Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #96073 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-11-08 22:17 +0800 |
| Last post | 2016-11-08 18:25 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 296 — 29 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Compiler design in C? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 22:17 +0800
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-08 14:25 +0000
[OI] chat "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 22:26 +0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 22:29 +0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-08 20:48 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 11:51 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-08 21:12 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-08 20:43 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 13:20 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-08 23:04 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-08 23:04 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-08 14:30 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-11-12 01:25 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-11 17:08 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 07:52 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-11-12 15:18 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-08 23:00 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 22:33 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-08 22:56 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-08 23:40 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 19:54 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-09 15:47 -0600
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:46 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-10 07:19 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:46 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-08 23:00 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-09 11:30 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-09 11:14 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 19:15 +0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-09 13:59 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 03:15 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-09 05:44 -0600
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 03:57 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-09 15:19 -0600
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-09 07:59 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-09 13:13 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-11-09 14:06 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-09 14:46 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-09 08:33 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-09 17:28 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-09 15:22 -0600
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-09 10:55 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 00:01 +0800
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-09 17:11 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-09 13:37 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-09 15:16 -0600
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-09 22:36 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-09 23:40 -0600
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-10 08:49 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-09 14:02 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 05:40 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-09 15:47 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2016-11-09 19:32 +0300
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-09 15:34 -0600
Re: Compiler design in C? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 00:43 +0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 20:00 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-09 13:25 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 11:18 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 19:57 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 12:10 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-09 20:32 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-09 22:56 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-09 22:04 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-09 23:16 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-09 22:18 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:29 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-09 21:35 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-09 21:55 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-09 15:49 -0600
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 11:31 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 10:42 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 13:03 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2016-11-10 15:37 +0300
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-10 08:13 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2016-11-10 20:22 +0300
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-10 12:29 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 16:02 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 20:24 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-10 12:18 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-10 12:36 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 04:43 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 16:18 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-09 21:06 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-09 23:12 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-09 22:18 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 14:35 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 13:10 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-09 21:28 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-09 21:32 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:36 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 07:10 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-10 20:32 +1300
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 08:05 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 08:06 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 08:14 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 08:33 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 09:20 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 02:15 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 10:29 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 02:58 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 11:09 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 03:25 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:35 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 16:29 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-10 21:59 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-11 10:10 +1300
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-10 22:27 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 22:42 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-11 10:46 +1300
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-10 16:27 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 22:47 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-10 19:29 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-11 09:17 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-10 13:45 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:58 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 16:31 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-10 21:41 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 20:57 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-10 22:16 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-10 13:35 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-10 22:43 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 21:58 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-10 14:28 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-10 14:47 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 22:51 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-11 00:27 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-10 15:57 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-11 10:38 +1300
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-10 22:46 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-11 10:51 +1300
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 22:04 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-11 00:18 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 05:45 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-14 00:27 -0600
Re: Compiler design in C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-14 21:24 +1300
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-14 09:45 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 21:54 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-11 00:19 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 05:47 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-11 00:22 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-10 07:01 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:49 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 03:02 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 11:10 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 03:17 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-10 06:56 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 04:05 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-10 08:09 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-11-11 16:56 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 07:37 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 08:07 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-10 22:43 +1300
