Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ames.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!teddy!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!hao!ames!eugene
From: eugene@ames.UUCP (Eugene Miya)
Newsgroups: net.lang
Subject: Portability of languages
Message-ID: <756@ames.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 10-Jan-85 12:53:27 EST
Article-I.D.: ames.756
Posted: Thu Jan 10 12:53:27 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 12-Jan-85 07:37:17 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA
Lines: 19

With all this talk about levels and portability, I was really wondering
how much of this portability was really due to the way most compilers
for these languages got started.

Pascal really only took off [as a popular language] after the P4 compiler
got to the US. [I use to sit on the Pascal Committee along with others
reading this news group.]  Similarly, the pcc really makes ports of C
relatively easy.  Consider that your typical FORTRAN compiler of the past
always had to start from "scratch." [ This latter is certainly good for
extensions, "bells and whistles," white walls extra.]  Certainly more
and more Pascal and C compilers are not using P4 or pcc, but I was
wondering what people thought about what was really being ported:
the "language" or was it really the "compiler."


--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,vortex}!ames!aurora!eugene
  emiya@ames-vmsb.ARPA