simple compiled languages?
cedmunds at spamless.rochester.rr.com
Sun Aug 29 04:18:34 CEST 2004
"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7xzn4fu188.fsf_-_ at ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> I'm wondering what other languages clpy'ers are familiar with, that
> have simple implmentations with compilers. I'm asking out of general
> interest, not for a specific application. Usually, discussions of
> small languages revolve around interpreters so I'm asking specifically
> about languages with compilers.
> - Simple compact implementation, not too many LOC and not too many
> machine resources needed. Example: Ron Cain's Small-C and its
> descendants. Tiny CC (www.tinycc.org) is pushing the complexity
> limits for what I have in mind.
> - Real compiler, must generate real machine code (not threaded code or
> byte code or asm macros) that's not too horrible, but needn't make
> serious optimizing attempts. Compiler should at least in principle
> be retargetable to multiple cpu's. Load-and-go operation (i.e. no
> external assembler needed) is highly desirable.
> - Real language with datatypes and semantics, not a fancy assembler or
> FORTH. Static or dynamic typing are both fine. Fancy parsing is
> not required, e.g. Lisp-like syntax is fine.
> - Preferably self hosting, i.e. the compiler should be able to compile
> itself, once you've gotten a running instance of the compiler
> somehow. Among other things, this helps establish that the language
> is actually useable.
Turbo Pascal. I used to think it was great in 1983. :)
More information about the Python-list