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 09:50 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-10 11:43 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:36 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-10 15:05 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 16:25 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 13:14 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 04:23 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-09 23:01 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 13:35 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-10 08:08 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 20:30 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-10 12:20 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? me <crisdunbar@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 13:48 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 22:53 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-10 14:38 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-11 09:52 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-11 06:09 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-11 21:54 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-11 14:10 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-12 14:17 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat <flatfinger@casperkitty.com> - 2016-11-12 10:42 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 19:04 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-12 16:13 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-13 00:28 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat <flatfinger@casperkitty.com> - 2016-11-12 17:36 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-13 10:20 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-13 14:37 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 22:42 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-13 18:26 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 07:08 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-13 15:52 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 07:10 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-14 07:33 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 18:42 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-14 11:42 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 19:49 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-14 12:24 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-14 12:32 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-16 08:18 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-16 08:50 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-17 12:02 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-17 12:22 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-11-16 10:35 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 10:52 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-12 14:28 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-11-09 13:27 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-11-09 23:43 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-10 17:57 +1300
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-09 21:26 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:39 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-09 22:54 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-09 15:08 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:50 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 13:44 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-08 23:07 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-08 14:15 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-08 23:26 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-08 14:44 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-08 14:48 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-08 15:34 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-08 15:57 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-08 16:17 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-08 16:18 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-08 16:24 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-08 19:59 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-09 15:44 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-10 00:51 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-09 15:59 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-10 16:08 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-11 14:41 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-11 15:55 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-11 15:21 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-11 15:32 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-11 16:11 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-12 11:12 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-12 20:03 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-12 20:21 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-14 15:30 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-12 21:51 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 13:16 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-12 23:04 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 14:12 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-14 15:05 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-14 14:43 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-14 14:49 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-12 14:33 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-12 22:45 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-12 18:14 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-13 00:12 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-13 11:38 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-14 00:44 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-14 11:45 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-14 09:42 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-14 14:14 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-14 22:59 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-14 15:15 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-14 19:11 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-14 15:40 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-14 20:45 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-12 17:20 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-09 19:49 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-10 16:14 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-11 15:28 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-12 00:45 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-12 11:40 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-12 11:42 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-12 20:18 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-14 15:23 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-13 11:46 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-10 16:22 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-11-11 16:52 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 14:57 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-09 00:13 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-08 15:46 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-08 20:04 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 03:23 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-09 08:01 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 12:27 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-09 22:32 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:43 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-10 20:30 +1300
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 07:35 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 03:12 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 11:19 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 03:46 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 04:01 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-11 16:04 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 08:36 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-09 17:41 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 13:58 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-09 08:10 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-09 10:35 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-08 14:21 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-08 23:28 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-08 22:47 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-10 09:52 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-10 07:33 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 14:03 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-10 08:15 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 14:47 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-08 22:55 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 19:44 +0800
