|[8 earlier articles]|
|Re: State of the Art email@example.com (2008-07-23)|
|Re: State of the Art firstname.lastname@example.org (Aaron Gray) (2008-07-24)|
|Re: State of the Art email@example.com (Tony Finch) (2008-07-25)|
|Re: State of the Art firstname.lastname@example.org (johnhull2008) (2008-07-28)|
|Re: State of the Art email@example.com (kamal) (2008-07-28)|
|Re: State of the Art firstname.lastname@example.org (Matt Luckman) (2008-07-29)|
|Re: State of the Art email@example.com (2008-08-03)|
|From:||firstname.lastname@example.org (Anton Ertl)|
|Date:||Sun, 03 Aug 2008 17:10:33 GMT|
|Organization:||Institut fuer Computersprachen, Technische Universitaet Wien|
|References:||08-07-040 08-07-042 08-07-046|
|Posted-Date:||03 Aug 2008 14:58:10 EDT|
"Aleksey Demakov" <email@example.com> writes:
>Is there anything relatively new (say not described by Muchnik) that
>became or going to become widely used? Something that clearly wins
>over older algorithms.
Ten years may be too short for most techniques to become widely used.
Even parser generators and SSA form, which are probably as successful
as any technique, have taken longer to catch on. E.g., SSA form has
only been used in GCC a few years ago, and lots of people still write
parsers by hand.
Concerning trends, I see a few:
- Multi-core CPUs (and SMT) require better support for multi-threaded
programs (but with language support, auto-parallelization is too
hard). In that vein, there has been a lot of work published on
software transactional memory in recent years; we'll see if that
- Using static analysis and type checking techniques for determining
additional properties of programs, e.g., wrt security.
M. Anton Ertl
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.