Re: Why do we still assemble?

"Josh N. Pritikin" <jpab+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Thu, 7 Apr 1994 12:58:16 GMT

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Why do we still assemble? jimcamel@rogers.com (Jim Camelford) (2006-10-20)
Re: Why do we still assemble? idknow@gmail.com (idknow@gmail.com) (2006-10-21)
Why do we still assemble? hbaker@netcom.com (1994-04-06)
Re: Why do we still assemble? djohnson@arnold.ucsd.edu (1994-04-07)
Re: Why do we still assemble? jpab+@andrew.cmu.edu (Josh N. Pritikin) (1994-04-07)
Re: Why do we still assemble? preston@noel.cs.rice.edu (1994-04-07)
Re: Why do we still assemble? Nand.Mulchandani@Eng.Sun.COM (1994-04-07)
Re: Why do we still assemble? pardo@cs.washington.edu (1994-04-08)
Re: Why do we still assemble? pardo@cs.washington.edu (1994-04-08)
Re: Why do we still assemble? law@snake.cs.utah.edu (1994-04-08)
Re: Why do we still assemble? steve@cegelecproj.co.uk (1994-04-08)
[30 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: "Josh N. Pritikin" <jpab+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Keywords: assembler, design
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 94-04-032
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 12:58:16 GMT

> The net result of all of this is the current C compilers, with the notable
> exceptions of the Think C compilers on the Mac (and others of similar ilk)
> are slower than the Algol compiler on the 7094 in the early 1960's.


Yah, why don't compiler writers worry about compile-time instead of
execute-time. 99% of the code written today don't need any optimization,
hell, people are using TCL, which is totally interpreted and only has a
string datatype. There is definitely a need for a C/C++ compiler
optimized for safety and compile-time. I would switch in a second.


joshp@cmu.edu
--

Post a followup to this message

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