Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text?

Uli Kusterer <ulimakesacompiler@googlemail.com>
Sat, 21 Apr 2012 11:30:35 +0200

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[29 earlier articles]
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)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? bc@freeuk.com (BartC) (2012-04-21)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? jthorn@astro.indiana.edu (Jonathan Thornburg) (2012-04-21)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? cr88192@hotmail.com (BGB) (2012-04-21)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? compilers@is-not-my.name (2012-04-22)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? compilers@is-not-my.name (2012-04-22)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? tk@ic.unicamp.br (Tomasz Kowaltowski) (2012-04-22)
[8 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Uli Kusterer <ulimakesacompiler@googlemail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 11:30:35 +0200
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 12-04-027 12-04-044
Keywords: books, design
Posted-Date: 21 Apr 2012 17:17:26 EDT

On 19.04.2012, at 21:05, compilers@is-not-my.name wrote:
>> You might be right that all books are one (or more) of those three,
>> but then you should choose from among those.
>
> If that would have been an option I would have done it by now.


  But it *is* an option. If a book is written in pseudocode (which you
requested) you would go and write your own program by translating that
pseudocode into whatever your implementation language eventually ends up
being. So if a book is written in C, just treat it like a pseudocode that is
assembler-like, with shorthand for function prologs and epilogs. C is a
"portable assembler". It's a fairly natural fit if you plan on using
assembler.


> C just doesn't have much value on z/OS. Java is too limiting in other ways.


  I'm a bit confused now. You said you didn't want to copy and paste. Why does
the code suddenly need to "have value"? Isn't it perfectly fine as an
illustration of the concepts discussed in the book? If you want to learn how
cooking works, why would you worry that the example of cooking soup uses Maggi
soups, while all you have is store brand?


Cheers,
-- Uli Kusterer
http://stacksmith.com



Post a followup to this message

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