Re: Compiler design in C? luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 18:18 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 18:25 -0800
Page 3 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 15 Next page →
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 15:22 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <ur472c9lac3eh8ng40qoc8ff7e1oei18mj@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #96211 |
On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 17:28:03 +0000, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >On 09/11/2016 16:33, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote: >> On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 8:06:24 AM UTC-6, Robert Spanjaard wrote: >>> On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 13:13:09 +0000, BartC wrote: >>>> You need a language that can take input from a file, do some processing, >>>> and output another file. >>> >>> Isn't that what most programs do? Take input, process it a bit, show >>> output? That even goes for huge projects like weather prediction, or on a >>> smaller scale, 3D rendering programs like Blender. Input > process > >>> output says absolutely nothing about system loads or programming >>> difficulty. Writing a compiler that literally translates the programmer's >>> code to binary might be fairly easy. But when you factor in a good dose >>> of error checking and optimization, things get more difficult VERY >>> quickly. >> >> In some fields, that's what nearly all programs do. In other fields, >> concepts like files, consoles, etc. are pretty much meaningless, and >> programs instead operate with things like I/O port latches, hardware >> event counters, pulse generators, serial ports, DMA controllers, etc. > >You wouldn't consider running a compiler on such a machine (except >possibly using it to farm out the task of compiling, assuming it's >powerful enough, using custom means to get the data in and out). > >> C is uniquely good in the latter fields, > >(Possibly unique among mainstream languages now. I used my own in the >eighties for just such purposes, and was even better than C would have >been (such as running efficiently on 8-bit hardware). There might have >been others then (PL/M?) and well as those developed as in-house >languages, like mine, that no one else knew about.) Can't leave out Ada, a language that was actually designed to be good at that sort of thing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 10:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nvvgsk$9ja$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #96189 |
On 11/9/2016 8:13 AM, BartC wrote: > On 09/11/2016 12:59, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > >> There are different languages because each language has its advantages >> and its disadvantages. Not every language is suitable for writing >> compilers. > > A compiler is one of the least demanding applications. > > You need a language that can take input from a file, do some processing, > and output another file. > > In other words, practically any language will do! > Great. Let's see you write a C++ compiler in APL. According to you, it should be quite easy. After all, "practically any language will do!". And Robert is correct. Pretty much any program takes input, does something with it and produces output. The actual means of getting input and producing output varies. But that's immaterial compared to what the program does in the middle. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 00:01 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <nvvh7b$c5r$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96201 |
On 9/11/2016 11:55 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > > And Robert is correct. Pretty much any program takes input, does > something with it and produces output. The actual means of getting > input and producing output varies. But that's immaterial compared to > what the program does in the middle. Remember Pavlov's Dogs in psychology? Is it also just input->process->output? Schrödinger's Cat vs. Pavlov's Dog http://www.thinkgeek.com/product/ec00/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 17:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nvvlbn$ujs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96201 |
On 09/11/2016 15:55, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 11/9/2016 8:13 AM, BartC wrote: >> On 09/11/2016 12:59, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> >>> There are different languages because each language has its advantages >>> and its disadvantages. Not every language is suitable for writing >>> compilers. >> >> A compiler is one of the least demanding applications. >> >> You need a language that can take input from a file, do some processing, >> and output another file. >> >> In other words, practically any language will do! >> > > Great. Let's see you write a C++ compiler in APL. According to you, it > should be quite easy. After all, "practically any language will do!". I'd wondered whether I should have qualified my statement with 'except for esoteric languages or those that are hard to code for anyway'. Since someone was sure to challenge it. So congratulations on being the first! (Actually I've no idea how hard it would be in APL. People would presumably choose a language they know well.) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 13:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nvvqcv$jjb$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #96210 |
On 11/9/2016 12:11 PM, BartC wrote: > On 09/11/2016 15:55, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 11/9/2016 8:13 AM, BartC wrote: >>> On 09/11/2016 12:59, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> >>>> There are different languages because each language has its advantages >>>> and its disadvantages. Not every language is suitable for writing >>>> compilers. >>> >>> A compiler is one of the least demanding applications. >>> >>> You need a language that can take input from a file, do some processing, >>> and output another file. >>> >>> In other words, practically any language will do! >>> >> >> Great. Let's see you write a C++ compiler in APL. According to you, it >> should be quite easy. After all, "practically any language will do!". > > I'd wondered whether I should have qualified my statement with 'except > for esoteric languages or those that are hard to code for anyway'. > > Since someone was sure to challenge it. So congratulations on being the > first! > > (Actually I've no idea how hard it would be in APL. People would > presumably choose a language they know well.) > APL is neither esoteric nor hard to code to those familiar with the language. It has some great advantages. But compiler writing would not be one of them. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 15:16 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <tn372ct12qdmc0vmund795e599372tqt5t@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #96184 |
On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 07:59:21 -0500, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote: >On 11/9/2016 6:44 AM, Robert Wessel wrote: >> On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 03:15:27 -0800 (PST), Thiago Adams >> <thiago.adams@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 8:30:41 AM UTC-2, David Brown wrote: >>>> On 08/11/16 23:33, Gareth Owen wrote: >>>>> jacobnavia writes: >>>>> >>>>>> Le 08/11/2016 à 21:12, David Brown a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>>> C++ is the obvious choice if you want a fast compiler. >>>>>> >>>>>> What? >>>>>> >>>>>> It is incredible the things that C++ heads will tell people? A c++ >>>>>> compiler is incredibly slow. lcc-win is 4 or 5 times faster than gcc >>>>>> even when gcc is just compiling C. >>>>> >>>>> GCC isn't written in C++. >>>>> >>>> >>>> gcc was originally written C. A fair number of years ago they moved to >>>> "C++ compatible subset of C". Now it is a mixture of C and C++ (I am >>>> not sure if the C code is compiled as C++, but it is certainly valid to >>>> do so). >>>> >>>> They switched to C++ because it was a much more productive language for >>>> the kind of code needed to keep advancing the compiler. >>>> >>>> The other big modern compiler project is llvm/clang - which is written >>>> in C++. >>>> >>>> Clearly, you /can/ write a C compiler in C. The question is, if one >>>> were planning to write a new C compiler from scratch, without bias based >>>> on which languages you are familiar with and what existing code you have >>>> written (but taking into account easily available common libraries), >>>> would C be a sensible choice of development language for your compiler? >>> >>> >>> For others reasons not necessarily "how easy, how productive, efficient" I think any general language should be compiled with it s own language. C++ compiler should/could be made with C++, otherwise is like "I recommend you to use this, but I don't use it". >>> >>> I believed (I am not too familiar with those languages) that.. >>> >>> Rust compiler is done in Rust (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust) >>> >>> Swift in C++ >>> https://github.com/apple/swift >>> >>> Clang in C++ >>> >>> Go in Go. >>> https://github.com/golang/go >>> >>> Typescript in Typescript >>> https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript >>> >>> ... >>> >>> So I think it's also natural C compiler in C. Unless, you think