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

[invalid]

On 2018-08-02, Tim Sneddon <tsneddon at panix.com> wrote:
> 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.

I'm looking for the doc. You could have also since you expressed interest.

You don't have to be an asshole about it, even though you feel like you do.