Related articles |
---|
silly question: prefix vs postfix ops rosing@peakfive.com (MattR) (2008-03-03) |
Re: silly question: prefix vs postfix ops csaavedra@alumnos.utalca.cl (Claudio Saavedra) (2008-03-03) |
Re: silly question: prefix vs postfix ops mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de (Dmitry A. Kazakov) (2008-03-03) |
Re: silly question: prefix vs postfix ops gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2008-03-03) |
Re: silly question: prefix vs postfix ops haberg_20080207@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) (2008-03-03) |
Re: silly question: prefix vs postfix ops marcov@stack.nl (Marco van de Voort) (2008-03-03) |
Re: silly question: prefix vs postfix ops gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2008-03-04) |
Re: silly question: prefix vs postfix ops dot@dotat.at (Tony Finch) (2008-03-04) |
Re: silly question: prefix vs postfix ops rpboland@gmail.com (Ralph Boland) (2008-03-04) |
Re: call by name, was silly question: prefix vs postfix ops wclodius@los-alamos.net (2008-03-04) |
Re: silly question: prefix vs postfix ops alexc@TheWorld.com (Alex Colvin) (2008-03-05) |
Re: call by name, was silly question: prefix vs postfix ops wclodius@los-alamos.net (2008-03-05) |
Re: silly question: prefix vs postfix ops DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2008-03-06) |
[14 later articles] |
From: | glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
Date: | Tue, 04 Mar 2008 03:06:11 -0800 |
Organization: | Compilers Central |
References: | 08-03-012 08-03-018 |
Keywords: | design, history, comment |
Posted-Date: | 04 Mar 2008 08:16:52 EST |
Marco van de Voort wrote:
(snip)
> [This is wandering away from compiler design. Personal syntax
> preferences are almost invariably off-topic. -John]
Well, that is the question:
How many features of modern programming languages are due to the way
things were done in the first Fortran compiler?
Which of those features were done that way because it made it easier
to write the compiler? Now it is back to compiler design.
-- glen
[Now, now, let's not be hasty. Plenty of features have nothing to do
with Fortran. They're due to the way COBOL worked. And a few are
even attributable to Algol60, which in retrospect was phenomenally
lucky that all but one of the things they invented turned out to be
possible to implement efficiently, and the one that wasn't was a
mistake. -John]
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.