Re: UNCOL = Uncool?

"Daniel C. Wang" <>
22 Oct 2000 01:09:04 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
UNCOL = Uncool? (SRS) (2000-10-19)
Re: UNCOL = Uncool? (Daniel C. Wang) (2000-10-22)
Re: UNCOL = Uncool? (2000-10-22)
Re: UNCOL = Uncool? (Peter Gammie) (2000-10-23)
Re: UNCOL = Uncool? (2000-10-23)
Re: UNCOL = Uncool? (Daniel C. Wang) (2000-10-23)
Re: UNCOL = Uncool? (Chris F Clark) (2000-10-23)
Re: UNCOL = Uncool? (2000-10-26)
[6 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |

From: "Daniel C. Wang" <>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 22 Oct 2000 01:09:04 -0400
Organization: Princeton University
References: 00-10-139
Keywords: UNCOL

Our moderator writes...

> [Given the uniform failure of all previous UNCOL attempts, I'd be pretty
> sceptical. I agree it's possible if you limit the source languages and
> targets enough, but then it's usually not very interesting, either. -John]

I think, that's a bit pessimistic... given the success of C as an
UNCOL... C isn't perfect but, I wouldn't be too surprised if someone
could fix most of the problems with using C as an UNCOL.. and
delivered a product....

Let's also not forget that the OmniVM (before it was swallowed by MS)
was producing binaries for x86, Sparc, and PowerPC with around a 5%
degradation in native performance...

Also other than the original UNCOL paper (circa 1950 right?) the only
other high profile UNCOL like language I remember was ANDF... I think
ANDF failed for other reasons and that UNCOL's are not an obviously
hopless idea...
[You're falling in the classic UNCOL trap: it looks good for some cases,
we just have to generalize it a little bit. That's always where it fails.
-John PS: Can you fix that sticky . key?]

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.