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

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 8/1/2018 2:10 PM, invalid wrote:
> 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.

Pascal????

Where did you get that idea from?

I looked it up.

https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1171&context=cstech

clearly states that RATFOR was written in RATFOR.

And they must have bootstrapped the first version with
plain FORTRAN.

Arne