Re: Is There Still a Need for "Turbo" Compilers?

"preston.briggs@gmail.com" <preston.briggs@gmail.com>
Mon, 24 Mar 2008 14:40:17 -0700 (PDT)

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[3 earlier articles]
Re: Is There Still a Need for "Turbo" Compilers? marcov@stack.nl (Marco van de Voort) (2008-03-18)
Re: Is There Still a Need for "Turbo" Compilers? haberg_20080313@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) (2008-03-18)
Re: Is There Still a Need for "Turbo" Compilers? jacob@nospam.org (jacob navia) (2008-03-18)
Re: Is There Still a Need for "Turbo" Compilers? dot@dotat.at (Tony Finch) (2008-03-18)
Re: Is There Still a Need for "Turbo" Compilers? gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2008-03-18)
Re: Is There Still a Need for "Turbo" Compilers? gene.ressler@gmail.com (Gene) (2008-03-18)
Re: Is There Still a Need for "Turbo" Compilers? preston.briggs@gmail.com (preston.briggs@gmail.com) (2008-03-24)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: "preston.briggs@gmail.com" <preston.briggs@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 14:40:17 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 08-03-067 08-03-071 08-03-079
Keywords: practice, performance
Posted-Date: 26 Mar 2008 23:08:00 EDT

> It seems that compilers not requiring huge amounts of memory is also a
> lost art.


I'll disagree. It's a matter of goals, not forgetfulness. There's
lots of people who know how to write compilers that run quickly and
compilers that don't need much space and even compilers that produce
good code. I'll bet they'd be happy to do it too, if you paid them.


But all three? That's tough.


Preston


Post a followup to this message

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