Re: Language used to write compilers

On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 12:58:39AM -0500, Nick Maclaren wrote:
> Hmm. Firstly, I would say "a little easier" - compilers are pretty
> simple programs in terms of memory management.


Until you consider that compilers generally do plenty of string
handling, and that in C strings are second-class entities that you
must manually allocate and deallocate whenever needed. There are also
a lot of other complex dynamic data structures that must be maintained
by any compiler of serious scope, such as syntax trees, the various
graph structures used for code optimization, and so forth. I would
hardly call programs that used so many dynamic data structures "simple
programs in terms of memory management".


> Secondly, and more importantly, ignoring those aspects leads to the
> sort of abominable compilers that we are inflicted with today.


These aspects are not ignored. Automatic garbage collection and
memory management leaves these aspects in the hands of the machine,
which can do a reasonable job, leaving the programmer to concentrate
on the actual problem, not extra bookkeeping.


Perhaps it is because these aspects are truly ignored, implemented under
systems that don't support automating the process, that you have the
abominable compilers you describe.
--
kurayami de wa neko wa subete haiiro...
http://stormwyrm.blogspot.com/

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