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: 107f24,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid107f24,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-01 22:57:07 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news1.optus.net.au!optus!news.mel.connect.com.au!news.unimelb.edu.au!mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU!fjh From: fjh@cs.mu.oz.au (Fergus Henderson) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.functional Subject: Re: How Ada could have prevented the Red Code distributed denial of service attack. Date: 2 Aug 2001 05:49:49 GMT Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne Message-ID: <9kaplt$akc$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> References: <3B672322.B5EA1B66@home.com> <9ka1e1$b5h$2@bird.wu-wien.ac.at> <3B688D21.810C5706@eton.powernet.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: murlibobo.cs.mu.oz.au X-Trace: mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU 996731389 10892 128.250.37.153 (2 Aug 2001 05:49:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@cs.mu.OZ.AU NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 Aug 2001 05:49:49 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11036 comp.lang.c:71528 comp.lang.c++:79254 comp.lang.functional:7151 Date: 2001-08-02T05:49:49+00:00 List-Id: Richard Heathfield writes: >Markus Mottl wrote: >> >> Any language that attempts to be called serious bootstraps >> itself. Needless to say that the first compiler of a new language wasn't >> written in the language itself, > >Just a small nit - there's nothing to stop you writing the first >compiler of a new language using an interpreter for that language. I >agree that you can't write the first *implementation* of a language in >itself, though. Sure you can, you just need to write in a subset of the language that happens to *also* be valid in some other language. For example, for the first implementation of the Mercury compiler, we wrote it in the intersection of Mercury and Prolog; we used a Prolog compiler to compile the first version, but the source was also valid Mercury code, so we were then able to bootstrap using the same sources. I wouldn't be surprised if Bjarne Stroustrup did a similar thing with Cfront, writing it in the intersection of C and "C with classes". -- Fergus Henderson | "I have always known that the pursuit The University of Melbourne | of excellence is a lethal habit" WWW: | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.