From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,448990452c132610 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-03-01 16:51:21 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: "John H. Lindsay" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: The making of compilers Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 19:50:01 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: <3C8021B9.CEE87B84@kingston.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (OS/2; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <5ee5b646.0203011135.12a13558@posting.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20677 Date: 2002-03-01T19:50:01-05:00 List-Id: Hi folks: Robert Dewar wrote: > > Keith Thompson wrote in message news:... > > I would have thought that Cobol was a poor language for > > implementing a compiler, but Robert Dewar and others > > apparently did just that with Realia Cobol. > > My guess is that Keith is not a COBOL expert :-) Seriously > usually this kind of opinion comes from people who do not > know COBOL well. COBOL is a general purpose language with > many attractive features, and is perfectly suitable for > writing compilers. ..... I'll take Robert's word on this due to his direct experience with using COBOL for this and wide experience with compilers in general, but OTOH I have to say that it's possible to botch even the best choice-of-language situations with bad programming. My case in point is the Burroughs Large Systems GPSS compiler, coded in Burroughs COBOL, a most difficult choice due to the capabilities of the (B) COBOL and some other COBOLs at that time (1975..1980). (All the other (B) compilers, as far as I know, were written in (B) Algol 60 with its considerable extensions, a language that had a very strong relation to the (B) Large Systems hardware.) The COBOL language difficulties were subsequently fixed (STRING and UNSTRING, e.g. among other things) but the bad organization and bad coding made it terrible to use; it was as slow as maple syrup in Igloovik, produced inscrutable error messages and results that I couldn't account for. The print-out of the compiler was about 60% Data Division and about 8 or 9 cm thick, and I had great difficulty following any of it to fix bits. Other (B) compilers were pretty good and much much smaller on the whole. John. -- John H. Lindsay jlindsay@kingston.net