFqmSY7n0U3GXPOG77l/NMYvg= sha256:Vgm1CiAfiq+JS7Wi4uzwSCHMRxhvMND4CCe61jYHTHQ= User-Agent: Pan/0.162 (Pokrosvk) Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:80705 alt.folklore.computers:233354 On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 12:20:54 -0700, Peter Flass wrote: > On 1/7/26 08:13, Dan Cross wrote: >> >> These bizarre definitional assertions about what makes something a >> "compiler" or not seem to be mostly put forth by people who have never >> heard of the concept of "separate compilation" or "libraries", let >> alone touched the innards of a compiler. In particular, this idea that >> everything must be implemented in a single program or it's not a "true" >> compiler is rooted firmly in ignorance. >> >> > I think compilers have generated intermediate code since the first > FORTRAN compiler. The only distinction is one vs. multiple programs. Wth > a variety of both front- and back-ends GCC has good reason to separate > them. On the other hand, a compiler that uses another compiled language > as intermediate code is a strange beast, probably better called a > translator. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F2c It is a strange beast indeed. After an attempt to use it I manually translated the Fortran 77 to C to get something that could be maintained and extended.