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

[invalid]

On 2018-08-01, Arne Vajhøj <arne at vajhoej.dk> wrote:
> On 7/31/2018 4:47 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>> On 2018-07-31 01:44, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 7/30/2018 1:39 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>> Isn't RATFOR a kind of compiler that reads RAT and emits
>>>> an intermediate language resembling Fortran?  :-)
>>>
>>> I assume it is joke.
>>>
>>> RAT stands for RATional.
>>>
>>> And it outputs valid Fortran.
>> 
>> I don't see why you would think it's a joke.
>
> I assume it was a joke about "rat" also being a generaly
> despised animal.
>
>>                                            It's a very appropriate 
>> description of the RATFOR compiler. It takes a language as input, and 
>> outputs another as output, just like any compiler.
>
> Yes.
>
> But I don't think the input is RAT.
>
>>                                               And it's a compiler 
>> written in FORTRAN.

No, it is not. It's a preprocessor written in PASCAL to add what K&R wanted
to FORTRAN.

> Which was the point. You can write a compiler in 
>> FORTRAN, and RATFOR is an example of such a compiler.

Again, no. PL/M is an example of a compiler written in FORTRAN.

>> The fact that the intermediate language is FORTRAN is hardly making a 
>> difference.
>
> I think the fact that it is Fortran and not something resembling Fortran
> is sort of relevant.

I agree with this and anyway, Ratfor is not a compiler. It's just a
preprocessor written for FORTRAN in PASCAL and then I think it got ported to
C. I think it's in K&R's Software Tools book.