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

[already5chosen at yahoo.com]

On Friday, August 3, 2018 at 6:12:54 PM UTC+3, already... at yahoo.com wrote:
> On Friday, August 3, 2018 at 12:24:56 PM UTC+3, invalid wrote:
> > On 2018-08-03, invalid <address at is.invalid> wrote:
> > > On 2018-08-02, Arne Vajhøj <arne at vajhoej.dk> wrote:
> > >> 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 thought it was in K&R's Software Tools. I don't have the book accessible
> > > now so I can't verify.
> > >
> > >>
> > >> I looked it up.
> > >>
> > >> https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1171&context=cstech
> > >>
> > >> clearly states that RATFOR was written in RATFOR.
> > >
> > > Thanks I will check it. Sorry if what I wrote was incorrect.
> > >
> > > "Memory is the first thing to go, can't remember what the 2nd is..."
> > 
> > My memory was fine and you guys didn't look far enough.
> > 
> > "History
> > Ratfor was designed and implemented by Brian Kernighan at Bell Telephone Laboratories in 1974, and described in Software—Practice & Experience in 1975. It was used in the book "Software Tools" (Kernighan and Plauger, 1976).
> > 
> > In 1977, at Purdue University, an improved version of the ratfor
> > preprocessor was written. It was called Mouse4, as it was smaller and faster
> > than ratfor. A published document by Dr. Douglas Comer, professor at Purdue,
> > concluded "contrary to the evidence exhibited by the designer of Ratfor,
> > sequential search is often inadequate for production software. Furthermore,
> > in the case of lexical analysis, well-known techniques do seem to offer
> > efficiency while retaining the simplicity, ease of coding and modularity of
> > ad hoc methods." (CSD-TR236)."
> > 
> > See wikipedia for Ratfor
> > 
> > And just like I remembered that correctly, I'll find the doc about the early
> > PL/I compiler having over 200 passes to get the sonofabitch Sneddon back on
> > an even keel ;)
> 
> I looked for the word "Pascal" in the article and didn't found it.
> 
> I also remember reading Kernighan's article (I read it 30 years ago, but article was already old by that time) where he explains how writing examples for the book lead him to conclusion that Pascal is a bad languages for implementing compilers not only relatively to C, which he expected, but even relatively to Ratfor, which was a surprise for him.

Actually, Kernighan's article was written not as followup to "Software tools" (published in 1976), but as a followup to "Software tools in Pascal" (published in 1981).
Here is an article:
https://www.lysator.liu.se/c/bwk-on-pascal.html