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

[Dave Froble]

On 8/1/2018 2:03 PM, invalid wrote:
> On 2018-08-01, 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:
>>>> On 2018-07-29, Simon Clubley <clubley at remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It may just be me, but I don't fancy the idea of writing a LL(1) parser
>>>>> (assuming the language is suitable for LL(1) parsing), an optimiser or
>>>>> a code generator in assembly language. :-)
>>>>
>>>> Once you've done it, you mostly don't have to do it again.
>>>>
>>>> The PL/I compiler had over 200 passes at one time. That's a lot scarier than
>>>> writing any parser in any language ;)
>>>
>>> What? 200 passes? As someone who is likely more knowledgable than most in
>>> this particular arena, just what are you talking about?  Please, site
>>> examples and references, I'm very interested.
>>>
>>
>> I would be interested in an answer to this question as well.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> High level languages were a _lot_ simpler back in those days. :-)
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>
> This is what I said. Evolution, not revolution... since 1964.
>
>>
>> However, I find it hard to believe for any newly created compilers.
>
> There aren't any. It does not make any sense to throw away 50 years of
> development to rewrite something in an inferior language with no OS
> interface just to say you did so.
>

And here I thought that was what a bunch of people were doing?  How else 
did we come up with the many new languages?  Re-inventing the wheel 
makes no sense.