Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| [4 earlier articles] |
| Re: fledgling assembler programmer david.brown@hesbynett.no (David Brown) (2023-03-22) |
| Re: fledgling assembler programmer gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2023-03-22) |
| Re: fledgling assembler programmer gah4@u.washington.edu (gah4) (2023-03-22) |
| Re: fledgling assembler programmer tkoenig@netcologne.de (Thomas Koenig) (2023-03-23) |
| Re: fledgling assembler programmer arnold@skeeve.com (2023-03-23) |
| Re: fledgling assembler programmer gah4@u.washington.edu (gah4) (2023-03-24) |
| Re: fledgling assembler programmer DrDiettrich1@netscape.net (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2023-03-25) |
| Re: fledgling assembler programmer gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2023-03-25) |
| Portable Software (was: fledgling assembler programmer) DrDiettrich1@netscape.net (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2023-03-28) |
| Re: Portable Software (was: fledgling assembler programmer) arnold@freefriends.org (2023-03-28) |
| Re: Portable Software (was: fledgling assembler programmer) gah4@u.washington.edu (gah4) (2023-03-28) |
| Re: Portable Software (was: fledgling assembler programmer) gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2023-03-28) |
| Re: Portable python Software (was: fledgling assembler programmer) gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2023-03-29) |
| [12 later articles] |
| From: | Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@netscape.net> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | Sat, 25 Mar 2023 13:07:57 +0100 |
| Organization: | Compilers Central |
| References: | 23-03-001 23-03-002 23-03-003 23-03-007 23-03-008 23-03-012 |
| Injection-Info: | gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="26493"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" |
| Keywords: | C |
| Posted-Date: | 25 Mar 2023 10:49:24 EDT |
| In-Reply-To: | 23-03-012 |
| Content-Language: | en-US |
On 3/24/23 10:17 PM, gah4 wrote:
> Fortran G was not written by IBM, but contracted out. And is not
> (mostly) in assembler, but in something called POP. That is, it
> is interpreted by the POP interpreter, with POPcode written using
> assembler macros. Doing that, for one, allows reusing the code
> for other machines, though you still need to rewrite the code
> generator. But also, at least likely, it decreases the size of
> the compiler. POP instructions are optimized for things that
> compiler need to do.
After a look at "open software" I was astonished by the number of
languages and steps involved in writing portable C code. Also updates of
popular programs (Firefox...) are delayed by months on some platforms,
IMO due to missing manpower on the target systems for checks and the
adaptation of "configure". Now I understand why many people prefer
interpreted languages (Java, JavaScript, Python, .NET...) for a
simplification of their software products and spreading.
What's the actual ranking of programming languages? A JetBrains study
does not list any compiled language in their first 7 ranks in 2022. C++
follows on rank 8.
What does that trend mean to a compiler group? Interpreted languages
still need a front-end (parser) and back-end (interpreter), but don't
these tasks differ between languages compiled to hardware or interpretation?
DoDi
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.