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

[Tim Sneddon]

invalid <address at is.invalid> wrote:
> On 2018-08-01, 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:
>>>> On 2018-07-29, invalid <address at is.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 2018-07-24, Arne Vajh??j <arne at vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given that a compiler basically reads a text file and writes a file
>>>>>> (text if it outputs assembler and binary if it outputs object code),
>>>>>> then I find it very difficult to see why a compiler would have to be
>>>>>> written in assembler.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was the best language for the job and in a lot of ways still is.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
> 
> Look on bitsavers for the MVS manuals, then PLM (Program Logic Manuals) then
> find PL/I
> 

Classic!  The anti-vaxxer of the compiler world!

You: Here, I'm making some wild claim!
Me: Prove it! 
You: Nah! You do it. 

200 passes?  This is ridiculous stuff.  Compilers still written in assembler
50 years later?  Wow!  I think I'll let you have a great time winding
everyone else up, I've got real work to do.  Funnily enough, on compilers.
The oldest probably being around 40-45 years old.  Crazy thing though, not 
written in assembler...anywhere...

Regards, Tim.