Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| Wrestling with phase 1 of a C compiler luser.droog@gmail.com (luser droog) (2022-09-07) |
| Wrestling with phase 1 of a C compiler christopher.f.clark@compiler-resources.com (Christopher F Clark) (2022-09-12) |
| Re: Wrestling with phase 1 of a C compiler gah4@u.washington.edu (gah4) (2022-09-12) |
| Re: source languages, was Wrestling with phase 1 of a C compiler gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2022-09-14) |
| From: | George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| 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="abuse@iecc.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 <gah4@u.washington.edu>
wrote:
> :
>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
>need them.
> :
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.
George
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.