|C++ as implementation language in compiler design crse firstname.lastname@example.org (1994-12-12)|
|C++ as implementation language in compiler design crse email@example.com (1994-12-14)|
|Re: C++ as implementation language in compiler design crse firstname.lastname@example.org (1994-12-15)|
|Re: C++ as implementation language in compiler design crse email@example.com (1994-12-17)|
|Re: C++ as implementation language in compiler design crse firstname.lastname@example.org (1994-12-17)|
|From:||email@example.com (Preston Briggs)|
|Keywords:||courses, OOP, C++|
|Date:||Thu, 15 Dec 1994 01:12:13 GMT|
>Do you anticipate that you will be using C++ as the implementation
>language of choice in your compiler design course, in the 1996-1997
>academic year? If not, why not?
>Our concern at this point is that we will have
>'missed the boat' if we keep C as the implementation language
I'd rather see "compiler-design books" that didn't have a particular
implementation language. I'd hope that people taking such a course
(along with most other courses) were beyond implementation concerns
and focussed more on design.
Similarly, I'd hope for compiler-design books that were fairly
universal with regard to source language. I.e., talk about parsing,
not about parsing C. Better yet, don't talk about parsing; plenty of
books talk about parsing.
However, I don't teach. At Rice, where my advisor teaches the
mainline compiler courses, students are free to implement in any
language. Typical choices are C, C++, and Scheme.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.