Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| UNCOL = Uncool? sskaflot@online.no (SRS) (2000-10-19) |
| Re: UNCOL = Uncool? danwang+news@cs.princeton.edu (Daniel C. Wang) (2000-10-22) |
| Re: UNCOL = Uncool? vbdis@aol.com (2000-10-22) |
| Re: UNCOL = Uncool? peteg@cse.unsw.edu.au (Peter Gammie) (2000-10-23) |
| Re: UNCOL = Uncool? fjh@cs.mu.OZ.AU (2000-10-23) |
| Re: UNCOL = Uncool? danwang+news@cs.princeton.edu (Daniel C. Wang) (2000-10-23) |
| Re: UNCOL = Uncool? cfc@world.std.com (Chris F Clark) (2000-10-23) |
| Re: UNCOL = Uncool? fjh@cs.mu.OZ.AU (2000-10-26) |
| [6 later articles] |
| From: | "Daniel C. Wang" <danwang+news@cs.princeton.edu> |
| 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?]
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.