Re: Language used to write compilers

Martin Ward wrote:
>
>>There are three essential aspects to writing a good compiler (which
>>probably apply to most software anyway): it is well-designed; it is
>>correct; it is efficient. Of these three, the first two are far more
>>important than the third.
>>...
>>A possible fourth aspect will be that the compiler emits
>>well-optimised code, if this is in fact a specific requirement of
>>your compiler.


> I would put the efficiency of the generated code higher than the
> efficiency of the compiler. Generally, more CPU cycles are spent
> executing compiled code than on running the compiler (with the
> possible exception of Gentoo Linux systems...)


"It all depends"(tm). If you're writing a compiler for "production"
use, then true. If you're writing something for an educational
environment, than features like good diagnostics, speed of
compilation, etc. are the chief goals, and execution speed is far down
the list. The expectation is that a program in this environment will
be compiled many times, executed (successfully) once, then never run
again. PL/C is a good example of a compiler that did this very well.


[It seems to me that even places that care about performance do vastly
more compiling for debugging than for long runs, so even compilers
with whizzo back end optimizations would benefit from better
diagnostics. -John]

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