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 13:15:57 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!newshub.sdsu.edu!newspeer.cts.com!galanthis.cts.com!127.0.0.1.MISMATCH!not-for-mail Sender: kst@king.cts.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: The making of compilers References: <5ee5b646.0203011135.12a13558@posting.google.com> From: Keith Thompson X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7 Date: 01 Mar 2002 13:15:52 -0800 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.68.192.180 X-Trace: 1015017352 nntp.cts.com 63541 209.68.192.180 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20672 Date: 2002-03-01T13:15:52-08:00 List-Id: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) writes: > 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 :-) You are quite correct. Most of my exposure to COBOL consists of a couple of hours of lecture in a comparative programming languages class. We spent a week on Fortran and COBOL; the instructor said it was for resume purposes. > 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. Insert old "ADD ONE TO COBOL" joke here. 8-)} Now, if you can write a self-hosting Intercal compiler, I'll be impressed. You can bootstrap it using Malbolge if you like. (Topic? What topic?) -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst@cts.com San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> Schroedinger does Shakespeare: "To be *and* not to be"