Re: The development tendency of compilation tech?

Tom Copeland <tom@infoether.com>
31 Jan 2007 12:53:53 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[4 earlier articles]
Re: The development tendency of compilation tech? roar.foshaug@systor.st (Roar) (2007-01-17)
Re: The development tendency of compilation tech? emailamit@gmail.com (Amit Gupta) (2007-01-20)
Re: The development tendency of compilation tech? Ibeam2000@gmail.com (Nick) (2007-01-28)
Re: The development tendency of compilation tech? Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com (Peter Flass) (2007-01-31)
Re: The development tendency of compilation tech? bvanevery@gmail.com (Brandon J. Van Every) (2007-01-31)
Re: The development tendency of compilation tech? stevem@ans.com.au (Steve Murray) (2007-01-31)
Re: The development tendency of compilation tech? tom@infoether.com (Tom Copeland) (2007-01-31)
Re: The development tendency of compilation tech? DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2007-01-31)
Re: The development tendency of compilation tech? bmoses-nospam@cits1.stanford.edu (Brooks Moses) (2007-02-16)
Re: The development tendency of compilation tech? codeplay@gmail.com (2007-02-25)
Re: The development tendency of compilation tech? idbaxter@semdesigns.com (Ira Baxter) (2007-03-01)
Re: The development tendency of compilation tech? mmoudgill@sandbridgetech.com (Mayan Moudgill) (2007-03-17)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Tom Copeland <tom@infoether.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 31 Jan 2007 12:53:53 -0500
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 07-01-04307-01-051 07-01-072
Keywords: interpreter, code
Posted-Date: 31 Jan 2007 12:53:53 EST

On Sun, 2007-01-28 at 01:41 -0500, Nick wrote:
> Except maybe where there is lots to be gained by more performant and
> non-conformant application software, there is reduced incentive to
> accept or develop anything like a new language,


Hm, from where I sit, the Ruby language is relatively new and is coming
on strong. Also, it's introducing lots of people to all sorts of nifty
things that have been around for a long time, e.g., closures.


> let alone compile it.


One of the more recent Ruby developments is YARV, which compiles Ruby to
a bytecode format. All the usual compiler theory things apply, even if
the target is a VM rather than a "real machine".


So perhaps all hope is not yet lost :-)


Yours,


Tom



Post a followup to this message

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