C language as an portable assembler and don't recommend it for humans. >>> >>> I see the C language as a good choice for high level programming because the important parts (basic and general) are there without much special rules. >> >> >> >> No, that's wrong. Compilers should be written in languages well >> suited to the writing of compilers. There's really very little "low >> level" about what a compiler does, the tiny bit of needed bit >> manipulation is isolated to the end of the code generation step >> (assuming you're actually emitting binary). Of course "suitability" >> encompasses rather more than just the technical features of the >> candidate implementation language: availability (on both current and >> possible future targets), maturity, availability of tool chains, >> likely future(s), not to mention the availability of experienced >> staff. >> >> Many of the non-technical issues argue for C (or quite often these >> days, C++). If nothing else, I expect a C (or C++) compiler to be >> available on whatever platform I might like to host my compiler on a >> decade from now. And I know I can almost any tool I might want, and >> plenty of developers too. >> >> While bootstrapping is much loved in discussion, in reality very few >> compilers are self-hosting. Just consider GCC - only *one* of the >> languages supported by GCC is actually self-hosting (there are eight >> mainstream ones, and a whole bunch of non-mainstream ones). C and C++ >> compilers are the relatively rare exception where a reasonable >> fraction of implementations are actually self hosting. >> >> That being said people have also picked very odd languages for writing >> compilers. I know of (self hosting) Cobol and Basic compilers, and >> Fortran used to be a fairly popular implementation language as well >> (for many of the same, non-technical, reasons C is now). >> > >I agree completely. And I would hate to try to write a Fortran compiler >in Fortran, or a COBOL compiler in COBOL. Although back in the 80's >someone did write a Basic compiler for MS-DOS in Basic. > >There are different languages because each language has its advantages >and its disadvantages. Not every language is suitable for writing >compilers. While I don't know of a Fortran compiler in Fortran, one may well exist. I do know of a number of (non-Fortran) compiler written in Fortran, and I even have an old (60's era) book on compiler construction in Fortran on my bookshelf someplace. The Realia Cobol compiler (now a CA product) is self hosted - although they originally developed it using a mainframe Cobol compiler for the host (one of their main goals was a highly OS/VS Cobol compatible compiler for the PC, for offloading development and applications). There was at least one Apple II Basic compiler written in Applesoft Basic. The later examples provide interesting examples of a non-traditional model of bootstrapping.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 22:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o00pvq$o8c$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #96225 |
On 11/9/2016 4:16 PM, Robert Wessel wrote: > On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 07:59:21 -0500, Jerry Stuckle > <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote: > >> On 11/9/2016 6:44 AM, Robert Wessel wrote: >>> On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 03:15:27 -0800 (PST), Thiago Adams >>> <thiago.adams@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 8:30:41 AM UTC-2, David Brown wrote: >>>>> On 08/11/16 23:33, Gareth Owen wrote: >>>>>> jacobnavia writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Le 08/11/2016 à 21:12, David Brown a écrit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> C++ is the obvious choice if you want a fast compiler. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is incredible the things that C++ heads will tell people? A c++ >>>>>>> compiler is incredibly slow. lcc-win is 4 or 5 times faster than gcc >>>>>>> even when gcc is just compiling C. >>>>>> >>>>>> GCC isn't written in C++. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> gcc was originally written C. A fair number of years ago they moved to >>>>> "C++ compatible subset of C". Now it is a mixture of C and C++ (I am >>>>> not sure if the C code is compiled as C++, but it is certainly valid to >>>>> do so). >>>>> >>>>> They switched to C++ because it was a much more productive language for >>>>> the kind of code needed to keep advancing the compiler. >>>>> >>>>> The other big modern compiler project is llvm/clang - which is written >>>>> in C++. >>>>> >>>>> Clearly, you /can/ write a C compiler in C. The question is, if one >>>>> were planning to write a new C compiler from scratch, without bias based >>>>> on which languages you are familiar with and what existing code you have >>>>> written (but taking into account easily available common libraries), >>>>> would C be a sensible choice of development language for your compiler? >>>> >>>> >>>> For others reasons not necessarily "how easy, how productive, efficient" I think any general language should be compiled with it s own language. C++ compiler should/could be made with C++, otherwise is like "I recommend you to use this, but I don't use it". >>>> >>>> I believed (I am not too familiar with those languages) that.. >>>> >>>> Rust compiler is done in Rust (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust) >>>> >>>> Swift in C++ >>>> https://github.com/apple/swift >>>> >>>> Clang in C++ >>>> >>>> Go in Go. >>>> https://github.com/golang/go >>>> >>>> Typescript in Typescript >>>> https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript >>>> >>>> ... >>>> >>>> So I think it's also natural C compiler in C. Unless, you think C language as an portable assembler and don't recommend it for humans. >>>> >>>> I see the C language as a good choice for high level programming because the important parts (basic and general) are there without much special rules. >>> >>> >>> >>> No, that's wrong. Compilers should be written in languages well >>> suited to the writing of compilers. There's really very little "low >>> level" about what a compiler does, the tiny bit of needed bit >>> manipulation is isolated to the end of the code generation step >>> (assuming you're actually emitting binary). Of course "suitability" >>> encompasses rather more than just the technical features of the >>> candidate implementation language: availability (on both current and >>> possible future targets), maturity, availability of tool chains, >>> likely future(s), not to mention the availability of experienced >>> staff. >>> >>> Many of the non-technical issues argue for C (or quite often these >>> days, C++). If nothing else, I expect a C (or C++) compiler to be >>> available on whatever platform I might like to host my compiler on a >>> decade from now. And I know I can almost any tool I might want, and >>> plenty of developers too. >>> >>> While bootstrapping is much loved in discussion, in reality very few >>> compilers are self-hosting. Just consider GCC - only *one* of the >>> languages supported by GCC is actually self-hosting (there are eight >>> mainstream ones, and a whole bunch of non-mainstream ones). C and C++ >>> compilers are the relatively rare exception where a reasonable >>> fraction of implementations are actually self hosting. >>> >>> That being said people have also picked very odd languages for writing >>> compilers. I know of (self hosting) Cobol and Basic compilers, and >>> Fortran used to be a fairly popular implementation language as well >>> (for many of the same, non-technical, reasons C is now). >>> >> >> I agree completely. And I would hate to try to write a Fortran compiler >> in Fortran, or a COBOL compiler in COBOL. Although back in the 80's >> someone did write a Basic compiler for MS-DOS in Basic. >> >> There are different languages because each language has its advantages >> and its disadvantages. Not every language is suitable for writing >> compilers. > > > While I don't know of a Fortran compiler in Fortran, one may well > exist. I do know of a number of (non-Fortran) compiler written in > Fortran, and I even have an old (60's era) book on compiler > construction in Fortran on my bookshelf someplace. > Ah, but you have to look at the available languages in that era. You basically had Fortran, COBOL, RPG (not the weapon of war!) and autocoder (IBM 1410 version of assembler). What were you going to write a compiler in? And back then, compilers and languages were much more primitive than they are today. > The Realia Cobol compiler (now a CA product) is self hosted - although > they originally developed it using a mainframe Cobol compiler for the > host (one of their main goals was a highly OS/VS Cobol compatible > compiler for the PC, for offloading development and applications). > COBOL would be a bit better than Fortran for a compiler, IMHO. At least it handles strings intelligently. > There was at least one Apple II Basic compiler written in Applesoft > Basic. > Sure, and I remember word processors written in VisiCalc (an early forerunner of Excel) macros. That doesn't mean they were good... > The later examples provide interesting examples of a non-traditional > model of bootstrapping. > I can imagine! -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 23:40 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <6k182cpslen1r6bqrled2h4s4tbb5bf1as@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #96253 |
