Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text?

compilers@is-not-my.name
Fri, 20 Apr 2012 16:06:22 -0000

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[23 earlier articles]
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? arnold@skeeve.com (2012-04-20)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2012-04-20)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2012-04-20)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? bc@freeuk.com (BartC) (2012-04-20)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? compilers@is-not-my.name (2012-04-20)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? compilers@is-not-my.name (2012-04-20)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? compilers@is-not-my.name (2012-04-20)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? jthorn@astro.indiana.edu (Jonathan Thornburg) (2012-04-20)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? compilers@is-not-my.name (2012-04-21)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? askmeforit@myisp.com (Joe Schmo) (2012-04-21)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? norjaidi.tuah@ubd.edu.bn (Nor Jaidi Tuah) (2012-04-21)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? ulimakesacompiler@googlemail.com (Uli Kusterer) (2012-04-21)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? ulimakesacompiler@googlemail.com (Uli Kusterer) (2012-04-21)
[14 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: compilers@is-not-my.name
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 16:06:22 -0000
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 12-04-043
Keywords: books, courses
Posted-Date: 20 Apr 2012 23:22:29 EDT

compiler.ddj@nospam.h-rd.org wrote:


> Best read, easy to understand and follow:
> Compiler Construction - N. Wirth [PDF (597 KB)]
> http://www.ethoberon.ethz.ch/WirthPubl/CBEAll.pdf


You guys! Easy to understand and follow, and Wirth in the same sentence?! I
guess it's all relative. I find Wirth terse bordering on cryptic. I thought
it was part of his charm. Still I haven't look at anything he's written for
at least 20 years or so. I should go over it again.


> somwhat old, but good to read: Gries "Compiler Construction for
> digital computers"


That might be a good one especially if it's the same Gries who wrote
PL/C. I have the PL/I and PL/C book by him and Conway but I can't put
my hands on it right now. Thank you for mentioning it.


> And probably the most refreshing one: the Lisp 1.5 manual , it has is
> an interpreter and compiler in the appendix. (
> http://www.softwarepreservation.org/projects/LISP/book/LISP%201.5%20Programmers%20Manual.pdf/view
> ).
>
> [Appendix B of the Lisp 1.5 manual (which I happen to have in
> convenient 1969 paper form) does have a pseudocode interpreter, but
> Appendix D about the compiler just describes how to use it, no
> listings. And he wouldn't like the Lisp compiler anyway, since then
> he'd have to learn LAP. Gries is a good thought, quite concrete and the
> target machine is a thinly disguised S/360. -John]


Thanks John. It looks like that may indeed be a good choice.



Post a followup to this message

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