|p-code compilers firstname.lastname@example.org (Bogomil Alexondrov) (1999-01-22)|
|Re: p-code compilers email@example.com (1999-01-23)|
|Re: p-code compilers firstname.lastname@example.org (1999-01-23)|
|Re: p-code compilers email@example.com (Derek Ross) (1999-01-23)|
|Re: p-code compilers firstname.lastname@example.org (1999-01-25)|
|Re: p-code compilers email@example.com (Toon Moene) (1999-01-25)|
|Re: p-code compilers firstname.lastname@example.org (Aaron F. Stanton) (1999-01-27)|
|Re: p-code compilers email@example.com (1999-01-27)|
|Re: p-code compilers firstname.lastname@example.org (Robert Howard) (1999-01-31)|
|[1 later articles]|
|From:||email@example.com (Gene Wirchenko)|
|Date:||23 Jan 1999 17:31:09 -0500|
|Organization:||Posted via RemarQ, http://www.remarQ.com - Discussions start here!|
Bogomil Alexondrov <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>Does somebody know a website focused on pseudo code compilers and
>especially possible optimizations for it. btw can a program not
>generating machine code but pseudo code be called compiler or is it a
>translator? what is the exact definition for compiler? Java is
>generating pseudo code so it must be a translator rather than
1) Very simply. It fits the definition. (If I build a machine that
has as its instruction set the instruction set of a P-machine, does
that change the classification of previously written language
translators that generate that formerly P-code? I don't think so. To
me, it wouldn't be a useful distinction.)
2) The ACM came up with definitions. I don't know where to go to
find them, but recall reading them some time ago.
3) It's both.
>Thanks in advance for any help
Are you sure you want to thank me?
This could get into a religious war. There's a similar one on
alt.folklore.computers where someone is claiming that FORTH is an
assembly language. His argument does have it point, but it seems to
be stretching things a bit much for my comfort.
>Best Regards: Bogomil Alexandrov
>[I've never made a strong distinction between translators and compilers.
>I suppose if the output is supposed to be legible to people it's a
>translator, if it's just for computers it's a compiler. -John]
I learned it as language translators include assemblers and
[One or two more messages on this topic and I'll end it, since the
definitions are clearly matters of religious preference. -John]
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.