simple compiled languages?

Cy Edmunds 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.
>
> Qualifications:
>
>   - 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.
>
> Ideas?

Turbo Pascal. I used to think it was great in 1983. :)

-- 
Cy
http://home.rochester.rr.com/cyhome/





More information about the Python-list mailing list