|UNCOL = Uncool? email@example.com (SRS) (2000-10-19)|
|Re: UNCOL = Uncool? firstname.lastname@example.org (Daniel C. Wang) (2000-10-22)|
|Re: UNCOL = Uncool? email@example.com (2000-10-22)|
|Re: UNCOL = Uncool? firstname.lastname@example.org (Peter Gammie) (2000-10-23)|
|Re: UNCOL = Uncool? email@example.com.OZ.AU (2000-10-23)|
|Re: UNCOL = Uncool? firstname.lastname@example.org (Daniel C. Wang) (2000-10-23)|
|Re: UNCOL = Uncool? email@example.com (Chris F Clark) (2000-10-23)|
|Re: UNCOL = Uncool? firstname.lastname@example.org.OZ.AU (2000-10-26)|
|[6 later articles]|
|From:||"Daniel C. Wang" <email@example.com>|
|Date:||22 Oct 2000 01:09:04 -0400|
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
[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
Search the comp.compilers archives again.