|Wrestling with phase 1 of a C compiler firstname.lastname@example.org (luser droog) (2022-09-07)|
|Wrestling with phase 1 of a C compiler email@example.com (Christopher F Clark) (2022-09-12)|
|Re: Wrestling with phase 1 of a C compiler firstname.lastname@example.org (gah4) (2022-09-12)|
|Re: source languages, was Wrestling with phase 1 of a C compiler email@example.com (George Neuner) (2022-09-14)|
|From:||George Neuner <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||Wed, 14 Sep 2022 16:03:22 -0400|
|Organization:||A noiseless patient Spider|
|References:||22-09-001 22-09-004 22-09-005|
|Injection-Info:||gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="32394"; mail-complaints-to="email@example.com"|
|Keywords:||PL/I, history, Lisp|
|Posted-Date:||14 Sep 2022 16:26:33 EDT|
On Mon, 12 Sep 2022 13:01:21 -0700 (PDT), gah4 <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>PL/I does have a powerful preprocessor, though I don't know so many
>actually using its power. It even has preprocessor procedures, if you
Back in the day I would have reached for Lisp ... certainly for rapid
prototyping and/or experimentation with new compilation techniques.
The trouble with Lisp in the (distant) past was the high cost of a
workstation capable of running it acceptably. That no longer is an
issue, so Lisp can be an excellent choice for compiler development.
For various reasons I prefer Scheme over Lisp, so for a modern
"batteries-included" Scheme environment I would reach for Racket.
Certainly mileage varies, but unless you are hell bent on maximum
performance [how many people *really* derive benefit from being able
to compile 10K lines/second/core?], in my opinion almost any modern
HLL would be a better choice than C for writing a compiler.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.