Re: Implementation Language Choice

Ken Rose <kenrose@tfb.com>
13 Feb 2004 23:49:26 -0500

From comp.compilers

Related articles
Implementation Language Choice kevin@albrecht.net (Kevin Albrecht) (2004-02-12)
*Re: Implementation Language Choice kenrose@tfb.com (Ken Rose)* (2004-02-13)**
Re: Implementation Language Choice wienczny@web.de (Stephan Wienczny) (2004-02-13)
Re: Implementation Language Choice basile-news@starynkevitch.net (Basile Starynkevitch \[news\]) (2004-02-13)
Re: Implementation Language Choice joachim.durchholz@web.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2004-02-13)
Re: Implementation Language Choice kevin@albrecht.net (Kevin Albrecht) (2004-02-13)
Re: Implementation Language Choice lex@cc.gatech.edu (Lex Spoon) (2004-02-26)
Re: Implementation Language Choice joachim.durchholz@web.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2004-02-26)
[9 later articles]

From:	Ken Rose <kenrose@tfb.com>
Newsgroups:	comp.compilers
Date:	13 Feb 2004 23:49:26 -0500
Organization:	Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
References:	04-02-109
Keywords:	design
Posted-Date:	13 Feb 2004 23:49:26 EST

Kevin Albrecht wrote:

> What languages have others found useful as implementation
> languages?

Objective Caml. (http://www.ocaml.org)

A post in the archives
(http://compilers.iecc.com/comparch/article/98-07-220) says why far
better than I could. BURG is now available for OCaml, too. See
http://compilers.iecc.com/comparch/article/02-03-031 for the announcement.

- ken