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

Carl Barron <cbarron413@adelphia.net>
13 Sep 2006 02:27:45 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[7 earlier articles]
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)
Re: Pascal vs. linkers, was The History of the ALGOL Effort walter@bytecraft.com (Walter Banks) (2006-09-16)
Re: Pascal vs. linkers, was The History of the ALGOL Effort Juergen.Kahrs@vr-web.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Kahrs?=) (2006-09-16)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Carl Barron <cbarron413@adelphia.net>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 13 Sep 2006 02:27:45 -0400
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 06-08-082 06-08-086 06-08-105 06-08-138 06-09-050 06-09-051 06-09-057 06-09-066
Keywords: history
Posted-Date: 13 Sep 2006 02:27:45 EDT

In article 06-09-066, Peter Flass
<Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> wrote:


> One other thought on separate compilation. This wasn't relevant to
> older card/tape systems, but minis and micros originally had extremely
> limited storage. The typical editor either sucks the entire contents
> of the file being edited into memory, or else edits block-by-block
> like PDP-8 editors. In either case, working with the entirety of a
> large program is not particularly convienent, and separate compilation
> lets you edit the program a logical piece at a time.


Memory was the problem, even the 'mainframes' were not memory hogs, an
ibm7044 had a 64K address space of 36 bit words. Things were too
expensive for interactive editing, but they surely suffered from low
memory available problems and running on tape as the 'fast io' surely
lead early to separate compilations. 'Student compilers' were
exceptions, the 'super grade' compilers definitely separately
compiled. Although I believe algol 60 did not provide for separate
compilations, most implementations provided for it.


Post a followup to this message

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