Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.programming > #954 > unrolled thread

Roslyn compilers

Back to article view | Back to comp.programming

Contents

  Roslyn compilers Notinheritable <long3131@gmail.com> - 2011-10-25 07:55 -0700
    Re: Roslyn compilers Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-10-25 09:29 -0700
    Re: Roslyn compilers Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-10-25 11:50 -0500
      Re: Roslyn compilers Notinheritable <long3131@gmail.com> - 2011-10-26 08:14 -0700
        Re: Roslyn compilers Joe Wright <joewwright@comcast.net> - 2011-10-26 15:15 -0400
        Re: Roslyn compilers Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-10-26 15:58 -0500

#954 — Roslyn compilers

why rewrite both c# and vb compilers. Without starting some kind of
language debate, why can't Microsoft rewrite only one of the
compilers? Why the duplicated effort?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#955

Notinheritable <long3131@gmail.com> writes:

> why rewrite both c# and vb compilers. Without starting some kind of
> language debate, why can't Microsoft rewrite only one of the
> compilers? Why the duplicated effort?

What makes you think that MS can't rewrite just one of their
compilers?
-- 
Ben Pfaff 
http://benpfaff.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#956

On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 07:55:04 -0700 (PDT), Notinheritable
<long3131@gmail.com> wrote:

>why rewrite both c# and vb compilers. Without starting some kind of
>language debate, why can't Microsoft rewrite only one of the
>compilers? Why the duplicated effort?


Presumably because both languages have huge user bases.  And while
much of the serious world (including apparently MS, internally)
prefers C#, I think VB has a rather larger number of users.  So even
if they'd prefer to do only C#, they're probably compelled by their
user base to do VB too.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#958

On Oct 25, 6:50 pm, Robert Wessel <robertwess...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 07:55:04 -0700 (PDT),Notinheritable
>
> <long3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >why rewrite both c# and vb compilers. Without starting some kind of
> >language debate, why can't Microsoft rewrite only one of the
> >compilers? Why the duplicated effort?
>
> Presumably because both languages have huge user bases.  And while
> much of the serious world (including apparently MS, internally)
> prefers C#, I think VB has a rather larger number of users.  So even
> if they'd prefer to do only C#, they're probably compelled by their
> user base to do VB too.


Yes, I didn't mean that they should only write a c# or vb compiler.
What I meant was, why don't they write a single compiler for both,
maybe keep the code in c++ utilizing managed extensions or something
like that. Soon they will be rewriting the f# compiler as well.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#960

On 10/26/2011 11:14, Notinheritable wrote:
> On Oct 25, 6:50�pm, Robert Wessel<robertwess...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 07:55:04 -0700 (PDT),Notinheritable
>>
>> <long3...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>> why rewrite both c# and vb compilers. Without starting some kind of
>>> language debate, why can't Microsoft rewrite only one of the
>>> compilers? Why the duplicated effort?
>>
>> Presumably because both languages have huge user bases. �And while
>> much of the serious world (including apparently MS, internally)
>> prefers C#, I think VB has a rather larger number of users. �So even
>> if they'd prefer to do only C#, they're probably compelled by their
>> user base to do VB too.
>
>
> Yes, I didn't mean that they should only write a c# or vb compiler.
> What I meant was, why don't they write a single compiler for both,
> maybe keep the code in c++ utilizing managed extensions or something
> like that. Soon they will be rewriting the f# compiler as well.
>
My guess is that CS and VB are already the same compiler. I attended a 
training course a while back which had us writing the same application in 
either language with identical results.

-- 
Joe Wright
"If you rob Peter to pay Paul you can depend on the support of Paul."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#961

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 12:18:02 -0500, Robert Wessel
<robertwessel2@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 08:14:57 -0700 (PDT), Notinheritable
><long3131@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Oct 25, 6:50 pm, Robert Wessel <robertwess...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 07:55:04 -0700 (PDT),Notinheritable
>>>
>>> <long3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >why rewrite both c# and vb compilers. Without starting some kind of
>>> >language debate, why can't Microsoft rewrite only one of the
>>> >compilers? Why the duplicated effort?
>>>
>>> Presumably because both languages have huge user bases.  And while
>>> much of the serious world (including apparently MS, internally)
>>> prefers C#, I think VB has a rather larger number of users.  So even
>>> if they'd prefer to do only C#, they're probably compelled by their
>>> user base to do VB too.
>>
>>
>>Yes, I didn't mean that they should only write a c# or vb compiler.
>>What I meant was, why don't they write a single compiler for both,
>>maybe keep the code in c++ utilizing managed extensions or something
>>like that. Soon they will be rewriting the f# compiler as well.
>
>
>Taking the multiple front-ends / multiple back ends approach (assuming
>you want to support multiple targets as well), has its downsides too.
>And not having multiple back ends (as is mostly a case for .NET
>compilers), reduces the benefits for that approach.   It tends to make
>compiler development a lot more rigid, in terms of being able to add
>features to any one language, because you're now stuck coordinating
>with everyone else.  While a common back end supporting both VB and C#
>should not be a particular problem, F# support would be a good example
>of requiring major surgery to a back end.
>
>Which is not to say that certain compilers might not share a fair bit
>of code under the hood - I'm not privy to MS compiler development
>internals - but you're probably over estimating that cost to MS of
>having multiple back ends.  Especially in the case of .NET, where
>large amount of the compilation/optimization work is deferred to the
>JIT anyway (which you might quite reasonable consider to be the back
>end), leaving the nominal back ends simpler than you'd see in most
>cases of native compilers.
>
>But people have done it, and continue to do it, both ways.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.programming

csiph-web