Re: The History of the ALGOL Effort

glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu>
12 Sep 2006 00:02:29 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[6 earlier articles]
Re: The History of the ALGOL Effort p_ludemann@yahoo.com (Peter Ludemann) (2006-08-29)
Re: The History of the ALGOL Effort ArarghMail608@Arargh.com (2006-08-30)
Re: The History of the ALGOL Effort alexc@TheWorld.com (Alex Colvin) (2006-08-31)
Re: The History of the ALGOL Effort henry@spsystems.net (2006-09-11)
Re: The History of the ALGOL Effort Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com (Peter Flass) (2006-09-11)
Re: The History of the ALGOL Effort cbarron413@adelphia.net (Carl Barron) (2006-09-12)
Re: The History of the ALGOL Effort gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2006-09-12)
Re: The History of the ALGOL Effort ArarghMail609@Arargh.com (2006-09-12)
Re: The History of the ALGOL Effort gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2006-09-12)
Re: The History of the ALGOL Effort alewando@fala2005.com (A.L.) (2006-09-12)
Re: The History of the ALGOL Effort gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2006-09-13)
Re: The History of the ALGOL Effort H.T.de.Beer@gmail.com (HT de Beer) (2006-09-16)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 12 Sep 2006 00:02:29 -0400
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 06-08-082 06-08-086 06-08-105 06-08-138 06-09-050
Keywords: history, linker

Henry Spencer wrote:


(snip regarding Pascal and languages that don't allow for separate
compilation.)


> And that, in turn, contributed to the rise of C, because the fact was that
> people needed and wanted separate compilation.


I would probably argue that wasn't the primary reason, but it may
have contributed.


(snip)


> [Back in the 1970s at Dartmouth, the DTSS compilers were also so fast that
> they didn't have a linker and for most purposes, didn't even bother to
> save object code. They finally wrote a linker in about 1976 when they
> added PL/I. -John]


WATFIV, one of the fastest compilers I used to use, had no ability to
generate IBM standard object modules, but it could read them. They
could be generated from assembly code, or from IBM's Fortran compilers.


-- glen
[WATFOR and WATFIV generated fairly lousy code, but it was plenty fast for
the student jobs we used it for. -John]



Post a followup to this message

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