[Info-vax] The (now lost) future of Alpha.

[Tim Sneddon]

Simon Clubley <clubley at remove_me.eisner.decus.org-earth.ufp> wrote:
> On 2018-07-31, Tim Sneddon <tsneddon at panix.com> wrote:
>> invalid <address at is.invalid> wrote:
>>> Maybe, but the point was there was no other choice of implementation
>>> language in those days. And 50+ years later  we're still using those
>>> languages (except for IBM FORTRAN, which is sadly lost in time at F77+)
>>> now. Which is why the compilers are still mostly assembler. Except maybe for
>>> C/C++ which may be heading towards self-hosting.
>>
>> Okay, I haven't paid a lot of attention to this thread, but what you seem
>> to be asserting here is that compilers are still (as now, 2018) written in
>> assembler.  If that is the case, I think you really need to reconsider
>> your statement.
>>
> 
> I can believe it for a compiler written decades ago that is still in
> active use - look at the amount of Macro-32 code in VMS for example.
> 
> However, I find it hard to believe for any newly created compilers.

I would say that is the case for compilers written after the early 70's.
There are some exceptions...VCG, the backend for PL/I, C, Pearl and
SCAN (possibly others, but I don't recall).  However, I think that is
more an exception than the rule. Even in that instance the front ends
for PL/I and C were implemented in themselves and SCAN was written in
BLISS.

There's another one...BLISS (with the exception of the first compiler)
has been written in itself since the beginning.

PL/I on Multics...

Comparing compilers and operating systems is like apples and oranges,
so I personally don't think that is a valid comparison.  However, it
is worth noting that VMS (in its earliest days) and VCG were both
lead by Cutler, a noted "assembler-ist" (at least in his earlier days).

Regards, Tim.