|Learning compiler technology firstname.lastname@example.org (Jami) (2000-06-20)|
|Re: Learning compiler technology email@example.com (Jacques Thibault) (2000-06-22)|
|Re: Learning compiler technology firstname.lastname@example.org (2000-06-27)|
|Re: Learning compiler technology email@example.com (John H. Lindsay) (2000-06-27)|
|Re: Learning compiler technology firstname.lastname@example.org (Armel) (2000-06-27)|
|Date:||27 Jun 2000 00:53:33 -0400|
|Organization:||Deja.com - Before you buy.|
I first became interested in compilers in college in 1983.
I got a couple books from a book club (back when book clubs had *real*
computer science books).
The best two on compilers I got were:
"Compiler Construction" by Waite and Goos.
(this book is VERY heavy on formal language theory. ei, a LOT
of set theory notation. It can look like gibberish if you
don't have a GOOD foundatin in set theory)
"Assemblers, Compilers, and Program Translation" by Peter Calingaert
(an excellent "how to" book, without all of the set theory.
it shows you how the internal compiler tables are implemented
as well as how to optimize them for space)
The best thing after getting some knowledge on a compiler's "innerds"
is to select a SIMPLE language and jumping into it. The language
Smalltalk is an excellent first language to learn to compile. It has
few (about 5-6) keywords, NO DATA TYPES!, and a very easy grammar to
learn. My MVS/Smalltalk compiler (written in COBOL no less) has only
24 lexical states, 31 lexical character classes, and 17 tokens. Plus,
the target machine (machine code) for Smalltalk is a simple stack
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.