Re: Programming language and IDE design

glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu>
Fri, 8 Nov 2013 05:21:24 +0000 (UTC)

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[6 earlier articles]
Re: Programming language and IDE design DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2013-10-23)
Re: Programming language and IDE design wclodius@earthlink.net (2013-10-22)
Re: Programming language and IDE design bc@freeuk.com (BartC) (2013-10-23)
Re: Programming language and IDE design monnier@iro.umontreal.ca (Stefan Monnier) (2013-10-24)
Re: Programming language and IDE design gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2013-10-24)
Re: Programming language and IDE design martin@gkc.org.uk (Martin Ward) (2013-11-07)
Re: Programming language and IDE design gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2013-11-08)
Re: Programming language and IDE design DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2013-11-08)
Re: Programming language and IDE design gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2013-11-08)
Re: Programming language and IDE design jthorn@astro.indiana.edu (Jonathan Thornburg) (2013-11-10)
Re: Programming language and IDE design martin@gkc.org.uk (Martin Ward) (2013-11-16)
Re: Programming language and IDE design DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2013-11-16)
Re: Programming language and IDE design gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2013-11-18)
[9 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 05:21:24 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
References: 13-10-016 13-10-017 13-11-003
Keywords: design, tools
Posted-Date: 08 Nov 2013 16:15:16 EST

Martin Ward <martin@gkc.org.uk> wrote:
> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> makes the point that the redundancy
> provided by enforced consistency between grouping and indentation
> will catch typos which would otherwise cause bugs in the code.


(big snip)
> This point raises some important issues about languages and compilers:


(snip)
> (2) Absolutely no behaviour should be "implementation dependent"
> or "undefined". Every syntactically valid program should have
> a single semantically valid meaning (even if that meaning
> is "halt with an error message").


Much "implementation dependence" comes from dependence on the host
processor. Maybe sometimes too much, but it is nice to be able to use
the new features of newer processors.


Many early machines were sign magnitude, but most now use twos
complement, which mostly is an advantage.


Different word sizes are also a common dependence, with 36 bit words
and 6-bit characters common on the early scientific machines.


-- glen


Post a followup to this message

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