On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 22:36:53 -0500, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote: >On 11/9/2016 4:16 PM, Robert Wessel wrote: >> On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 07:59:21 -0500, Jerry Stuckle >> <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote: >> >>> On 11/9/2016 6:44 AM, Robert Wessel wrote: >>>> On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 03:15:27 -0800 (PST), Thiago Adams >>>> <thiago.adams@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 8:30:41 AM UTC-2, David Brown wrote: >>>>>> On 08/11/16 23:33, Gareth Owen wrote: >>>>>>> jacobnavia writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Le 08/11/2016 à 21:12, David Brown a écrit : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> C++ is the obvious choice if you want a fast compiler. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is incredible the things that C++ heads will tell people? A c++ >>>>>>>> compiler is incredibly slow. lcc-win is 4 or 5 times faster than gcc >>>>>>>> even when gcc is just compiling C. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> GCC isn't written in C++. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> gcc was originally written C. A fair number of years ago they moved to >>>>>> "C++ compatible subset of C". Now it is a mixture of C and C++ (I am >>>>>> not sure if the C code is compiled as C++, but it is certainly valid to >>>>>> do so). >>>>>> >>>>>> They switched to C++ because it was a much more productive language for >>>>>> the kind of code needed to keep advancing the compiler. >>>>>> >>>>>> The other big modern compiler project is llvm/clang - which is written >>>>>> in C++. >>>>>> >>>>>> Clearly, you /can/ write a C compiler in C. The question is, if one >>>>>> were planning to write a new C compiler from scratch, without bias based >>>>>> on which languages you are familiar with and what existing code you have >>>>>> written (but taking into account easily available common libraries), >>>>>> would C be a sensible choice of development language for your compiler? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> For others reasons not necessarily "how easy, how productive, efficient" I think any general language should be compiled with it s own language. C++ compiler should/could be made with C++, otherwise is like "I recommend you to use this, but I don't use it". >>>>> >>>>> I believed (I am not too familiar with those languages) that.. >>>>> >>>>> Rust compiler is done in Rust (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust) >>>>> >>>>> Swift in C++ >>>>> https://github.com/apple/swift >>>>> >>>>> Clang in C++ >>>>> >>>>> Go in Go. >>>>> https://github.com/golang/go >>>>> >>>>> Typescript in Typescript >>>>> https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript >>>>> >>>>> ... >>>>> >>>>> So I think it's also natural C compiler in C. Unless, you think C language as an portable assembler and don't recommend it for humans. >>>>> >>>>> I see the C language as a good choice for high level programming because the important parts (basic and general) are there without much special rules. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> No, that's wrong. Compilers should be written in languages well >>>> suited to the writing of compilers. There's really very little "low >>>> level" about what a compiler does, the tiny bit of needed bit >>>> manipulation is isolated to the end of the code generation step >>>> (assuming you're actually emitting binary). Of course "suitability" >>>> encompasses rather more than just the technical features of the >>>> candidate implementation language: availability (on both current and >>>> possible future targets), maturity, availability of tool chains, >>>> likely future(s), not to mention the availability of experienced >>>> staff. >>>> >>>> Many of the non-technical issues argue for C (or quite often these >>>> days, C++). If nothing else, I expect a C (or C++) compiler to be >>>> available on whatever platform I might like to host my compiler on a >>>> decade from now. And I know I can almost any tool I might want, and >>>> plenty of developers too. >>>> >>>> While bootstrapping is much loved in discussion, in reality very few >>>> compilers are self-hosting. Just consider GCC - only *one* of the >>>> languages supported by GCC is actually self-hosting (there are eight >>>> mainstream ones, and a whole bunch of non-mainstream ones). C and C++ >>>> compilers are the relatively rare exception where a reasonable >>>> fraction of implementations are actually self hosting. >>>> >>>> That being said people have also picked very odd languages for writing >>>> compilers. I know of (self hosting) Cobol and Basic compilers, and >>>> Fortran used to be a fairly popular implementation language as well >>>> (for many of the same, non-technical, reasons C is now). >>>> >>> >>> I agree completely. And I would hate to try to write a Fortran compiler >>> in Fortran, or a COBOL compiler in COBOL. Although back in the 80's >>> someone did write a Basic compiler for MS-DOS in Basic. >>> >>> There are different languages because each language has its advantages >>> and its disadvantages. Not every language is suitable for writing >>> compilers. >> >> >> While I don't know of a Fortran compiler in Fortran, one may well >> exist. I do know of a number of (non-Fortran) compiler written in >> Fortran, and I even have an old (60's era) book on compiler >> construction in Fortran on my bookshelf someplace. >> > >Ah, but you have to look at the available languages in that era. You >basically had Fortran, COBOL, RPG (not the weapon of war!) and autocoder >(IBM 1410 version of assembler). What were you going to write a >compiler in? Well, compiler development in HLLs tended to be a bit after the 14xx days. But better languages for writing a compiler available at the time would have included Lisp and Algol. >And back then, compilers and languages were much more primitive than >they are today. > >> The Realia Cobol compiler (now a CA product) is self hosted - although >> they originally developed it using a mainframe Cobol compiler for the >> host (one of their main goals was a highly OS/VS Cobol compatible >> compiler for the PC, for offloading development and applications). >> > >COBOL would be a bit better than Fortran for a compiler, IMHO. At least >it handles strings intelligently. OTOH, Fortran (of that era) actually has proper subroutines with parameters, not to mention recursion. There's really not all that much string handling in a compiler past the lexical front end. OTTH, Cobol did structures better. OT4H, neither did dynamic allocation very well. Somewhat relatedly, Fortran was often used as a target language for compilers, much as C is these days, and for the same reason: ubiquity. >> There was at least one Apple II Basic compiler written in Applesoft >> Basic. >> > >Sure, and I remember word processors written in VisiCalc (an early >forerunner of Excel) macros. That doesn't mean they were good... Abuse of tools is a common occurrence. If all you have is a hammer...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 08:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o01trd$a99$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #96256 |
On 11/10/2016 12:40 AM, Robert Wessel wrote: > On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 22:36:53 -0500, Jerry Stuckle > <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote: > >> On 11/9/2016 4:16 PM, Robert Wessel wrote: >>> On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 07:59:21 -0500, Jerry Stuckle >>> <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On 11/9/2016 6:44 AM, Robert Wessel wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 03:15:27 -0800 (PST), Thiago Adams >>>>> <thiago.adams@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 8:30:41 AM UTC-2, David Brown wrote: >>>>>>> On 08/11/16 23:33, Gareth Owen wrote: >>>>>>>> jacobnavia writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Le 08/11/2016 à 21:12, David Brown a écrit : >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> C++ is the obvious choice if you want a fast compiler. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is incredible the things that C++ heads will tell people? A c++ >>>>>>>>> compiler is incredibly slow. lcc-win is 4 or 5 times faster than gcc >>>>>>>>> even when gcc is just compiling C. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> GCC isn't written in C++. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> gcc was originally written C. A fair number of years ago they moved to >>>>>>> "C++ compatible subset of C". Now it is a mixture of C and C++ (I am >>>>>>> not sure if the C code is compiled as C++, but it is certainly valid to >>>>>>> do so). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> They switched to C++ because it was a much more productive language for >>>>>>> the kind of code needed to keep advancing the compiler. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The other big modern compiler project is llvm/clang - which is written >>>>>>> in C++. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Clearly, you /can/ write a C compiler in C. The question is, if one >>>>>>> were planning to write a new C compiler from scratch, without bias based >>>>>>> on which languages you are familiar with and what existing code you have >>>>>>> written (but taking into account easily available common libraries), >>>>>>> would C be a sensible choice of development language for your compiler? