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