Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [hackers-il] [colloq@cs.Technion.AC.IL: Shimon Schocken on Tuesday 05/06/2001]

Expand Messages
  • Shlomi Fish
    ... I didn t forget, I just didn t knew a Chill front-end (or the Chill language for that matter) existed in the first place. But now we have 9 front-ends and
    Message 1 of 14 , Apr 10, 2001
      On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Moshe Zadka wrote:

      > On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
      >
      > > In any case, how many language front-ends there are to gcc anyways. Here
      > > are the ones I'm aware of:
      > >
      > > 1. ANSI C (gcc)
      > > 2. C++ (g++)
      > > 3. Objective C (comes with the gcc distribution)
      > > 4. Pascal (gpc and perhaps also Free Pascal)
      > > 5. Java and Java byte code (gcj)
      > > 6. Ada (GNATS - it's written in Ada, so you need to bootstrap it)
      > > 7. Fortran 77 (g77) - available on GNU sites.
      > > 8. Haskell - Glasgow Haskell Compiler or ghc. It is written in Haskell,
      > > and requires itself to be compiled.
      >
      > You forgot Chill
      >

      I didn't forget, I just didn't knew a Chill front-end (or the Chill
      language for that matter) existed in the first place. But now we have 9
      front-ends and going strong.

      Regards,

      Shlomi Fish

      ----------------------------------------------------------------------
      Shlomi Fish shlomif@...
      Home Page: http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/
      Home E-mail: shlomif@...

      A more experienced programmer does not make less bugs. He just realizes
      what went wrong more quickly.
    • Nadav Har'El
      ... But that was my original point, if you view C as a portable assembler . After all, C is very low level. Surely, if C has some constructs that cannot be
      Message 2 of 14 , Apr 10, 2001
        On Tue, Apr 10, 2001, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote about "Re: [hackers-il] [colloq@...: Shimon Schocken on Tuesday 05/06/2001]":
        > I forgot to mention that I do see advantages in translating everything
        > into a "portable assembler". Or into lisp (to have both a compiler
        > and an interpreter) -- as Chen was right to mention.

        But that was my original point, if you view C as a "portable assembler".
        After all, C is very low level. Surely, if C has some constructs that
        cannot be optimized without knowledge of the architecture of the specific
        machine, then you'll have the same problem with any portable assembler
        you devise. If you do a loop in assembly language, and can't assume that
        a called function (or another thread) doesn't change the loop pointer, then
        you face the same optimizing problem you have when compiling C...

        I'm sure that there is some optimization pentalty in compiling to C, but
        I would be suprised if that penalty is substantial when using a good C
        compiler. Of course, this wouldn't be true if another language was chosen
        instead of C - the assumption is that it is a very low-level language quite
        close to the machine language.


        --
        Nadav Har'El | Tuesday, Apr 10 2001, 17 Nisan 5761
        nyh@... |-----------------------------------------
        Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |Can Microsoft make a product that
        http://nadav.harel.org.il |doesn't suck? Yes, a vacuum cleaner!
      • Oleg Goldshmidt
        ... Precisely. I was concerned that my previous posting would be regarded as a disagreement, so I wrote the appendage. -- Oleg Goldshmidt |
        Message 3 of 14 , Apr 10, 2001
          "Nadav Har'El" <nyh@...> writes:

          > On Tue, Apr 10, 2001, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote about "Re: [hackers-il] [colloq@...: Shimon Schocken on Tuesday 05/06/2001]":

          > > I forgot to mention that I do see advantages in translating everything
          > > into a "portable assembler". Or into lisp (to have both a compiler
          > > and an interpreter) -- as Chen was right to mention.
          >
          > But that was my original point,

          Precisely. I was concerned that my previous posting would be regarded
          as a disagreement, so I wrote the appendage.

          --
          Oleg Goldshmidt | ogoldshmidt@...
          "I'd rather write programs to write programs than write programs."
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.