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> For others reasons not necessarily "how easy, how productive, efficient" I think any general language should be compiled with it s own language. C++ compiler should/could be made with C++, otherwise is like "I recommend you to use this, but I don't use it". >>>>>> >>>>>> I believed (I am not too familiar with those languages) that.. >>>>>> >>>>>> Rust compiler is done in Rust (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust) >>>>>> >>>>>> Swift in C++ >>>>>> https://github.com/apple/swift >>>>>> >>>>>> Clang in C++ >>>>>> >>>>>> Go in Go. >>>>>> https://github.com/golang/go >>>>>> >>>>>> Typescript in Typescript >>>>>> https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript >>>>>> >>>>>> ... >>>>>> >>>>>> So I think it's also natural C compiler in C. Unless, you think C language as an portable assembler and don't recommend it for humans. >>>>>> >>>>>> I see the C language as a good choice for high level programming because the important parts (basic and general) are there without much special rules. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No, that's wrong. Compilers should be written in languages well >>>>> suited to the writing of compilers. There's really very little "low >>>>> level" about what a compiler does, the tiny bit of needed bit >>>>> manipulation is isolated to the end of the code generation step >>>>> (assuming you're actually emitting binary). Of course "suitability" >>>>> encompasses rather more than just the technical features of the >>>>> candidate implementation language: availability (on both current and >>>>> possible future targets), maturity, availability of tool chains, >>>>> likely future(s), not to mention the availability of experienced >>>>> staff. >>>>> >>>>> Many of the non-technical issues argue for C (or quite often these >>>>> days, C++). If nothing else, I expect a C (or C++) compiler to be >>>>> available on whatever platform I might like to host my compiler on a >>>>> decade from now. And I know I can almost any tool I might want, and >>>>> plenty of developers too. >>>>> >>>>> While bootstrapping is much loved in discussion, in reality very few >>>>> compilers are self-hosting. Just consider GCC - only *one* of the >>>>> languages supported by GCC is actually self-hosting (there are eight >>>>> mainstream ones, and a whole bunch of non-mainstream ones). C and C++ >>>>> compilers are the relatively rare exception where a reasonable >>>>> fraction of implementations are actually self hosting. >>>>> >>>>> That being said people have also picked very odd languages for writing >>>>> compilers. I know of (self hosting) Cobol and Basic compilers, and >>>>> Fortran used to be a fairly popular implementation language as well >>>>> (for many of the same, non-technical, reasons C is now). >>>>> >>>> >>>> I agree completely. And I would hate to try to write a Fortran compiler >>>> in Fortran, or a COBOL compiler in COBOL. Although back in the 80's >>>> someone did write a Basic compiler for MS-DOS in Basic. >>>> >>>> There are different languages because each language has its advantages >>>> and its disadvantages. Not every language is suitable for writing >>>> compilers. >>> >>> >>> While I don't know of a Fortran compiler in Fortran, one may well >>> exist. I do know of a number of (non-Fortran) compiler written in >>> Fortran, and I even have an old (60's era) book on compiler >>> construction in Fortran on my bookshelf someplace. >>> >> >> Ah, but you have to look at the available languages in that era. You >> basically had Fortran, COBOL, RPG (not the weapon of war!) and autocoder >> (IBM 1410 version of assembler). What were you going to write a >> compiler in? > > > Well, compiler development in HLLs tended to be a bit after the 14xx > days. > You said the books were from the 60's. That was the 14xx days. The 360's came out in the late 60's, but 14xx's were still heavily used into the early 70's. I even know of one still in use until around 1979 or 80. Early 360's were expensive, especially when you had to replace most of the peripherals (especially tape and disk drives (punch card readers/punches and printers were still compatible). And you had to recompile all of your code for the new architecture, although you could purchase a 1410 emulator to keep you going while you converted. The whole thing was pretty expensive for companies to make the switch. And yes, these were expensive. Back in 1979 or so I added a second meg of RAM to a mid-sized mainframe (you could get it with one or two meg - that's it). Cost to the customer was $1,000,000 US, just to add one meg. And that was in 1979 dollars. > But better languages for writing a compiler available at the time > would have included Lisp and Algol. > Better, possibly. But neither of these languages were widely used. They weren't even part of many university computer science programs. > >> And back then, compilers and languages were much more primitive than >> they are today. >> >>> The Realia Cobol compiler (now a CA product) is self hosted - although >>> they originally developed it using a mainframe Cobol compiler for the >>> host (one of their main goals was a highly OS/VS Cobol compatible >>> compiler for the PC, for offloading development and applications). >>> >> >> COBOL would be a bit better than Fortran for a compiler, IMHO. At least >> it handles strings intelligently. > > > OTOH, Fortran (of that era) actually has proper subroutines with > parameters, not to mention recursion. There's really not all that > much string handling in a compiler past the lexical front end. OTTH, > Cobol did structures better. OT4H, neither did dynamic allocation > very well. > No, Fortran did not support recursion at that time. It didn't come along until around Fortran 77, IIRC. You're correct neither one had dynamic allocation, but they handled that by subdividing their own large buffers. Not pretty, but it worked. > Somewhat relatedly, Fortran was often used as a target language for > compilers, much as C is these days, and for the same reason: ubiquity. > Yes, it meant they could write one compiler and feed it to a Fortran compiler for different systems. But it was easier to do that than it was to write it in Fortran in the first place. > >>> There was at least one Apple II Basic compiler written in Applesoft >>> Basic. >>> >> >> Sure, and I remember word processors written in VisiCalc (an early >> forerunner of Excel) macros. That doesn't mean they were good... > > > Abuse of tools is a common occurrence. If all you have is a hammer... > As is abuse of languages. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 14:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nvv6ou$4cr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96178 |
On 09/11/16 12:15, Thiago Adams wrote: > On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 8:30:41 AM UTC-2, David Brown > wrote: >> On 08/11/16 23:33, Gareth Owen wrote: >>> jacobnavia writes: >>> >>>> Le 08/11/2016 à 21:12, David Brown a écrit : >>>> >>>>> C++ is the obvious choice if you want a fast compiler. >>>> >>>> What? >>>> >>>> It is incredible the things that C++ heads will tell people? A >>>> c++ compiler is incredibly slow. lcc-win is 4 or 5 times faster >>>> than gcc even when gcc is just compiling C. >>> >>> GCC isn't written in C++. >>> >> >> gcc was originally written C. A fair number of years ago they >> moved to "C++ compatible subset of C". Now it is a mixture of C >> and C++ (I am not sure if the C code is compiled as C++, but it is >> certainly valid to do so). >> >> They switched to C++ because it was a much more productive language >> for the kind of code needed to keep advancing the compiler. >> >> The other big modern compiler project is llvm/clang - which is >> written in C++. >> >> Clearly, you /can/ write a C compiler in C. The question is, if >> one were planning to write a new C compiler from scratch, without >> bias based on which languages you are familiar with and what >> existing code you have written (but taking into account easily >> available common libraries), would C be a sensible choice of >> development language for your compiler? > > > For others reasons not necessarily "how easy, how productive, > efficient" I think any general language should be compiled with it s > own language. C++ compiler should/could be made with C++, otherwise > is like "I recommend you to use this, but I don't use it". > > I believed (I am not too familiar with those languages) that.. > > Rust compiler is done in Rust (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust) > > Swift in C++ https://github.com/apple/swift > > Clang in C++ > > Go in Go. https://github.com/golang/go > > Typescript in Typescript https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript > > ... > > So I think it's also natural C compiler in C. Unless, you think C > language as an portable assembler and don't recommend it for humans. > > > I see the C language as a good choice for high level programming > because the important parts (basic and general) are there without > much special rules. > > Yes, this is perfectly natural. In the same way, a bicycle factory should use bicycles to deliver new bicycles to bicycle shops, and car factories should use cars to transport new cars around. In other words, it is complete bollocks. It might be a fun experiment to write your compiler in its own language, but you should write your compiler in the best language for writing such compilers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 05:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <86c540f5-1a27-45c6-94bb-174f4ba29371@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #96187 |
