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