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

[invalid]

On 2018-08-02, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
> On 2018-08-01 20:10, 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.
>
> Others have already pointed out the error about Pascal being involved.

Yes, but they themselves were in error. The citation I posted stands.
Software Tools, by K&R. Preprocessor, written in PASCAL.

>
> Do you know what the difference between a preprocessor and a compiler 
> is? It's that we choose to call one a preprocessor because we can still 
> read and understand the output results from that one.

That is an unhelpful oversimplification. And, don't presume to lecture me.

It has nothing to do with readability. It has a lot to do with purpose and
implementation.