On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 11:03:00 AM UTC-2, David Brown wrote: > On 09/11/16 12:15, Thiago Adams wrote: > > On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 8:30:41 AM UTC-2, David Brown > > wrote: > >> On 08/11/16 23:33, Gareth Owen wrote: > >>> jacobnavia writes: > >>> > >>>> Le 08/11/2016 à 21:12, David Brown a écrit : > >>>> > >>>>> C++ is the obvious choice if you want a fast compiler. > >>>> > >>>> What? > >>>> > >>>> It is incredible the things that C++ heads will tell people? A > >>>> c++ compiler is incredibly slow. lcc-win is 4 or 5 times faster > >>>> than gcc even when gcc is just compiling C. > >>> > >>> GCC isn't written in C++. > >>> > >> > >> gcc was originally written C. A fair number of years ago they > >> moved to "C++ compatible subset of C". Now it is a mixture of C > >> and C++ (I am not sure if the C code is compiled as C++, but it is > >> certainly valid to do so). > >> > >> They switched to C++ because it was a much more productive language > >> for the kind of code needed to keep advancing the compiler. > >> > >> The other big modern compiler project is llvm/clang - which is > >> written in C++. > >> > >> Clearly, you /can/ write a C compiler in C. The question is, if > >> one were planning to write a new C compiler from scratch, without > >> bias based on which languages you are familiar with and what > >> existing code you have written (but taking into account easily > >> available common libraries), would C be a sensible choice of > >> development language for your compiler? > > > > > > For others reasons not necessarily "how easy, how productive, > > efficient" I think any general language should be compiled with it s > > own language. C++ compiler should/could be made with C++, otherwise > > is like "I recommend you to use this, but I don't use it". > > > > I believed (I am not too familiar with those languages) that.. > > > > Rust compiler is done in Rust (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust) > > > > Swift in C++ https://github.com/apple/swift > > > > Clang in C++ > > > > Go in Go. https://github.com/golang/go > > > > Typescript in Typescript https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript > > > > ... > > > > So I think it's also natural C compiler in C. Unless, you think C > > language as an portable assembler and don't recommend it for humans. > > > > > > I see the C language as a good choice for high level programming > > because the important parts (basic and general) are there without > > much special rules. > > > > > > Yes, this is perfectly natural. In the same way, a bicycle factory > should use bicycles to deliver new bicycles to bicycle shops, and car > factories should use cars to transport new cars around. > > In other words, it is complete bollocks. I have a perfect proverbs in my language "Em casa de ferreiro o espeto é de pau" that I think doesn't exist in English. The literal translation is "In blacksmith's house is the spit stick" Maybe "The cobbler's children always go barefoot." This is when you produce something good and don't use.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 15:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nvvctn$r7n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96190 |
On 09/11/16 14:40, Thiago Adams wrote: > On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 11:03:00 AM UTC-2, David Brown wrote: >> On 09/11/16 12:15, Thiago Adams wrote: >>> >>> So I think it's also natural C compiler in C. Unless, you think C >>> language as an portable assembler and don't recommend it for humans. >>> >>> >>> I see the C language as a good choice for high level programming >>> because the important parts (basic and general) are there without >>> much special rules. >>> >>> >> >> Yes, this is perfectly natural. In the same way, a bicycle factory >> should use bicycles to deliver new bicycles to bicycle shops, and car >> factories should use cars to transport new cars around. >> >> In other words, it is complete bollocks. > > > I have a perfect proverbs in my language "Em casa de ferreiro o espeto é de pau" that I think doesn't exist in English. > > The literal translation is "In blacksmith's house is the spit stick" > > Maybe > > "The cobbler's children always go barefoot." > > This is when you produce something good and don't use. > > The point is, a language can be useful, and a compiler can be useful. That does not mean that it makes sense to use that language to write a compiler for itself. Mostly when I see threads here on the lines of "how do I do this in C?", my immediate thought is "you don't - you use a more appropriate programming language". People are trying to figure out how to read lines of texts from files, or split up strings into words. Instead of a hundred lines of C and many hours of figuring out how strtok works and why your memory is leaking, just write two lines of Python. There are plenty of other languages too - Python is just the example I use here because I am familiar with it. C certainly has its uses as a language - as a programmer of small embedded systems, it is my main choice for such work. (C++ is the main alternative.) It would be wrong to try and program such systems in Python, and it would be wrong to try to write my PC programs in C. But I truly believe that most code that is written in C today, and most people who write code in C, would be better off using something else. You will find that most of the regulars in this group, especially the experts, do most of the work in languages other than C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 19:32 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20161109193232.e0c99a7a130cac9dd60a95c0@g{oogle}mail.com> |
| In reply to | #96196 |
David Brown: >The point is, a language can be useful, and a com- >piler can be useful. That does not mean that it >makes sense to use that language to write a compil- >er for itself. To avoid the reliance on a third-party compiler. -- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 15:34 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <l6572cpvl91kh9vvj3a3bp236p3lj6h355@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #96204 |
On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 19:32:32 +0300, Anton Shepelev
<anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> wrote:
>David Brown:
>
>>The point is, a language can be useful, and a com-
>>piler can be useful. That does not mean that it
>>makes sense to use that language to write a compil-
>>er for itself.
>
>To avoid the reliance on a third-party compiler.
As I said, there are many factors in deciding which implementation
language is "best" for your compiler project. If avoiding reliance on
third party tools is a consideration for you*, then there is a
definite advantage to a self-hosting compiler - you can reuse the one
compiler (possibly with some extensions) for the implementation task.
OTOH, if the target language is unsuitable enough it may actually be
worth it to actually write two compilers - one for implementing the
compiler, and then one for implementing the desired language. And
that's been done too.
*And such a concern is fairly rare, although not non-existent
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 00:43 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <nvvjn0$md1$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96196 |
On 9/11/2016 10:47 PM, David Brown wrote: > The point is, a language can be useful, and a compiler can be useful. > That does not mean that it makes sense to use that language to write a > compiler for itself. Then you can do everything, from the operating system to its applications, using one unified method of informal specification as glue?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 20:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87mvh81l0n.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #96187 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > Yes, this is perfectly natural. In the same way, a bicycle factory > should use bicycles to deliver new bicycles to bicycle shops, and car > factories should use cars to transport new cars around. > > In other words, it is complete bollocks. Quite true, and anyone who disagrees should be forced to write a Fortran77 compiler in Fortran77.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 13:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lnmvh8pcpo.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #96187 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> On 09/11/16 12:15, Thiago Adams wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 8:30:41 AM UTC-2, David Brown
>> wrote:
>>> On 08/11/16 23:33, Gareth Owen wrote:
>>>> jacobnavia writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Le 08/11/2016 à 21:12, David Brown a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>> C++ is the obvious choice if you want a fast compiler.
