Re: why teach about compilers, was Java compiler courses

Steve Murray wrote:
{stuff deleted}
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I guess most engineering graduates
> working in this field would not in their day-to-day jobs be looking at
> forms of expression in terms of developing new languages, but instead
> being asked to concentrate their efforts on re-targetting (since new
> processors are being churned out like sausages) and optimisation.


I have my biases, but I suspect a Computer System Engineer is more
likely to have to invent or modify a new language than retarget a
compiler. It's quite amazing how many domain specific languages get
created. For example in the EDA space tools like VHDL, Matlab, and
TCL are all very important to the business of churning out silicon.
Multi-media devices like HD-DVD or BlueRay now ship with a sizable
amount of language technology in them. HD-DVD players ship with CSS
and Javascript, BlueRay with a JVM. Open Firmware is based on Forth.
ACPI of all things has a platform independent virtual machine and a
language that compiles to it. The there's also the font hinting VM
sitting in OpenType. Not to mention the various specialized shading
languages for graphics cards.


There really are only a handful of players and instruction sets left
in the world these days. The diversity of hardware architectures is
going to trend down as the cost of a fab and chip development trend
upward.


Language diversity is going to trend up with complexity and market
diversity. My long term outlook would make me focus more on the
frontend issues and let the few bearded backend gurus do their
thing. These days, I'd much rather hire someone who knows how to write
a concurrent GC than some who can write a compiler backend.
[I agree. CS grads are much more likely to implement small
domain specific languages than to retarget a C++ compiler. -John]

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