Re: Pascal vs. linkers, was The History of the ALGOL Effort

Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com>
11 Sep 2006 23:57:46 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
The History of the ALGOL Effort H.T.de.Beer@gmail.com (HT de Beer) (2006-08-14)
Re: The History of the ALGOL Effort gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2006-08-15)
Re: The History of the ALGOL Effort Juergen.Kahrs@vr-web.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Kahrs?=) (2006-08-18)
Re: The History of the ALGOL Effort p_ludemann@yahoo.com (Peter Ludemann) (2006-08-29)
Re: The History of the ALGOL Effort henry@spsystems.net (2006-09-11)
Re: Pascal vs. linkers, was The History of the ALGOL Effort walter@bytecraft.com (Walter Banks) (2006-09-11)
Re: Pascal vs. linkers, was The History of the ALGOL Effort Juergen.Kahrs@vr-web.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Kahrs?=) (2006-09-11)
Re: Pascal vs. linkers, was The History of the ALGOL Effort Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com (Peter Flass) (2006-09-11)
Re: Pascal vs. linkers, was The History of the ALGOL Effort gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2006-09-12)
Re: Pascal vs. linkers, was The History of the ALGOL Effort bonzini@gnu.org (Paolo Bonzini) (2006-09-12)
Re: Pascal vs. linkers, was The History of the ALGOL Effort Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com (Peter Flass) (2006-09-12)
Re: Pascal vs. linkers, was The History of the ALGOL Effort news@tom.iecc.com (2006-09-12)
Re: Pascal vs. linkers, was The History of the ALGOL Effort wclodius@lanl.gov (2006-09-12)
Re: Pascal vs. linkers, was The History of the ALGOL Effort cbarron413@adelphia.net (Carl Barron) (2006-09-13)
[2 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 11 Sep 2006 23:57:46 -0400
Organization: Road Runner
References: 06-08-082 06-08-086 06-08-105 06-08-138 06-09-050 06-09-051
Keywords: linker, comment
Posted-Date: 11 Sep 2006 23:57:46 EDT

Walter Banks wrote:


> C and PL360 grew out of separate roots. I think the reason that
> C had separate compilation was as least as much that the PDP11
> memory wouldn't hold enough symbols. This was solved with link
> editors and separate compilation. A culture has grown out of C's
> linking traditions that remains long after linking is a necessity. I
> have never heard an overwhelming reason why C should have
> separate compilation.


I can't imagine working on a system without it. If nothing else it
serves to compartmentalize your thinking in a way that having "all
source, all the time" doesn't. A programmer can compile and test a
module, and then put it on the shelf to work on other stuff. It
reduces what he has to think about and also reduces the temptation to
tinker.


The only good alternative, as I see it, is Multics-style dynamic
linking, that effectively serves the same purpose.
[No separate compilation doesn't mean no subroutines and no libraries.
It means that the compiler slurps up all the source code to all the
subroutines and libraries every time you recompile. -John]

Post a followup to this message

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