Re: How to justify teaching compilers

I would think that implementing a shell language would be just as
effective these days.


I have always enjoyed teaching compiler writing, but I must face that
what I taught (simple precedence, state transition diagrams, yacc,
lex, etc.) is not really relevant to compiler writing anymore. The
concerns with very serious optimization and especially the complete
implementation of classes and other higher order structures could, to
me, be any excellent way of losing sight of what the course was
supposed to do. Not all CS students will be helped to competency by
writing a Java compiler that generates code for the Zilog Z8 or Z80.


And I will admit to hubris by telling all that I was more wrapped up
in the syntactic part of the compiler than good design of the tables,
a serious manner of handling the syntax, and some generalized means of
code generation. The last time I looked at the dragon book it seemed
to be mostly syntax.


john slimick
slimick@pitt.edu


===============================================


Pg Nor Jaidi Pg Tuah wrote:
> If you can compromise and reduce compiler to just a few hours of
> lectures (embedded in, say, "systems programming"), what would you
> cover?

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