Re: Smallest Optimizer

Dave Lloyd <Dave@occl-cam.demon.co.uk>
Sat, 4 Mar 1995 15:36:35 GMT

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Smallest Optimizer SAND_DUANE@tandem.com (1995-02-18)
Re: Smallest Optimizer brandis@inf.ethz.ch (1995-02-21)
Re: Smallest Optimizer preston@tera.com (1995-02-24)
Re: Smallest Optimizer martens@cis.ohio-state.edu (1995-02-27)
Re: Smallest Optimizer geoffl@GS10.SP.cs.cmu.edu (Geoff Langdale) (1995-02-27)
Re: Smallest Optimizer Dave@occl-cam.demon.co.uk (Dave Lloyd) (1995-03-04)
Re: Smallest Optimizer Dave@occl-cam.demon.co.uk (Dave Lloyd) (1995-03-11)
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: Dave Lloyd <Dave@occl-cam.demon.co.uk>
Keywords: optimize, comment
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 95-03-007
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 1995 15:36:35 GMT

Geoff Langdale wrote:
> I'm not sure how long this constraint on C development
> lasted, but it certainly sounds like a good way to keep things lean.


But it didn't keep things CLEAN. Explains a lot about the mess that ended up
being called C. Compiler construction is about the worst way to drive the
definition of a language and many of the defects of languages like Fortran 90
are the result of such pressure.


Regards,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Lloyd Email: Dave@occl-cam.demon.co.uk
Oxford and Cambridge Compilers Ltd Phone: (44) 223 572074
55 Brampton Rd, Cambridge CB1 3HJ, UK
[I suppose, but in the absence of implementation pressure you end up with
Algol68. -John]
--

Post a followup to this message

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