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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 5b1e799cdb,3ef3e78eacf6f938
X-Google-Attributes: gid5b1e799cdb,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,CP1252
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "robertwessel2@yahoo.com" <robertwessel2@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.modula3,comp.programming
Subject: Re: Alternatives to C: ObjectPascal, Eiffel, Ada or Modula-3?
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 23:05:03 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <c92bbcc3-6723-41ba-9f25-0090be852c0a@24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
References: <h3sln0$rhm$2@news.eternal-september.org>
 <Y_2dnY2f7NnpPvjXnZ2dnUVZ8qOdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
	<4fc0934e-197b-4a02-a006-4b64072897b2@h18g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
	<7020ad82-ed09-4c87-8f46-db23bf2fa866@32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
	<q6WdndCZP_u38vTXnZ2dnUVZ8sNi4p2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <op.uxlm3dkrtnumn1@home-2l5xxxt7p3>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.3.227.82
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1248501903 31021 127.0.0.1 (25 Jul 2009 06:05:03
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 06:05:03 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: 24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com; posting-host=69.3.227.82;
	posting-account=9mZMfgkAAACadFGV9mKTCkpAD1jSUiTo
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1;
	Trident/4.0; GTB6; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR
	3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR
	3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.eiffel:421 comp.lang.ada:7337
 comp.lang.modula3:105 comp.programming:12031
Date: 2009-07-24T23:05:03-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Jul 24, 8:15=A0pm, wwilson <leon.wins...@notes.udayton.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 05:31:45 -0400, Jon Harrop <j...@ffconsultancy.com> =
=A0
> wrote:
>
> > tm wrote:
> >> Simplicity of languages and their implementation got lost somehow...
>
> > The F# team at Microsoft used to advertise that their compiler was unde=
r
> > 10kLOC.
>
> Am I the only one that remembers when computers came with a maximum of a =
=A0
> few kbytes. =A0I personally know of one full FORTRAN IV compiler for the =
IBM =A0
> 1130 that fit into 8 K bytes. =A0My favorite programming feat was the way=
 =A0
> that IBM squeezed a whole COBOL compiler into 1400 bytes on the IBM 1401.


While it=92s true that compilers of that era ran in very small amounts
of memory, they often ran very many passes, the code for each of which
was loaded sequentially, and much use was made of temporary files to
hold intermediate transformations of the program being compiled.  Some
compilers used upwards of 20 passes (which wasn't great for
compilation speeds either).  The compilers were in fact much larger
than could fit in memory (at least on the smaller machines), they just
arranged things so that it didn't all need to be loaded at once.