>>>>>
>>>>> What?
>>>>>
>>>>> It is incredible the things that C++ heads will tell people? A
>>>>> c++ compiler is incredibly slow. lcc-win is 4 or 5 times faster
>>>>> than gcc even when gcc is just compiling C.
[...]
> Yes, this is perfectly natural. In the same way, a bicycle factory
> should use bicycles to deliver new bicycles to bicycle shops, and car
> factories should use cars to transport new cars around.
>
> In other words, it is complete bollocks.
>
> It might be a fun experiment to write your compiler in its own language,
> but you should write your compiler in the best language for writing such
> compilers.
It's hardly *complete* bollocks.
Certainly there are advantages in choosing the best implementation
language for a compiler, and all else being equal you should choose
the language that is best for that task. Using the same language
as the one you're compiling for doesn't give you much *direct*
advantage.
On the other hand, if the target language is suitable for use in
writing a compiler there are some real advantages in self-hosting.
Say you're using language X to write a compiler for language Y.
If X==Y, then improvements in the speed of the generated code
translate to improvements in compile time speed as soon as you
recompile. And if you're implementing a compiler for a *new*
language, one that you're redefining as you implement it, then
writing a compiler in it can give you a lot of experience in actually
using it.
(I once heard about a COBOL compiler written in COBOL. Not the
choice I would have made, but apparently it worked pretty well.)
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 11:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o01hgp$hd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96228 |
On 09/11/16 22:25, Keith Thompson wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >> On 09/11/16 12:15, Thiago Adams wrote: >>> On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 8:30:41 AM UTC-2, David Brown >>> wrote: >>>> On 08/11/16 23:33, Gareth Owen wrote: >>>>> jacobnavia writes: >>>>> >>>>>> Le 08/11/2016 à 21:12, David Brown a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>>> C++ is the obvious choice if you want a fast compiler. >>>>>> >>>>>> What? >>>>>> >>>>>> It is incredible the things that C++ heads will tell people? A >>>>>> c++ compiler is incredibly slow. lcc-win is 4 or 5 times faster >>>>>> than gcc even when gcc is just compiling C. > [...] >> Yes, this is perfectly natural. In the same way, a bicycle factory >> should use bicycles to deliver new bicycles to bicycle shops, and car >> factories should use cars to transport new cars around. >> >> In other words, it is complete bollocks. >> >> It might be a fun experiment to write your compiler in its own language, >> but you should write your compiler in the best language for writing such >> compilers. > > It's hardly *complete* bollocks. Fair enough - "complete" is an exaggeration. > > Certainly there are advantages in choosing the best implementation > language for a compiler, and all else being equal you should choose > the language that is best for that task. Using the same language > as the one you're compiling for doesn't give you much *direct* > advantage. > > On the other hand, if the target language is suitable for use in > writing a compiler there are some real advantages in self-hosting. > Say you're using language X to write a compiler for language Y. > If X==Y, then improvements in the speed of the generated code > translate to improvements in compile time speed as soon as you > recompile. And if you're implementing a compiler for a *new* > language, one that you're redefining as you implement it, then > writing a compiler in it can give you a lot of experience in actually > using it. Yes, I agree on that - especially for new and evolving languages. That is a good argument for implementing a Rust compiler in Rust, for example. It must still be weighed against the suitability of the language for implementing a compiler, of course. And you have a bootstrap challenge - you need to make at least a basic compiler or interpreter in a different language in order to get going. Unless you are expecting massive popularity from your language, it is certainly questionable whether it is worth the effort re-doing the compiler or interpreter in your new language, rather than just enhancing your bootstrap tool. (This does not apply to C compilers, of course - C is hardly a new language! But the discussion has become a little more general since it started.) > > (I once heard about a COBOL compiler written in COBOL. Not the > choice I would have made, but apparently it worked pretty well.) >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 19:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87r36k1l4w.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #96174 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > On 08/11/16 23:33, Gareth Owen wrote: >> jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes: >> >>> Le 08/11/2016 à 21:12, David Brown a écrit : >>> >>>> C++ is the obvious choice if you want a fast compiler. >>> >>> What? >>> >>> It is incredible the things that C++ heads will tell people? A c++ >>> compiler is incredibly slow. lcc-win is 4 or 5 times faster than gcc >>> even when gcc is just compiling C. >> >> GCC isn't written in C++. >> > > gcc was originally written C. A fair number of years ago they moved to > "C++ compatible subset of C". Now it is a mixture of C and C++ (I am > not sure if the C code is compiled as C++, but it is certainly valid to > do so). Yes, but there are so few C++ features used at present that to declare that its sloth is because of C++ is deeply disingenuous. > The other big modern compiler project is llvm/clang - which is written > in C++. This would've been a much better example. > Clearly, you /can/ write a C compiler in C. The question is, if one > were planning to write a new C compiler from scratch, without bias based > on which languages you are familiar with and what existing code you have > written (but taking into account easily available common libraries), > would C be a sensible choice of development language for your compiler? No. Honestly, I don't think C is a sensible implementation language for anything but constrained embedded work and hardcore bit-banging these days.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 12:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3e47c9bc-1c0a-40dc-9dc3-92e88ace6c31@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #96216 |
On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 5:57:58 PM UTC-2, gwowen wrote: > No. Honestly, I don't think C is a sensible implementation language for > anything but constrained embedded work and hardcore bit-banging these days. What do you thing about these: - web servers - javascript engines - Anything that runs on cloud server - protocols http (e-mail etc , SSL) - graphics cairo - git - industry equipment protocol - Anything runs on IOT devices I never thought I would had to give arguments to use C in a list of C. I am starting to think this list has no C programmers, but maybe curious people about C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web