Re: Current work in compiler/language design.

preston@dawn.cs.rice.edu (Preston Briggs)
Tue, 26 Nov 1991 03:10:39 GMT

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[11 earlier articles]
Re: Current work in compiler/language design. objsys@netcom.com (1991-11-20)
Re: Current work in compiler/language design. nick@dcs.edinburgh.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell) (1991-11-21)
Re: Current work in compiler/language design. pardo@cs.washington.edu (1991-11-21)
Re: Current work in compiler/language design. hasan@emx.utexas.edu (1991-11-21)
Current work in compiler/language design. optima!cjeffery@cs.arizona.edu (1991-11-22)
Re: Current work in compiler/language design. objsys@netcom.com (1991-11-25)
Re: Current work in compiler/language design. preston@dawn.cs.rice.edu (1991-11-26)
Re: Current work in compiler/language design. David.Chase@Eng.Sun.COM (1991-11-26)
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: preston@dawn.cs.rice.edu (Preston Briggs)
Keywords: OOP, design
Organization: Rice University, Houston
References: 91-11-030 91-11-109
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1991 03:10:39 GMT

In article 91-11-109 objsys@netcom.com (Bob Hathaway) writes:
>So, why aren't more architectures being built to support OO better? ...
>Why aren't the compiler texts being updated to include the latest
>constructs? Why aren't the compiler writers always talking about new ways
>to compile the latest in OO???


Of course, people _are_ building machines and compilers and environments
for OO languages. Why not more? There's only so much support for that
work (or any other work, except perhaps MS-DOS applications).


Preston Briggs
--

Post a followup to this message

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