Re: UNCOL

pardo@cs.washington.edu wrote:
>>[UNCOL says you *can* use a common virtual machine language, but it
>> also says there will be a performance penalty.]


John Levine (the moderator) wrote:
>[UNCOL-ish systems seem to work OK if you have a single source
> language, e.g. Smalltalk, or a single target, e.g. multiple compilers
> sharing a back end. It's when you try NxM that you get heat death.]


>> To summarize, UNCOL is a hard problem; subsets are easier to solve; and
>> it is hard to provide both high efficiency and, at the same time, a
>> convincing argument that successful translation on one platform will
>> imply successful translation on other platforms.


Didn't Guy Steele suggest Scheme as a suitable UNCOL-substitute
almost twenty years ago?


And who was it at Yale almost ten years ago who developed a decent
UNCOL-substitute for a PhD? (It was a student of Paul Hudak I think.)


Could it be that MxN UNCOLs/IRs are difficult because of the level
of abstraction?


--
mailto:Patrick_D_Logan@ccm.hf.intel.com
[Partly, but from what I've seen it's the details that kill you. -John]
--

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