Re: CACM article (Feb 2009): "Compiler research: the next 50 years"

On Feb 11, 6:46 am, Max Hailperin <m...@gustavus.edu> wrote:
> > [For those of us whose ACM memberships expired a decade ago, what else
> > does it say? -John]
>
> For those of you, I would point out that you should really take a look
> at the revitalized CACM and decide whether it merits reactivating your
> membership. The CACM has not been so good since the 1970s, and
> depending on your perspective, perhaps not even then.


Indeed, there was recently a sudden major improvement in CACM. I've
been an ACM member off and on since the early 90s (more recently in
order to access the digital library), and this is the first period
during which CACM has ever been of real interest to me.


As far as the compiler research article is concerned, I have mixed
feelings about its message. The basic tenet is that we should be
working together on large systems, and stop wasting so much time
implementing the same infrastructure over and over. The problem with
that is similar to the problem with object-oriented programming and
class reuse: the existing components are rarely a perfect fit for the
project at hand. In each case, the cost/benefit of retrofitting has
to be weighed against the cost/benefit of reimplementation.


Jason Evans

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